60784 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) March 2008 Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) March 2008 (The main findings and recommendations of this evaluation were presented to the GEF Council in June 2007.) Evaluation Report No. 36 © 2008 Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Internet: www.gefeo.org Email: gefevaluation@thegef.org All rights reserved. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF Council or the governments they represent. The GEF Evaluation Office does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denomi- nations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the GEF concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The GEF encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. ISBN 10: 1-933992-08-5 ISBN-13: 978-1-933992-08-2 Credits Director of the GEF Evaluation Office: Robert D. van den Berg Task Manager: Claudio R. Volonté, Chief Evaluation Officer, GEF Evaluation Office Evaluation Team: Arne Jensen and Aage Jorgensen, NORDECO Editing and design: Nita Congress Printing: Graphic Communications Cover photo: Sunrise in Bohol, by Anna Viggh, GEF Evaluation Office Evaluation Report No. 36 A FREE PUBLICATION Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... vi Foreword ...................................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... viii 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Observations .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Notes .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2. Description of the Evaluation ............................................................................................... 10 2.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Key Questions ............................................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Focus and Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 12 2.5 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................. 13 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14 3. Context of the Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 15 3.1 General Description..................................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Environmental Resources in Key GEF Support Areas......................................................................... 16 3.3 The Environmental Legal and Policy Framework ................................................................................ 20 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 25 4. Activities Funded by the GEF in the Philippines ................................................................. 26 4.1 Activities Considered in the Evaluation .................................................................................................. 27 4.2 Evolution of GEF Funding to the Philippines ........................................................................................ 33 Note .......................................................................................................................................................................... 34 5. Results of GEF Support to the Philippines .......................................................................... 35 5.1 Global Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................. 35 iii 5.2 Catalytic and Replication Effects .............................................................................................................. 44 5.3 Capacity Building and Institutional Sustainability ............................................................................... 45 Notes ....................................................................................................................................................................... 46 6. Relevance of GEF Support to the Philippines ..................................................................... 47 6.1 Relevance to Country's Sustainable Development Agenda and Environmental Priorities......... 47 6.2 Relevance to Country's Development Needs and Challenges ........................................................... 49 6.3 Relevance to National Action Plans within GEF Focal Areas ............................................................ 50 6.4 Relevance to Global Environmental Indicators ..................................................................................... 51 6.5 Relevance of the GEF Portfolio to Other Global and National Organizations .............................. 52 Note .......................................................................................................................................................................... 52 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in the Philippines ................................................. 54 7.1 Time and Effort in Project Development and Implementation ........................................................ 54 7.2 Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities in Project Implementation ................................................. 56 7.3 The GEF Focal Point Mechanism in the Philippines ........................................................................... 58 7.4 Lessons Learned across GEF Projects ..................................................................................................... 60 7.5 Synergies among GEF Stakeholders and Projects................................................................................. 61 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 61 Annexes A. Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................................................... 63 B. Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................................................................................ 70 C. GEF-Funded Activities in the Philippines................................................................................................. 72 D. GEF-Funded Activities Not Included in Evaluation ............................................................................... 74 E. People Interviewed and Workshop Participants .................................................................................... 75 F. Literature Reviewed......................................................................................................................................... 79 G. Global and Local Benefits: Achievements at the Project Level ........................................................... 87 H. ODA to the Philippines, 1991­2005 ......................................................................................................... 96 I. Description and Results of Completed Projects Included in Evaluation ............................................ 98 J. Relevance of GEF Support to National Development Plans ................................................................106 K. Relevance of GEF Support to National Environmental Framework ................................................108 L. Management Response ................................................................................................................................110 M. Country Response .......................................................................................................................................112 References ..................................................................................................................................114 Figures 1.1 GEF Funding for All GEF Activities in the Philippines by Focal Area, Agency, and SGP............. 2 1.2 GEF Funding for All GEF Activities in the Philippines by Modality and Agency........................... 2 3.1 Philippine Legal Framework ...................................................................................................................... 21 4.1 GEF Funding in the Philippines by GEF Agency and Focal Area ..................................................... 29 4.2 Distribution of GEF Funding in the Philippines by GEF Agency...................................................... 29 iv GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) 4.3 GEF Funding in the Philippines by National Executing Agency ....................................................... 30 4.4 GEF Support by National Executing Agency......................................................................................... 30 4.5 GEF Support to the Philippines by Focal Area ...................................................................................... 30 4.6 Status of SGP Projects as of December 2006 ......................................................................................... 33 4.7 Distribution of GEF Funding across GEF Phases ................................................................................. 33 4.8 International Bilateral Aid Commitments to the Philippines, 1991­2005 ..................................... 34 5.1 Percentage Change in Forest Area by Type, 1990­2000 ..................................................................... 39 7.1 GEF Activity Cycle ....................................................................................................................................... 54 7.2 Current Coordination Mechanism for the GEF OFP (2007) ............................................................. 59 Tables 2.1 Focus of Evaluation by Project Status ...................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Socioeconomic Data for the Philippines ................................................................................................. 15 3.2 Diversity, Endemism, and Threatened Species in the Philippines .................................................... 16 3.3 Projected Changes in CO2 Emissions, 1990­2020 ............................................................................... 17 3.4 Number of Marine Protected Areas by Size Distribution .................................................................. 19 3.5 Legal Framework for the Philippines Environment Sector ................................................................ 22 3.6 Major International Conventions and Treaties Ratified by the Philippines ................................... 24 4.1 GEF-Supported Activities in the Philippines Included in the Evaluation ....................................... 27 4.2 Main Objectives of GEF-Supported Activities Included in the Evaluation .................................... 31 4.3 Number of Projects by Focal Area and SGP Phase .............................................................................. 32 4.4 SGP Funding for Full Projects and Planning Grants, by Focal Area ................................................ 32 4.5 Cofinancing Total and Ratio by GEF Replenishment Period ............................................................. 34 5.1 Biogeographic Distribution of GEF Funding to Biodiversity-Specific Projects in the Philippines, 1992­2006 ............................................................................................................................... 37 6.1 Selected GEF-Supported Projects Relative to Other National and International Support ........ 53 7.1 Duration in Days of the Activity Cycle in GEF-Supported FSPs in the Philippines ..................... 55 7.2 Planned and Actual Duration of FSPs and MSPs in the Philippines ................................................ 56 7.3 GEF-Supported Activities in the Philippines Executed by NGOs and the Private Sector.......... 57 Contents v Abbreviations ADB Asian Development Bank NGO nongovernmental organization ALGAS Asia Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas Abatement Strategy System CEO Chief Executive Officer NPC National Power Company CO2 carbon dioxide ODA official development assistance CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund OFP operational focal point DENR Department of Environment and Natural PBB polybrominated biphenyl Resources PCB polychlorinated biphenyl DOE Department of Energy PDF project development facility EDC Energy Development Corporation PEMSEA Partnership in Environmental ExA Executing Agency Management for the Seas of East Asia FSP full-size project PNOC Philippine National Oil Company GEF Global Environment Facility POP persistent organic pollutant GHG greenhouse gas RAF Resource Allocation Framework IA Implementing Agency SGP Small Grants Programme IFC International Finance Corporation UNCED United Nations Conference on IUCN International Union for the Conservation Environment and Development of Nature and Natural Resources UNDP United Nations Development Programme M&E monitoring and evaluation UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention MSP medium-size project on Climate Change MTDP medium-term development plan UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development NEDA National Economic and Development Organization Authority WWF World Wildlife Fund vi Foreword This report is the second in a series of country port- seven completed projects with important results. folio evaluations produced by the Evaluation Office Furthermore, the country will receive allocations of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Using in both climate change and biodiversity in GEF-4 the country as the unit of analysis, these evalua- (2006­10), and is one of the longest running par- tions examine the totality of GEF support across ticipants in the GEF Small Grants Programme. All all GEF Agencies and programs. The GEF Council relevant GEF Agencies have been engaged in GEF- had two objectives in undertaking such studies: (1) supported activity in the Philippines, and the envi- to gain knowledge on the results of GEF-supported ronmental sector is an essential part of the coun- activities and how they are implemented and (2) try's national sustainable development agenda. to evaluate how GEF-supported activities fit into The Philippine country portfolio evaluation shows national strategies and priorities as well as within how the Philippines and the GEF have worked GEF-mandated global environmental objectives. successfully as partners in seeking to reverse the The approach was piloted in a 2005­06 evaluation decline in global environmental conditions. The of GEF support in Costa Rica during 1992­2005. Philippines has received GEF financial support Based on this experience, in October 2006, the since 1992 for a variety of activities conducted in Evaluation Office prepared standard terms of ref- collaboration with GEF Agencies. These activities erence for country portfolio evaluations, delin- have enabled the Philippines to produce a number eating objectives, main questions, scope, and of global environmental benefits, particularly in methodology. Country portfolio evaluations are offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, slowing the conducted fully and independently by the Evalua- depletion of several threatened species, increas- tion Office and, when possible, in partnership with ing local incomes, encouraging sustainable use of other evaluation offices of GEF Agencies, govern- natural resources, and developing best practices in ments, and nongovernmental organizations. both renewable energy and biodiversity conserva- tion. However, declining environmental trends and The Philippines was selected for evaluation on lack of compliance endanger these achievements. the basis of several strategic criteria and to maxi- mize opportunities for synergy with other ongo- ing evaluations. Review of these criteria indicated that the Philippines is very relevant to the GEF because of its historically large and diverse portfo- Rob van den Berg lio, including projects in all focal areas with at least Director, Evaluation Office vii Acknowledgments This report was prepared by a team led by Clau- Nations Development Programme, the World dio Volonté, Chief Evaluation Officer of the GEF Bank, and the Small Grants Programme. Evaluation Office, and consisting of two consul- A draft document was presented in a workshop tants from NORDECO, Arne Jensen and Aage on April 10, 2007, in Manila to national stakehold- Jorgensen. ers, including representatives of the national gov- Representatives of the Philippine Department of ernment, GEF Agencies, nongovernental organi- Environment and Natural Resources--Analiza zations, and other civil society partners. Feedback Teh and her team, including Cristina Regunay, was very constructive, and the comments received Liezell Bobadilla, and their colleagues--provided have been incorporated in this evaluation report. full cooperation and participated actively in this The Evaluation Team would like to thank the evaluation. The Evaluation Office is particularly workshop attendees for their participation and thankful to them for facilitating access to GEF feedback, which helped improve the quality of the stakeholders. The team is also grateful for the field final document. The Evaluation Office remains mission support provided by staff from the United fully responsible for the contents of the report. viii 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 1.1 Background evaluations by the Evaluation Office played a role. The Philippines has been a long-standing partner Factors in its selection include the following: of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), having z The Philippines has been one of the largest received GEF financial support since 1992 through country recipients of GEF support. a variety of projects and activities in collaboration z It will receive country Resource Allocation with the GEF Agencies, government agencies, and Framework (RAF) allocations in both climate civil society. change and biodiversity. The evaluation of GEF support to the Philippines z The GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) has took place from December 2006 to April 2007 in been established in the country for many years, accordance with the standard terms of reference making it one of the longest running SGP coun- for GEF country portfolio evaluations developed try programs. by the GEF Evaluation Office in October 2006 (see annex A). The evaluation was conducted by staff of z All relevant GEF Agencies have been engaged the GEF Evaluation Office and a team of interna- in the country. tional and local consultants. The objectives of the z The environment sector is an essential part of evaluation were to provide the GEF Council with the national sustainable development agenda. an assessment of how the GEF is implemented in The evaluation methodology included a combina- the Philippines. The evaluation examined results tion of qualitative and quantitative methods and from projects and assessed how these projects tools; these included a review of existing infor- are linked to national environmental and sustain- mation, extensive interviews with key GEF stake- able development strategies as well as to the GEF holders, a major consultation workshop, and visits mandate of generating global environmental ben- to sites of selected GEF-supported projects. The efits within its focal areas. It did not address the evaluation explored three key questions: question of how well the country's GEF portfolio matches the guidance of the conventions to which z Is GEF support relevant to the Philippine the Philippines is a party.1 national development agenda and environmen- The Philippines was selected for evaluation tal priorities and to the GEF mandate? through, first, a stratified randomized selection z Is GEF support efficient as indicated by the process and then by a set of strategic criteria in time, effort, and money needed to develop and which opportunities for synergies with ongoing implement GEF projects, and to develop syner- 1 gies and partnerships among GEF projects and Figure 1.2 between GEF and government agencies as well GEF Funding for All GEF Activities in the as other GEF stakeholders? Philippines by Modality and Agency z What are the results of the GEF support? Million $ 120 The evaluation focused on 30 national projects, the 100 World Bank UNDP ADB SGP, and a few selected regional projects in which 80 the Philippines participates, for a total estimated 60 40 GEF investment of $145 million.2 These activi- 20 ties were approved by the GEF Council or GEF 0 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) between 1992 and Enabling FSP MSP SGP activity December 2006 (that is, from the GEF pilot phase to the end of GEF-3); projects in the pipeline for GEF-4 (2006­10) were not included. These activi- ties have been implemented primarily by two GEF Agencies, the World Bank and the United Nations 1.2 Conclusions Development Programme (UNDP). Recently, the United Nations Industrial Development Orga- Portfolio Relevance nization (UNIDO) and the Asian Development The evaluation reviewed the relevance of GEF Bank (ADB) have begun implementation of GEF support to the country's sustainable development projects.3 Figures 1.1 and 1.2 show the distribu- agenda and its environmental priorities as well as tion of GEF projects in the Philippines by Agency to the GEF mandate and focal area programs and and, respectively, focal area and modality. strategies. Major conclusions follow. Figure 1.1 GEF Funding for All GEF Activities in the Philippines by Focal Area, Agency, and SGP Million $ 70 60 World Bank UNDP ADB SGP 50 40 30 20 10 0 Biodiversity Climate change Multifocal POPs 2 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Conclusion 1: GEF support has been relevant environmental services. Both of these areas have to Philippine national development plans and been supported by the GEF: notably in the Mount environmental priorities. Kitanglad Range Natural Park through the Con- GEF support is in line with the development servation of Priority Protected Areas project and and national priorities established in the Philip- through the Tubbataha and Bohol Marine Trian- pine medium-term development plan (MTDP). gle projects. Many other GEF-supported projects In the energy sector, GEF support has focused on have combined elements of conservation, sustain- energy efficiency and renewable energy, both of able use, and local livelihoods, all of which are in which are considered high priorities in the current line with the country's MTDPs. MTDP covering 2004­10. Two ongoing projects The relevance of GEF support to national action address removal of barriers to energy efficiency plans developed within GEF focal areas is very and seek to increase investments in energy-effi- high. GEF support was found relevant to the ciency activities. Since the Philippines is an island state (with more than 7,000 islands), renewable development and implementation of the National energy sources such as solar and wind power are Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, the National considered the most cost-effective means of mak- Action Plan on Climate Change, the National ing power available in remote areas. Several GEF Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Conven- activities are promoting this goal, including the tion on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), and Leyte-Luzon Geothermal project, Palawan New the National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global and Renewable Energy and Livelihood Support Environmental Management, among others. Project (solar), Capacity Building to Remove Barri- There is a high level of country ownership and ers to Renewable Energy Development, and Rural commitment to GEF support. The evaluation Power (solar) projects and projects within the found national ownership behind the majority of climate change area of the GEF SGP. The MTDP GEF support. Projects originate within national documents the Philippine intent to become a agencies, such as the Department of Environment world leader in geothermal energy and wind and and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Depart- solar power in Southeast Asia. GEF support has ment of Energy (DOE); local authorities, such as contributed to this ambitious goal. the Metro Manila Development Authority and the In biodiversity, GEF support was found to be highly Local Government of Marikina; nongovernmen- relevant to the national agenda and instrumental tal organizations (NGOs), such as the Foundation in the establishment, development, and consoli- for the Philippine Environment, Haribon Founda- dation of the National Integrated Protected Areas tion for the Conservation of Nature, CARE, Con- System (NIPAS). Furthermore, through support servation International, and the World Wildlife to NIPAS implementation and to the Critical Fund (WWF); or local stakeholders (for exam- Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) initiative, ple, stakeholders to the Tubbataha Reefs Marine the GEF has contributed to substantial expansion National Park and World Heritage Site). Many of the protected areas system. The GEF also has GEF projects are based on existing initiatives and contributed in slowing the continued degradation have been demand driven with good commitment of forest ecosystems and the loss of natural for- from both government and civil society. However, est. Another priority on the national agenda has those surveyed or interviewed during the evalua- been development of ecotourism and payment for tion also noted that GEF funds are often seen as 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 3 donor or aid funding, particularly by GEF Agen- carbon emissions (through renewable energy and cies and the national executing agencies, and that zero-emission transport) and increased energy donor requirements and needs are to be followed. efficiency. GEF support to renewable energy (geo- This perception sometimes overshadows GEF thermal, wind, and solar power) has helped the guidelines and policies. country implement its energy strategy, and to reduce and avoid emissions. Although the GEF GEF project documents do not reflect their successfully supported the development of alter- relevance to the Philippine MTDP. Although native transport such as bicycles, this may not be GEF support is highly relevant to the Philippine replicable in a hot and humid country on a large national agenda, it was found that some project scale. documentation fails to establish specific links to the current MTDP and how the activity supports ...POPs... In accordance with the GEF strategy on it. This failing appears to be the result of a weak POPs, the Philippines has completed and adopted monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system for the its National Implementation Plan to reduce and GEF project portfolio. eliminate releases of a number of POPs, including pesticides and industrial chemicals. Conclusion 2: GEF support to the Philippines has been relevant to the objectives and mandate of ...and international waters. Among the regional the GEF. projects supported by the GEF to improve marine environments affecting international waters, the GEF support is in line with the biodiversity Philippines participates in the Partnership in focal area... GEF support has targeted conserva- Environmental Management for the Seas of East tion and sustainable use at the species and subspe- Asia (PEMSEA). cies levels, and covers the majority of the coun- try's endemic and threatened species. Activities Portfolio Results have often been concentrated in larger priority areas in urgent need of conservation action and Conclusion 3: GEF support to the Philippines representing a substantial number of globally has produced global environmental benefits threatened species. The focus of GEF support has but declining environmental trends, and lack of been in 8 of the 16 Philippine terrestrial biogeo- compliance endanger these achievements. graphic regions,4 and mostly on the larger islands The evaluation found that many positive achieve- such as Luzon and Mindanao. However, other ments have been produced with GEF support: equally unique ecosystems with extremely vulner- able biodiversity are located on the smaller islands z GEF projects have achieved a significant off- in the western Philippines; these received little set of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (about to no attention from the GEF. It is within these 2.26 million carbon tons annually) through a smaller regions that the highest number of criti- range of renewable technology options, includ- cally threatened species are found and where most ing mini-hydro subprojects, geothermal energy, natural habitats are nearly depleted or soon to be and solar power energy. Additionally, innova- fully converted. tive approaches to reduce geothermal carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by reinfusion of CO2 ...the climate change focal area... In climate to underground geothermal wells have been change, the GEF has supported the reduction of tested. 4 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) z GEF-supported activities have probably slowed z Elements of the two oldest completed projects, the downward trend for a number of the coun- those dealing with geothermal plant estab- try's threatened species. The NIPAS has been lishment and biodiversity conservation, have supported since its establishment, and the sys- achieved better results than expected (and tem has been expanded by more than 2 million assessed) at completion. The Philippines is now hectares under GEF auspices. Further, the GEF considered one of the most important global has supported the establishment and consoli- powers in geothermal energy. Additionally, dation of protected areas through participatory a few of the protected areas supported by the management planning, capacity building, bio- biodiversity project are now considered best diversity monitoring, payment for environmen- practices in biodiversity conservation within tal services, and livelihood improvement. This the country. support has mainly been implemented in 8 of While impressive results have been achieved, the 16 terrestrial biogeographic regions and 5 of these are overshadowed by many obstacles and 6 of the country's marine biogeographic zones. declining national environmental indicators. z Successful livelihood initiatives in coastal- and z The Philippines lost about 32 percent of its for- marine-based projects have contributed to est cover, some 3.4 million hectares, between increased income for local people and enabled 1990 and 2005; this reduces the GEF protected them to shift their sources of income away from areas achievement to a negative 1 million hect- depleted species, thereby reducing the pressure ares. Furthermore, the number of threatened on the resources. species in the Philippines is among the highest z GEF support to the Philippines has produced in the world. approaches and experiences that have been or z Protected areas cover 7.8 percent of total land could be replicated, making for a positive cata- area, which is below the Asian average of 8.3 per- lytic effect from those investments. For example, cent and the world target of 10 percent. Pres- innovative techniques in solar and small-scale ent budget and human resource levels remain hydropower solutions and the reinjection of CO2 insufficient to manage protected areas effec- emissions within geothermal plants have poten- tively. Livelihood initiatives within land-based tial in the global market, as does the Philippine projects have not been successful in reducing biodiversity monitoring system for protected the pressure on these protected areas. areas. The latter has in fact been replicated by other donor projects and NGOs in both the Phil- z The country's smaller islands, even though they ippines and other parts of the world. Payment for represent unique and extremely vulnerable eco- environmental services with local incentives to systems, have not been supported by the large better preserve and protect forest habitats was GEF projects. Only the CEPF and, to a certain introduced in several projects; this approach is extent, the GEF SGP have financed some lim- now being replicated in other initiatives. ited activities for those ecosystems. z Regional programs on marine and coastal envi- z The GEF Asia Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas ronmental management are being replicated Abatement Strategy (ALGAS) project calcu- across a number of countries in the region, lated that CO2 emissions will increase almost including the Philippines. six times over from 1990 levels to 2020, which 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 5 indicates that the GEF may be focusing on the ent achievements in this area. The documenta- wrong areas. For example, a large portion of tion has considerable gaps in reporting on the GHG emissions in the Philippines is the result impact of these capacity development efforts. of land degradation and the conversion of for- est to agriculture; the provision of more support Portfolio Efficiency to forest land management would have been a Conclusion 4: There are several inefficiencies strategic approach to carbon sequestration at related to the GEF portfolio in the Philippines. local and national levels. Project preparation and approval are time con- z The government is now moving toward electri- suming and may lead to problems with stake- fied mass transportation, although legislation holder participation. The evaluation shows that is still pending and the GEF has not provided the period between entry into the pipeline and support in this area. project start-up is quite long. On average, it takes z Although a top country priority, adaptation to about 20.0 months from program entry to obtain climate change impacts has not been supported CEO approval, and another 8.5 months to get the by the GEF until recently. project started. Total time from entry to start-up is 2.4 years on average. The long preparation time z Capacity-building efforts through the GEF have may produce setbacks and loss of stakeholder failed to determine what kind of new institu- commitment. tional and university curriculum arrangements are needed in order to address biodiversity and As identified by earlier evaluations, there is natural resource management capacity con- a lack of transparency and poor data regard- straints. Capacity development in GEF support ing the GEF Activity Cycle. Several stakehold- should be approached more strategically, with ers interviewed indicated a lack of information a focus on longer term, permanent training regarding the requirements, norms, and mecha- initiatives that would gradually transfer ad hoc nisms of the GEF Activity Cycle and the progress capacity-building efforts away from the GEF of proposal reviews within that cycle. Further- and other donor project portfolios to the gov- more, they raised concerns about poor informa- ernment departments and universities respon- tion and a lack of transparency in the processes. It sible for the country's natural resource manage- is difficult for project proponents to find out what ment and educational outcomes. stage a proposal is in, which requirements or pri- orities are set by the GEF and which by the GEF The quality of reporting on results is poor. Agencies, and so on. This is a leading source of z There is limited documentation on catalytic confusion and even frustration. The absence of a and replication effects within projects and in clear, publicly accessible proposal tracking mech- GEF Agency documentation. Furthermore, anism is another critical shortcoming. 60 percent of project documents do not con- There is general confusion about the imple- tain any mention of synergetic approaches, mentation of the RAF. Most stakeholders inter- missing opportunities for catalytic and replica- viewed indicated confusion about how and why tion effects. projects were dropped from the pipeline. Stake- z Although capacity development is the objective holders do not understand the criteria used to of many projects, not all project documents pres- make decisions, and perceive inconsistencies and 6 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) arbitrariness. Furthermore, information about this situation seems to be improving. This limited RAF implementation, although available, is not coordination is exacerbated by the lack of a GEF clear, leaving much to the interpretation of differ- country program. The lack of coordination among ent sectors. GEF Agencies increases competition for funds. For example, UNDP has assisted the DENR in Lack of institutionalization of the GEF opera- developing a programmatic framework for sup- tional focal point (OFP) functions poses chal- port and management in the environment sector. lenges for the Philippines in interacting with In parallel, the World Bank has developed a Way the GEF. The OFP position in the Philippines is Forward Action Plan for the DENR, which has placed in the DENR, but is not institutionalized. the same goal as the UNDP work. Furthermore, From 1992 on, there have been at least eight dif- there are cases of overlapping projects trying to ferent OFPs, most of them politically appointed achieve similar objectives within the same geo- undersecretaries. The OFP is supported by an graphic context (for example, several projects insufficient number of staff and technical focal on integrated coastal resource management and points for multilateral environmental agreements energy efficiency). And, until the recent (and spread among a number of bureaus and repre- first) GEF national coordinating meeting called sented by technical staff overburdened by other by the DENR, there had been no coordination or assignments. There is a tendency to compensate sharing of information among the major national for limited capacity with substantial and costly executing agencies. These limitations and weak- consultant assistance paid for by project develop- nesses may produce the impression of a lack ment facility (PDF) grants. Additionally, a strate- of clear leadership from the DENR; this in turn gic framework is lacking, as are clear guidelines affects the overall guidance and execution of GEF for GEF projects at the national level, although the support. RAF appears to have triggered a new approach. Attempts to formulate an overall macrolevel 1.3 Recommendations framework for the GEF in the Philippines have not yet succeeded. As a result, there seems to be Recommendation to the GEF Council an inadequate understanding of GEF focal areas, Recommendation 1: The GEF should develop review criteria, and other guidelines. The DENR country strategies for large recipients of GEF has not linked GEF projects to the National Eco- support such as the Philippines. nomic and Development Authority (NEDA), the The Philippines has been a large recipient of GEF agency that is in charge of establishing and track- support (about $145 million in total), but the lack ing development priorities, unless they are blended of a GEF strategy for this country has reduced the with a World Bank or ADB loan. NEDA offers a potential results and led to inefficiencies. The GEF relatively efficient M&E capacity and mechanism experience in the Philippines provides valid lessons that could assist the DENR in managing the GEF to justify the development of a country strategy. portfolio. The RAF has begun to trigger this development Limited coordination exists among Agencies in the Philippines, since the resources allocated implementing the GEF in the Philippines. a priori need to be prioritized and shared among Despite the low number of stakeholders involved, different national institutions and GEF Agencies, there is limited coordination among them, although as compared to the past when allocations were 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 7 made on a demand basis and there was a percep- Recommendation 3: The Philippines could con- tion that every eligible project would be funded sider including the globally unique small island eventually by the GEF. The future GEF investment regions, land degradation, and improvement of in the Philippines will be highly relevant to imple- climate change resilience in future GEF support. mentation of the country's environmental priori- GEF-supported projects focus mostly on the larger ties. As noted by this evaluation, there are many island ecosystems, with the nine small island bio- major environmental and institutional problems geographic zones/regions receiving little or no in the Philippines. A coherent, publicly debated, attention despite their fragility and biodiversity. In and transparent GEF strategy with clear targets future, GEF support should be considered for use and objectives, and a long- and short-term vision regarding the DENR's focus list of key biodiversity and program, would improve some of the weak- areas; efforts should also be made to balance GEF nesses found by the evaluation. assistance more equally among the 16 land-based biogeographic zones. The OFP and GEF Agencies Recommendations to the Government of could use this approach in prioritizing future proj- the Philippines ects related to biodiversity, land degradation, and international waters. Recommendation 2: Compliance with environ- mental policies and regulations requires urgent Climate change adaptation is a top priority of the attention. government. It is therefore recommended that the In general, environmental regulations are in place, GEF OFP, together with national stakeholders and but compliance needs to be improved. There are the GEF Agencies, increasingly include for GEF considerable problems with compliance with support projects that improve climate resilience. the country's numerous environmental policies, Taking into account adaptive actions related to ranging from environmental impact assessment land degradation, biodiversity, and integrated eco- certificates to compliance with rules and regula- system management will ensure that the global tions on critical land and marine areas and natu- environmental benefits in these areas can be sus- ral resources, both within GEF-supported areas tained under changing circumstances. and elsewhere. The government is taking steps to develop and implement anticorruption policies Recommendation 4: Improve the efficiency of as well as to improve the effectiveness of public the GEF mechanisms in the Philippines. agencies. Specifically, within the sectors in which There are several elements that could improve the the GEF works, the government is moving toward efficiency of GEF support in the Philippines: a programmatic approach to environment and natural resource management. The DENR should z Strengthen and institutionalize OFP functions further strengthen and institutionalize interagency through adequate funding, support staff rele- collaboration with other departments to increase vant to all GEF operational programs, an inter- environmental governance; this effort would then agency mechanism to increase participation, need to be linked to the broader efforts of the gov- and an information system (including a Web ernment to fight corruption and improve public site component). The evaluation noted some sector effectiveness. Priority could be given to the improvements in this area in recent months, critical conservation areas necessary to maintain particularly in the context of RAF implementa- food security, water supply, and biodiversity. tion, but more could be done. 8 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) z Develop and implement a national GEF coun- the same focal areas). Furthermore, the quality of try framework with full participation of all key reporting from both projects and GEF Agencies is GEF stakeholders, beyond the RAF, with clear poor and inconsistent. In most cases, the Agencies short- and long-term vision, targets, and indi- and projects do not report at these levels. Because cators and fully integrated with medium-term a substantial portion of GEF funding is blended Philippine development priorities. with major development loans, there is a risk that global impacts deriving from GEF support will not z Given NEDA's experience in monitoring MTDPs be sufficiently reported. and given that GEF activities are supporting these plans, monitoring of the GEF portfo- lio should be transferred to NEDA in order to Notes improve accountability and transparency. 1. The Evaluation Office looks at responsiveness to convention guidance in other evaluations, such as z Better coordination is needed among GEF its evaluations of the GEF focal areas. Agencies to improve the efficiency of GEF sup- port and provide better support in implement- 2. All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated. This total does not include funding for ing the recommended GEF country strategy. regional projects, because these are not allocated by country and no attempt was made to deter- 1.4 Observations mine the amount received or implemented by the Philippines in these projects. The Philippines has The Philippine experience with the GEF confirms participated in several regional projects under the findings and supports recommendations made international waters focal area, but only two, PEM- SEA and the Marine Aquarium Market Transfor- by previous Office evaluations regarding the effi- mation Initiative, have been considered here, since ciency and effectiveness of the GEF Activity Cycle their project units are located in Manila. as well as the serious problems detected in the 3. The United Nations Environment Programme weak systems providing information on GEF pro- does not implement any GEF projects at the cesses, procedures, and--particularly--the Activ- national level in the Philippines, although it does ity Cycle. The evaluation underscores the need implement a few regional projects in which the for better indicators and reporting systems for Philippines participates; these are not included since their base of operations is not located in this achieving global environmental benefits. On all of country. these issues, the GEF-4 replenishment agreement and subsequent Council decisions are reinforced 4. Biogeographic regions are areas of animal and plant distribution having similar or shared charac- by the evidence emerging from this evaluation. teristics throughout. In the Philippines, there are 16 terrestrial and 6 marine biogeographic regions. Additionally, the evaluation found that the report- Each of the 16 terrestrial regions is a separate ing of global environmental benefits and other island or island group supporting a large number achievements has been overestimated. The main of unique species and is recognized as a center reason for this is that the GEF, at the global and of biodiversity. The six marine regions are broad transition zones based on the affinities of the asso- national levels, does not have agreed global envi- ciated reef fish assemblages, the evolutionary geol- ronmental benefit targets or indicators that are ogy of the archipelago, and the predominant ocean consistent across projects and Agencies (within circulation patterns. 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 9 2. Description of the Evaluation 2.1 Background conventions, since this would go beyond the GEF purview as a country will usually have other activ- In 2006, the GEF Council asked the GEF Evalu- ities in place to support convention implementa- ation Office to conduct country-level evaluations tion beyond those involving the GEF. of the GEF portfolio. The first country portfolio evaluation was conducted in 2006 in Costa Rica on It is not possible for the GEF Evaluation Office to a pilot basis with the objective of assessing the fea- evaluate the portfolios of all 160 GEF-eligible coun- sibility and cost effectiveness of this type of evalu- tries. Consequently, straightforward and trans- ation and to develop methodologies to fully imple- parent criteria have been developed by the Office ment this type of evaluation in subsequent years. to guide its selection of countries for each year's Based on this experience, the GEF Evaluation evaluation. The criteria ensure that all countries Office prepared standard terms of reference for have a fair chance of being chosen. The Office will country portfolio evaluations in October 2006. attempt to conduct at least two such evaluations This document set forth the objectives, main per year. Where possible, cost efficiencies will be questions, scope, and methodology of country applied, such as combining two countries in one portfolio evaluations. These evaluations are con- region or combining a large portfolio with a small ducted fully and independently by the GEF Evalu- one. In addition, the GEF Evaluation Office recog- ation Office and, when possible, in partnership nizes that many of the GEF recipient countries are with other evaluation offices of GEF Implement- presently conducting self-assessment exercises in ing and Executing Agencies, of governments, or of order to be ready for implementation of GEF-4 NGOs. Even though every country portfolio eval- and the Resource Allocation Framework. For the uation during GEF-4 will be conducted following GEF fiscal year 2007 (July 2006­June 2007), two these standards, individual terms of reference will countries were selected for evaluation: the Philip- be developed for each selected country and will pines and Samoa. Specific terms of reference were include questions relevant to the specific country developed for each; see annex A for the terms at the time of the evaluation. designed for the present Philippines country evaluation. Country portfolio evaluations are not intended to evaluate the performance of Implementing or The Philippines was selected through a stratified Executing Agencies, national governments, or randomized selection and then through a set of individual projects. The evaluations also do not strategic criteria in which opportunities for syn- cover a given country's response to the various ergies with ongoing evaluations in the Evaluation 10 Office played a role. Applying these strategic cri- 2.2 Objectives teria indicated that the Philippines The purpose of the Philippine country portfolio z is very relevant to the GEF because of its his- evaluation is to provide the GEF Council with an torically large and diverse portfolio, which assessment of how the GEF is implemented at includes projects in all focal areas implemented the country level, a report on results from proj- by all relevant GEF Agencies and at least seven ects, and an assessment of how these projects are completed projects with important results; linked to national environmental and sustainable z will receive a large allocation in the RAF; development agendas as well as to the GEF man- date of generating global environmental benefits z has a long-running country Small Grants Pro- within its focal areas. The evaluation had the fol- gramme with one of the program's highest lowing objectives: country fundings; z Independently evaluate the relevance and z has a well-developed and mature national envi- efficiency of GEF support in the Philippines ronmental policy and strategy; from several points of view, namely in terms of z has an environmental sector that is an essen- national environmental frameworks and deci- tial part of the nation's sustainable development sion-making processes, the GEF mandate and agenda and that has been the focus of exten- the achievement of global environmental ben- sive work by the World Bank, UNDP, and ADB, efits, and GEF policies and procedures.1 which ensures good baseline information; z Assess the effectiveness and results of com- z enables synergies with ongoing evaluations in pleted projects aggregated by focal area.2 the Evaluation Office, particularly the evalu- ations of the SGP, capacity building, and the z Provide additional evaluative evidence to other catalytic role of the GEF. evaluations conducted or sponsored by the GEF Evaluation Office. GEF Agencies implementing GEF projects in the z Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to Philippines at the national level are the World (1) the GEF Council in its decision-making pro- Bank, UNDP, UNIDO, and ADB; the United cess to allocate resources and to develop poli- Nations Environment Programme operates in the cies and strategies, (2) the Philippines regard- Philippines at the regional level. The GEF has sup- ing its participation in the GEF, and (3) the ported about $146 million worth of projects aimed various agencies and organizations involved in at environmental and natural resource manage- the preparation and implementation of GEF- ment. More than half of GEF support has been funded projects and activities. focused on the climate change focal area (54.4 per- cent, or about $79.3 million), and just under one- Country portfolio evaluations are useful for a num- third on biodiversity conservation (31.2 percent, ber of reasons. First, no assessments had previously or $45.5 million). The remainder has supported been conducted of the GEF portfolio using a coun- projects in the multifocal area (10.6 percent, or try as a basis for analysis, regardless of GEF focal $15.5 million) and persistent organic pollutants area or Implementing Agency. Second, the GEF-4 (3.5 percent, or $5.1 million). The main Imple- implementation of the Resource Allocation Frame- menting Agencies for GEF projects in the Philip- work allocating funds to countries for biodiver- pines are the World Bank and UNDP. sity and climate change would mean that the GEF 2. Description of the Evaluation 11 should research and assess how it is implemented at ­ How successful is dissemination of GEF the country level. Also, such evaluations bring dif- project lessons and results? ferent experiences and lessons regarding how the ­ What synergies exist between GEF project GEF is implemented at the national level across a programming/implementation and GEF wide variety of countries to the Council's attention. Agencies, national institutions, GEF proj- ects, and the projects and activities of other 2.3 Key Questions donors? GEF country portfolio evaluations are guided by ­ What is the level of sustainability of GEF- a set of key questions to be answered based on supported activities? analysis of the information and perceptions col- lected during the evaluation exercise. The ques- z Results and effectiveness tions guiding the Philippines country portfolio ­ What are the results (outcomes and impacts) evaluation were as follows. of completed projects? z Relevance of GEF support and activities ­ What are the aggregated results at the focal area and country levels? ­ Is GEF support relevant to the national sus- tainability development agenda and envi- ­ What is the likelihood that objectives will ronmental priorities, national development be achieved for those projects that are still needs and challenges, and action plans for under implementation? the GEF's national focal areas? Each of these questions is complemented by a ­ Are the GEF and its Agencies supporting the short list of indicative aspects to be explored and environmental and sustainable development potential sources of information. These are pre- prioritization and decision-making pro- sented in matrix form in annex B. cesses of the country? ­ Is GEF support in the country relevant to the 2.4 Focus and Limitations objectives of the different global environ- mental benefits (biodiversity, greenhouse Focus gases, international waters, POPs, land deg- The country portfolio evaluation in the Philippines radation, ozone)? focused on all types of GEF-supported activities ­ Is the country supporting the GEF mandate in the country (30 national projects, including and focal area programs and strategies with enabling activities and 2 selected regional proj- its own resources and/or support from other ects with major and measurable outputs within donors? the Philippines) at all stages of the Activity Cycle (in pipeline, ongoing, and completed) and imple- z Efficiency of GEF support mented by all GEF Agencies in all focal areas, in ­ How much time, effort, and money are addition to GEF corporate activities such as the needed to develop and implement projects, SGP. A complete list of activities funded by the by GEF support modality? GEF in the Philippines is presented in annex C; ­ What are the roles, types of engagement, and these activities make up the GEF portfolio in the coordination mechanisms among different Philippines. The evaluation's focus on each proj- stakeholders in project implementation? ect was determined by its status (see table 2.1). 12 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Table 2.1 programming or at least prioritization of projects Focus of Evaluation by Project Status or areas in which the government determines how Project Rele- Effective- it would like to focus GEF support. In the Phil- status vance Efficiency ness Results ippine context, this process has just begun with Completed Full Full Full Full the country's first national GEF country dialogue, Ongoing Full Partially Likelihood Likelihood which was held by the GEF operational focal point In pipeline Expected Processes NA NA in January 2007. Note: NA = not applicable. The main focus of the evaluation was on relevance and efficiency; the evaluation only explored possible methodologies on how to evaluate project effectiveness and results. In general, regional and global projects were not considered in this evaluation. Inclusion of such projects would increase the complexity of the eval- The context within which these projects were uation, since these are developed and approved developed and approved and are being imple- in a different context and are thus reflective of mented constituted another focus of the evalua- regional/global policies and strategies, rather tion. This included a historical assessment of the than country. Given the limited time and finan- national sustainable development and environ- cial resources provided to the conduct of country mental policies, strategies, and priorities; the legal portfolio evaluations, regional and global projects environment in which these policies are imple- were included in this evaluation only if the proj- mented and enforced; GEF Agency country strat- ect implementation unit was located in the Phil- egies and programs; and GEF policies, principles, ippines and the project featured a clearly defined programs, and strategies. Philippine project component. Annex D provides a list of regional and global projects not included Limitations in this evaluation but in which the Philippines has The way the GEF operates imposes several diffi- participated. culties on the conduct of this type of evaluation. For example, because the GEF does not have coun- The evaluation only includes projects approved by try programs, there is no GEF framework against the GEF Chief Executive Officer that were in the which to assess results or effectiveness. Similarly, GEF-4 pipeline as of December 2006. All other proj- the government of the Philippines has no GEF ects previously considered part of the pipeline but country strategy, and the GEF focal areas do not not approved are not included in the evaluation. have a clear set of indicators that can be used at the country level to assess country portfolio per- 2.5 Methodology formance. Furthermore, GEF support rarely works The country evaluation was conducted by staff of in isolation but is instead administered through the GEF Evaluation Office and an international partnerships with many institutions, which makes consulting firm (Nordic Agency for Development the issue of attribution difficult to determine. On and Ecology) and local consultants (who made up the positive side, the assessment provided impor- the evaluation team) between December 2006 and tant insights that may allow the GEF to become April 2007. The methodology included a series of more effective at the country level and within the components using a combination of qualitative context of RAF operationalization. and quantitative methods and tools. The quali- By mid-2006, the beginning of the RAF process tative aspects of the evaluation included a desk is expected to lead the way toward more country review of existing documentation such as GEF 2. Description of the Evaluation 13 project documents; policy and strategy docu- z At the project level, project documents, project ments from national, GEF, and convention lev- implementation reports, terminal evaluation els; relevant scientific literature; and GEF Agency reports, reports from field visits, the relevant national strategic frameworks (particularly those scientific literature related to the GEF focal areas). Additionally, z At the country level, national sustainable devel- extensive interviews were conducted with GEF opment agendas, environmental priorities and stakeholders, a consultation workshop was held strategies, GEF focal area strategies and action to present the evaluation's first draft, and selected plans, the GEF-supported National Capacity field visits were made to a limited number of proj- Self-Assessment, global and national environ- ect sites representative of GEF focal areas and of mental indicators, literature review the variety of executing agencies (government, private sector, and NGO). A list of stakeholders z GEF Agency country assistance strategies and interviewed and workshop attendees, and the frameworks, and their evaluations and reviews documents and literature reviewed, are presented z Evaluative evidence at the country level from in annexes E and F, respectively. GEF Evaluation Office evaluations The quantitative analysis used indicators to z Interviews with GEF stakeholders and benefi- assess the relevance and efficiency of GEF support ciaries using projects as the unit of analysis (for example, z Information from a national consultation work- linkages with national priorities, time and cost shop held in April 2007 of preparing and implementing projects) and to measure GEF results (such as progress toward z Comments received on the draft evaluation achieving global environmental impacts) and per- report from the national stakeholders formance of projects (including implementation and completion ratings). Notes The evaluation team developed a variety of tools 1. Relevance: the extent to which the objectives of and protocols. For example, a project review pro- the GEF activity are consistent with beneficia- tocol was prepared to conduct the desk and field ries' requirements, country needs, global priori- reviews of GEF projects; questionnaires were ties and partners' and donors' policies; efficiency: a measure of how economically resources/inputs developed to conduct interviews and guide focused (funds, expertise, time, and so on) are converted group discussions with different stakeholders. to results. The country evaluation was primarily based on 2. Effectiveness: the extent to which the GEF activ- the review of existing information and on addi- ity's objectives were achieved or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative impor- tional available information gathered for the pur- tance; results: the output, outcome, or impact pose of this evaluation. The sources of informa- (intended or unintended, positive and/or negative) tion included the following: of a GEF activity. 14 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) 3. Context of the Evaluation The preceding chapter highlighted the fact that The Philippines ranks 84th out of 175 countries one of the fundamental objectives of the country on the UNDP Human Development Index (UNDP evaluation was to analyze the relevance of GEF 2005). A country profile based on selected socio- support both for the Philippines and for the GEF economic indicators making up the index is pro- itself. This chapter presents a brief summary of vided in table 3.1. the context for the evaluation in terms of both the environmental framework in the Philippines Table 3.1 and the mandate and operations of the GEF. Back- Socioeconomic Data for the Philippines ground literature is listed in annex F. Indicator Value 3.1 General Description Life expectancy at birth, total (years) 71.0 The Philippines is an island nation with a total Child mortality rate (per 1,000) 33 land area of approximately 300,000 square kilome- Total adult literacy rate (%) 92.6 (2004) ters (including 2,800 square kilometers of water Primary school completion rate (% of 96.6 relevant age group) bodies), of which 49 percent is classified as forest Gross domestic product (current US$) 98.4 billion (although only 21 percent is actually under forest Gross national income per capita, Atlas 1.290 cover) and 34 percent is under agricultural culti- method (current US$) vation. As the world's second largest archipelago Gross domestic product growth (annual %) 5.0 country after Indonesia, the Philippines includes Inflation, gross domestic product deflator 6.2 more than 7,100 islands with a total coastline of (annual %) over 36,000 kilometers within 1.93 million square Improved water source (% of population 86 (2000) with access) kilometers of oceanic waters (World Bank 2006). Improved sanitation facilities, urban (% of 76 (2000) It is located in the tropical Southeast Asian west- urban population with access) ernmost Pacific Ocean, just north of the equator. Source: World Development Indicators database. Data are for 2005, except where indicated. The country has a relatively high population den- sity--280 inhabitants per square kilometer--and an estimated total population of 84.25 million (as In 2005, the Environmental Performance Mea- of 2004); approximately 60 percent of the popu- surement Project ranked the Philippines 125th lace lives along the coastal areas, with another among 146 nations on the Environmental Sus- 40 percent in urban areas. The annual population tainability Index, a decline from previous years. growth rate is high, about 2.36 percent as of 2000. This composite index tracks several indicators to 15 assess countries' performance and ability to pro- 3.2 Environmental Resources in tect the environment in coming decades, given Key GEF Support Areas their investment in natural resources, past and present pollution levels, environmental manage- Biodiversity and Its Conservation ment efforts, and ability to improve management. According to the WWF and Conservation Inter- The Philippines's very low rank reflects low per- national, the Philippines is one of the 20 most formance on issues such as environmental pro- biologically diverse countries, which together tection capacity, waste generation, and green- account for about 70 percent of the world's bio- house gas emissions. It also indirectly reflects the diversity. Moreover, the Philippines appears to country's perennial problem with corruption and have the highest biological diversity in the world a lack of transparency in management processes when considered by land area. The country is one and governance. In 2006, the Philippines received of the few nations that is, in its entirety, both a a score of 2.5 on the Corruption Perception Index, hotspot and a megadiversity country;2 this clearly the eighth lowest ranking score on the index and makes it one of the top priority hotspots for global one which it shares with Honduras, Nepal, Russia, conservation. and Rwanda, among others (Transparency Inter- national 2006). The country's biodiversity is also one of the world's Natural disasters in the Philippines have increased most endangered (see table 3.2). Only about over time, signaling the rise in environmental deg- 7 percent of its original vegetation cover remains, radation. Major problems are floods in lowlands, while the rest of the country has been logged massive loss of biodiversity, air and water pollu- for timber products and cleared for farming and tion, along with damage of marine and coastal for developments to accommodate the growing resources, coral reefs, and mangrove areas. population. Many endemic species are confined Despite the country's having the largest area of to these remaining areas; as a result, a very high developed estuarine fishponds in Southeast Asia, and increasing number of species are now globally artisan fishing has been in overall decline; this threatened with extinction. These include about reflects overfishing of inshore waters. El Niño 49 percent of the country's endemic mammals and La Niña episodes have caused, respectively, and 38 percent of the endemic bird species. The protracted droughts and hurricane devastation in remaining areas of high biodiversity concentra- many parts of the country.1 tions are found in some (largely) pristine marine, Table 3.2 Diversity, Endemism, and Threatened Species in the Philippines Taxonomic group Species Endemic species Percent endemism Plants 9,253 6,091 65.8 Mammals 167 102 61.1 Birds 535 186 34.8 Reptiles 237 160 67.5 Amphibians 89 76 85.4 Freshwater fishes 281 67 23.8 Source: Conservation International Biodiversity Hotspots­Philippines (www. biodiversityhotspots.org). 16 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) wetland, and terrestrial forest ecosystems in the GEF, which has supported the conservation and country's 16 distinct terrestrial and 6 marine bio- sustainable use of nearly 20 of the country's most geographical zones. critical areas of global importance. Moreover, the GEF Small Grants Programme and the CEPF have To protect some of these unique areas, the Phil- provided additional assistance for biodiversity ippine government has developed a National conservation to numerous other Philippine sites Integrated Protected Areas System. The develop- of importance. ment of this system began in 1992 and includes 101 proclaimed protected areas with a total area Contribution to Climate Change and Its of approximately 3.2 million hectares; half of this Vulnerability comprises land-based protected areas, or 5.4 per- In 1990, total Philippine CO2 emissions were cent of the country's total land area (DENR PAWB 168.4 million tons (WRI 1999). The leading 2006). The remaining 1.6 million hectares are sources of emissions are from forest and grass- marine protected areas. According to the DENR's land conversion, energy industries, rice cultiva- Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau Web site, tion processes, and transportation. Changes in there are more than 200 initial areas for eventual CO2 emissions over the 1990­2020 period for the inclusion under the NIPAS, representing about energy, forestry, and agriculture sectors are shown 2.6 million hectares. in table 3.3. In 2006, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo issued a presidential order establishing a national Table 3.3 policy on biological diversity, which directs all Projected Changes in CO2 Emissions, 1990­2020 concerned government agencies to integrate and Teragrams mainstream the protection, conservation, and sus- Sector 1990 2000 2010 2020 tainable use of biological diversity into their poli- Energy 40,296 67,136 126,940 238,260 cies, programs, and development planning. In this Forestry 81,360 - 43,163 - 25,448 - 2,324 regard, 128 critically important biodiversity areas Agriculture 26,718 28,779 29,600 30,547 are to be included as new protected areas (CI, Source: ADB, GEF, and UNDP 1998. DENR, and Haribon Foundation for the Conser- vation of Nature 2006). The new policy will create The growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions a network of biological corridors that is intended is greater for the energy sector than for the for- to ensure NIPAS effectiveness and viability. These estry and agricultural sectors.3 Projections made corridors play an important role in the migration under the GEF-supported ALGAS maintain that and dispersion of plant and animal species, thus total emissions from the energy sector would be reducing the vulnerability of protected areas to about 89 percent of the country's total emissions global and local threats. in 2020. In 1990, the forestry sector was the larg- The biological corridor strategy is supported by est CO2-equivalent emitter, accounting for 50 per- Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund initiatives cent of national GHG emissions. According to in the Philippines, which are cofunded by the the study, the forestry sector will become a car- GEF. Similarly, establishment of the protected bon sink from 1995 onward,4 although the cur- areas system has received substantial bilateral rent trend in deforestation rates and reforestation and multilateral assistance including that of the attempts does not suggest that this is currently the 3. Context of the Evaluation 17 case. The GHG emissions from the agriculture to the Interagency Committee on Climate Change sector come from burning of agricultural residue and the Philippine National Communication on and livestock production. Climate Change), by increasing domestic produc- tion of energy through a diversification of alterna- The Philippine global and regional contribution to tive sources including natural gas, geothermal and CO2 emissions are quite low compared to those hydropower energy, and biofuel production. The of other nations, especially those of developed installation of natural gas­powered energy plants country parties to the United Nations Framework is projected to reduce GHGs by 271 million tons. Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The country is not required by its international com- In 2003, 79 percent of the country was electrified. mitment to control its emissions. However, as The population without access to electricity is an archipelagic country, the Philippines is highly located in highly remote areas where it is not fea- vulnerable to climate change and recognizes the sible to extend the national grid system. The gov- serious impacts GHGs have in terms of global ernment has undertaken a rural electrification pro- warming, climate change, and sea level rise. In its gram to address this need with isolated sources of National Communication to the UNFCCC, the renewable energy, in cooperation with international Philippines presented a study on the vulnerabil- agencies and financial support from the GEF. ity of various sectors to possible climate change impacts. These included (1) temperature change International Waters with projected negative impacts on fish stocks, The Philippines contains 1.93 million square kilo- fishery production, and marine ecosystems and meters of ocean, of which 689,800 square kilo- an increase in the occurrence of typhoons; and (2) meters are coastal waters. The country stretches a sea level rise that could negatively affect a large more than 2,000 kilometers from south to north number of coastal communities. A total area of and consists of 7,100 islands with a total coast- 129,000 hectares with a total population of at least line of over 36,000 kilometers--one of the longest 2 million might be affected. Change in the coastal coastlines in the world (World Bank 2006). The wetland ecological situation would also decrease country shares its international waters with neigh- habitats for resident and migratory wildlife and boring countries, which include China, Indonesia, for fish species, among others. Malaysia, and Vietnam. Ownership of some areas within the international waters, such as the Sprat- Three main sources provide consumable energy to ley's Group, are contested by these countries. the Philippines: petroleum derivatives, geothermal and hydropower-generated electricity, and bio- The Philippines contains some of the world's rich- mass. In 2006, imported hydrocarbons accounted est marine ecosystems, characterized by extensive for 61 percent of commercial energy consumption, and species-diverse coral reefs. For example, the biomass resources for 22 percent, and sustainable number of species of hard stony corals found in electricity-producing sources for 11 percent (see the Philippines far exceeds the number found in National Action Plan on Climate Change). Energy the Caribbean: 488 and 70 species, respectively demand has increased over the past decade and (Werner and Allen 2000). Various marine species is projected to continue to do so. In the past, this have migratory routes that pass through the coun- increase has mostly been answered to by import- try's oceans; these include commercially valued ing hydrocarbons and, more recently (according fish species, sea turtles, whales, and whale sharks. 18 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) The annual economic benefit to the Philippines hectares established under 335 local ordinances from its marine and coastal ecosystems is esti- and 27 integrated protected area system acts. mated at $3.5 billion. Coral reefs alone contrib- However, most of these areas have yet to be man- ute at least an estimated $1 billion annually to aged effectively (World Bank 2006). the economy (White and Cruz-Trinidad 1998). This estimate would be significantly greater with Table 3.4 improved coastal management efforts. The pres- Number of Marine Protected Areas by Size ent status of the country's marine and coastal Distribution ecosystems is a cause for alarm. Almost all Phil- Size Number ippine coral reefs are at risk from human activi- Small (<15 hectares) 201 ties, and only about 5 percent remain in excellent Medium (15­30 hectares) 81 condition. The economic costs of environmental Large (31­100 hectares) 40 degradation of the country's marine resources Very large (>100 hectares) 40 are significant. Overfishing and pollution-caused Total 362 algae bloom alone cost the country $155 million Source: World Bank 2006. each year in lost revenues. The government has responded by implementing an integrated coastal Persistent Organic Pollutants resource management framework which may sig- The Philippines is a signatory to the major inter- nificantly accelerate the sustainable management national conventions on chemical pollutants: and conservation of marine resources. those of Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm. Con- Transboundary environmental issues such as sistent with these conventions, the Philippines has, overfishing, waterborne pollution, and the rap- through numerous policy orders, prohibited the idly growing Southeast Asian regional market production, importation, transportation, registra- for marine products also affect Philippine marine tion, use of, and trade in, raw materials and manu- resources and biodiversity. Strong demand leads factured products that contain polychlorinated to unsustainable rates of harvesting and is threat- or polybrominated biphenyls (PCBs or PBBs), ening an increasing number of marine species. heptachlor, pentachlorophenol, aldrin, clordane, Consequently, the Philippines has entered into DDT, dieldrin, endrin, mirex, or toxaphene. As a a number of regional treaties and action plans. party to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Additionally, the GEF, through several global, Organic Pollutants, the Philippines has prepared regional, and national initiatives, has funded a a comprehensive National Implementation Plan variety of transboundary and multifocal projects that outlines the government's programs to meet to mitigate negative impacts. (For a summary list- its obligations under the convention, as well as ing of GEF regional and global projects in the area, address the country's specific POPs-related issues. see annex D.) The country has completed an initial inventory of its toxic substances, developed an action plan for Another response to these international waters them, and created the organizational structures issues has been the creation of marine protected and capacities needed to work effectively in this areas. Biodiversity and natural resources are safe- area. PCB decombustion or removal will be one guarded by at least 362 such areas of varying sizes of the first actions taken; this is a GEF-supported (see table 3.4), accounting for about 1.6 million initiative. 3. Context of the Evaluation 19 Land Degradation adequate provisions that incorporate advanced The Philippines ratified the United Nations Con- concepts such as participatory environment and vention to Combat Desertification in 2000 and natural resource management; recognition of finalized its National Action Plan in response to ancestral domains, including indigenous peoples's the convention in 2004. The plan will be imple- rights and the tenure of long-term migrants in pub- mented by four government departments: Envi- lic lands; citizens' suits; and environmental quality ronment and Natural Resources, Agriculture, standards comparable to developed country stan- Agrarian Reform, and Science and Technology; dards and polluter-pays principles. Significant laws further, it has been integrated into the national address protected areas and wildlife conservation, poverty reduction strategy, and 10 projects related air and water, and solid and toxic waste manage- directly or indirectly to the convention are cur- ment. Some of these policies are beginning to have rently under implementation. a positive impact by encouraging the integration of environmental concerns and improved sustain- In the Philippines, 45 percent of the arable land able resource use and ecosystem protection in the has been moderately to severely eroded, trigger- country's development planning and targets. ing the movement of subsistence farmers into frag- ile ecosystems. Similarly, approximately 5.2 million Environmental legislation in the Philippines has hectares are seriously eroded, resulting in a 30 to come in bursts, with the first set of laws following 50 percent reduction in soil productivity and water the Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations retention capacity; this makes the land vulnerable Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, to recurrent drought and El Niño. Another type of and the next after the UN Conference on Environ- land degradation is soil mining, due to the coun- ment and Sustainable Development in 1992. Only try's long-term use of urea as a fertilizer. The result recently has environmental law become a recog- has been a serious nutrient imbalance, expressed in nized field in the country; such legislation was terms of depleted soil quality and micronutrients. previously known as natural resources law and The net impact of soil mining is an increased cost mostly dealt with rules on extraction. of fertilization and a decrease in farmers' income. The Constitution Land degradation and drought have become prom- Philippine laws are based on a civil law tradition, inent and recurring environmental problems as a and the hierarchy of legal rules in the Philippines result of both natural and human-induced factors is in line with this tradition. That hierarchy is set including volcanic eruptions, poor drainage, and out in the constitution, as shown in figure 3.1. The extensive use of chemical fertilizers. The GEF has national legal system consists of statutes enacted recently begun supporting mitigation of land deg- by the legislative body. Implementing rules and radation while continuing to address draught phe- regulations are issued by the relevant government nomena through interventions aimed at increasing departments to draw up procedures and technical resilience to the adverse impacts of climate. clarifications. In February 1987, the Constitution of the Philip- 3.3 The Environmental Legal and pines took effect after approval by a nationwide Policy Framework plebiscite. It contains many provisions relating The Philippines has a well-developed and gener- to the environment, notably section 16, article II, ally up-to-date system of environmental laws, with which maintains that "The State shall protect and 20 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Figure 3.1 the government in managing and regulating the Philippine Legal Framework environment and its resources. Since 1988, a large number of new environmental laws have been Legal Framework passed. The basic framework for land-based, as well as coastal and marine, management is Governing Operational found in the laws listed in table 3.5. In addition Framework Framework to these, important bills on sustainable forestry · Constitution · Executive branch decrees · International treaties, · Presidential issuances and national land use to rationalize land owner- conventions, and protocols · Department ship and management in the country have been · Statutes (republic acts) of administrative orders national scope or site · Guidelines pending in Congress for the last decade. A major- specific · Directives and legal ity of Philippine environmental laws do not have opinions provisions appropriating adequate funds for their implementation, relying instead on trust funds and revolving funds established under the law to advance the right of the people to a balanced and support expenses. In practical terms, implemen- healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and tation is often supported by multilateral organiza- harmony of nature." tions, such as the GEF, or bilateral development assistance. Other provisions on access to natural resources are aimed at balancing benefits for disadvantaged As noted, the constitution provides for the right groups and regulating access by non-Filipinos. to a balanced and healthy ecology and mandates These provisions include the enumeration of what the government to conserve the nation's natural constitutes the property of the state and accords resources. However, the large number of stat- rights to indigenous peoples over their ancestral utes and regulations passed since 1988 indicates domain and the rights of other special groups in the lack of a single law directly integrating envi- accessing resources, particularly subsistence fish- ronment and natural resource management and ermen and peoples' organizations that pursue and thereby hindering institutional integration. For protect their legitimate rights within a democratic example, more than 20 government agencies exer- framework. cise separate management powers and mandates over coastal resource uses and sectors. Supreme Court decisions form precedents and are therefore policy. The Supreme Court has consid- The government has recently undertaken reforms ered the constitutional right to ecology as a funda- to enhance the policy and institutional frame- mental as well as enforceable right, but subsequent work for the management of the environment and decisions on the environment and natural resource natural resources. The initiatives include a move access have relied on relevant statutes rather than by the Department of Environment and Natural on the constitution in according rights. Resources toward a more programmatic approach. Despite these important initiatives, many barriers The Environmental Legal Framework remain to overcoming the threats to the natural The Philippine Environmental Policy and Envi- resource base and environmental management, ronmental Code, passed in 1977, clearly states including weaknesses in local resource planning, the general principles that should be applied by weak enforcement for compliance, and sector 3. Context of the Evaluation 21 Table 3.5 country's biological resources and its diversity, Legal Framework for the Philippines Environment vital ecosystem functions and overall environ- Sector mental quality." This was furthered in 1992 with Year Republic act the creation of the Philippine Council for Sustain- 1988 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657) able Development, launched in conjunction with 1990 Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear the United Nations Conference on Environment Wastes Control Act (RA 6969) and Development (UNCED). The council was 1991 National Integrated Protected Areas System Act responsible for the 1996 formulation of a national (RA 7586) plan of action for sustainable development for the 1992 Local Government Code (RA 7160) 21st century--the Philippine Agenda 21. 1992 Strategic Environmental Plan Law of Palawan (RA 7611) The Philippine Agenda 21 is a wide-ranging, mul- 1992 Department of Energy Act (RA 7638) tidimensional strategy, which looks to integrate 1995 Mining Code (RA 7942) sustainable development concerns in all decision- 1997 Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (RA 8435) making structures within both the government 1997 Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (RA 8371) and civil society. It advocates a fundamental shift 1998 Fisheries Code (RA 8550) in development approach and aims at introduc- 1999 Clean Air Act (RA 8749) ing an ecosystem-based and people-centered 2001 Ecological Solid Waste Management Act approach. The action agenda is based on the con- (RA 9003) cepts of integration, multistakeholdership and 2001 National Caves and Cave Resources Management consensus building, and operationalization and and Protection Act (RA 9072) improved management to be applied to 2001 Electric Power Industry Reform Act (RA 9136) 2003 Conservation and Protection of Wildlife z forest and upland areas, Resources (RA 9147) 2004 Clean Water Act (RA 9275) z agricultural and lowland areas, 2007 Biofuels Act (RA 9637) z urban areas, z coastal and marine ecosystems, plans with insufficiently integrated biodiversity z freshwater ecosystems, concerns. Major challenges thus remain to ensur- ing that the sustainable use and management of z improved management of biodiversity and the environment and natural resources are fully mineral resources. reflected in the implementation of future develop- The strategy establishes implementation mecha- ment plans and targets. nisms, as well as time-bound qualitative and process-related targets for the next 30 years, for The Environmental Policy Framework the relevant institutions (all stakeholders, includ- The first concentrated move toward sustainable ing donor institutions, are identified in the strat- development related to the principle of environ- egy). The action measures are mostly limited to mental sustainability was initiated with the Phil- the environmental field and subsumed into the ippine Strategy for Sustainable Development in country's medium- and long-term development 1987. The strategy's overall goal is "to achieve plans (the duration of each MTDP coincides with economic growth with adequate protection of the the six-year term of each administration; the long- 22 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) term plan is for 2000­25). Thus, the 1993­98 z Draft National Action Plan on Climate Change MTDP integrated a number of priority actions (2005) from UNCED, and the 2004­10 MTDP explicitly z National Implementation Plan on the removal states that the country will honor the international of POPs (2005) commitments made at UNCED. z Action Plan of the Coordinating Body of the This environmental legal framework has remained Seas of East Asia (2006) in effect in the Philippines despite the shifting political dynamics and periodic changes in gov- z Framework Plan for Environment and Natural ernment that have occurred since the ratification Resource (2006) of the 1987 constitution. Public participation and The various action plans call for concerted national discussion on environmental issues are a efforts by government, NGOs, and research fundamental aspect of the environmental politi- and academic institutions to gather secondary cal framework in the Philippines, contributing to a and primary data on the various themes and to high level of awareness of and involvement in deci- develop participatory and comprehensive plans sion making, mostly by urban civil society. Social for implementation. The completed plans often capital is particularly notable in the environmen- suffer from a lack of appropriations, and their tal sector, and the Philippines arguably has one of implementation relies heavily on raising the rev- the highest numbers of registered environmental enues provided for under the law and interna- NGOs in the world. tional cofinancing such as that provided by the Some of the statutes, decrees, and orders were cre- GEF. Constraints in policy implementation can ated in response to obligations contracted under also be attributed to systemic considerations such international conventions (such as the landmark as conflicting and inconsistent developmental and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan). conservation policies. Unclear mechanisms affect Among the plans and strategies adopted pursuant policy implementation and, sometimes, project to the new laws and international obligations and results. relevant to this evaluation are the following: Relevant International Treaties, z National Wetland Action Plan (1992) Conventions, and Protocols z National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Along with regional environment treaties, the (1997) Philippines has signed and ratified most interna- tional treaties and conventions related to environ- z Revised Master Plan for Forestry Development mental issues (see table 3.6). (2000) z Integrated Air Quality Improvement Frame- As described above, the Philippines has a highly work and Air Quality Action Plan (2000) developed legislative system, and several environ- ment laws have been in accordance with--and z Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities sometimes ahead of--international commitments. (2002) The Philippines has a good record of ratification z National Action Plan to Combat Desertifica- of conventions and treaties, even though it does tion, Land Degradation, Drought and Poverty not have a fully developed system for monitoring (2004­10) compliance. 3. Context of the Evaluation 23 Implementation problems are greatly mitigated The National Economic and Development by GEF enabling activity projects that facilitate Authority is the coordinating body for social and the development of national reports and action economic development planning and policy in the plans. This support makes it possible to develop Philippines. It is responsible for the formulation of projects linked to Philippine long- and medium- the country's MTDPs and for setting priority tar- term development plans, as well as alignment gets for environmental and natural resource man- of national action plans to international com- agement. The president of the Philippines is the mitments by keeping these in the forefront of chair of NEDA's board, and the heads of all major bureaucratic priorities. Note, for example, the government departments and agencies are NEDA major environmental changes in the MTDPs members. The board is assisted by five cabinet- since UNCED in 1992 and the Johannesburg level interagency committees: Development Bud- Conference in 2002. get Coordination, Infrastructure, Investment Table 3.6 Major International Conventions and Treaties Ratified by the Philippines Focal area/international agreement Year of ratification Biodiversity Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1981 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 1993 Accession to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 1994 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention) 1993 Cartagena Biosecurity Protocol 2006 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources 2006 Climate change Ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1994 Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2003 POPs and hazardous wastes Montreal Protocol 1993 Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal 1993 (Basel Convention) Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants 2004 Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides 2006 in International Trade (Rotterdam Convention) International waters United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1984 Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation 1995 Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 2001 Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and 2005 Central Pacific Ocean and Its Annexes Land degradation United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification 2000 24 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Coordination, Tariff and Related Matters, and as to maximize and extend benefits and impacts Social Development. Two of these committees beyond project life. This role derives from plan- are of particular importance for natural resource ning required for the next MTDP and is therefore management: not bound by the time lines of specific projects. Further, NEDA's involvement with the Philippine z Development Budget Coordination Com- Council for Sustainable Development facilitates mittee. This committee advises the president its playing a large role in the identification, prepa- on annual government spending, spending for ration, and monitoring of project performance development activities, and capital outlays for and impacts. specific investments and infrastructure proj- ects. It thus plays a major role in determining budgets for agencies, programs, and projects Notes involving environmental and natural resource 1. El Niño and La Niña are part of a climate cycle management. referred to as the El Niño Southern Oscillation. During El Niño, warmer than average sea surface z Investment Coordination Committee. This temperatures occur in the equatorial central and committee advises the president on domes- eastern Pacific; during La Niña, cooler than aver- tic and foreign borrowing and evaluates and age sea surface temperatures predominate. This reports on the fiscal, monetary, and balance cycle is an important component of the global climate system, and its phases affect weather on a of payments implications of major national global scale. projects. It thus plays an important role in determining which foreign-assisted projects 2. A biodiversity hotspot is a biogeographic region involving environmental and natural resource that is both a significant reservoir of biodiver- sity and is threatened with destruction. Twenty- management go forward. five biodiversity hotspots have been identified by Conservation International around the world. A NEDA also chairs the Philippine Council for Sus- megadiversity country is one of the small number tainable Development, which has a subcommittee of countries, located largely in the tropics, that on biodiversity conservation headed by the DENR account for a high percentage of the world's biodi- Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau. NEDA is versity by virtue of containing very large numbers of species. also represented in the Interagency Committee on Climate Change. 3. In fact, in 2004, the emissions were about 77 mil- lion tons, which is lower than projected by the While NEDA's purview does not specifically ALGAS project. See United Nations Statistical extend to agency-level implementation, its mis- Databases. sion clearly gives it some measure of authority to 4. Carbon sinks are forest and other ecosystems that intervene in ensuring that projects are sufficiently absorb carbon, thereby removing it from the atmo- integrated into agency and national systems so sphere and offsetting CO2 emissions. 3. Context of the Evaluation 25 4. Activities Funded by the GEF in the Philippines Over the past 15 years, the GEF has supported a strategy since 1997. The most recent country SGP wide and diverse range of activities in the Philip- strategy has six main goals and covers the period pines together with its national and multinational 2005­08. Chapter 6 discusses if and how these partners. The support has, to some extent, been projects--with and without a unifying strategy-- characterized by stand-alone projects scattered have been relevant to and supportive of Philippine throughout the island state. Thus, the country environmental priorities and the national sustain- portfolio has evolved through individual proj- able development agenda. ect efforts and has not been guided by an overall country program. Also influencing the portfolio For the purposes of this evaluation, GEF support have been the individual country strategies the to the Philippines was considered in the follow- GEF Agencies have executed over the years. This ing six categories: situation has changed in recent years, and there z All national projects either completed or under is now an emerging tendency toward a more pro- implementation; this includes both full-size proj- grammatic approach, such as, for example, the ects (FSPs) and medium-size projects (MSPs) World Bank's Environment and Natural Resources Management program. z Project development facility grants (PDF-A, PDF-B, and PDF-C), which constitute the coun- Several sector and thematic evaluations have con- try's project "pipeline" cluded that, in spite of massive support to the Philippine environment and natural resource sec- z Enabling activities tor, its overall status and trend is one of decline z The Small Grants Programme (DENR and UNDP 2002, World Bank 2004, ADB z Regional projects (shared by the Philippines 2004). This has led to attempts to formulate an overall framework for future support to the sec- and other Southeast Asia countries) tor (World Bank 2005; DENR and UNDP 2002, z Global projects (shared by the Philippines and 2005). However, the present country portfolio countries on other continents) still consists of projects or groups of projects that z Support to the GEF operational focal point have evolved as individual activities. On the other hand, the Small Grants Programme in the Phil- A complete list of the activities funded by the GEF ippines has been guided by a country program in the Philippines can be found in annex C. 26 4.1 Activities Considered in the exclusively in the Philippines, and (2) the activity Evaluation was either completed or is still active. These crite- ria were used to define a group of homogeneous The evaluation did not include all the activities and feasible activities to be analyzed with available supported by the GEF in the Philippines. Primarily, resources of budget and time. The group of activi- it excluded regional and global projects not based ties considered in this evaluation is presented in in the Philippines and projects still in the pipe- table 4.1. Annex D presents the list of projects that line. Two criteria were used to select the activities were not included in the evaluation, specifically, that were assessed: (1) the activity was carried out five regional projects and seven global projects. Table 4.1 GEF-Supported Activities in the Philippines Included in the Evaluation GEF Agency/ national executing Project title Focal area agency Modality Completed activities (16) Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Biodiversity WB/DENR & NIPA FSP Preparation of the Philippines First National Report to the CBD and Biodiversity UNDP/DENR EA Establishment of a CHM Assessment of Capacity Building Needs for Biodiversity Conservation Biodiversity UNDP/DENR EA and Management in the Philippines Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation in Mindanao Biodiversity WB/DENR FSP Samar Island Biodiversity Project: Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity UNDP/DENR FSP the Biodiversity of a Forested Protected Area Sustainable Management of Mount Isarog Biodiversity UNDP/CARE MSP Conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park and World Biodiversity UNDP/WWF MSP Heritage Site Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund­Philippines Biodiversity WB/CI FSP Asia Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy Climate change UNDP/DENR EA Preparation of the National Communication Program in Response to Its Climate change UNDP/DENR EA Commitments to UNFCCC Additional Financing for Capacity Building in Priority Areas Climate change UNDP/DENR EA Leyte-Luzon Geothermal Climate change WB/PNOC & NPC FSP Initial Assistance to the Philippines to Meet Its Obligations under the POPs UNDP/DENR EA Stockholm Convention on POPs National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Environmental Multifocal UNDP/DENR EA Management Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas Int'l waters UNDP/PEMSEA FSP Building Partnerships for the Environmental Protection and Manage- Int'l waters UNDP/PEMSEA FSP ment of the East Asian Seas Activities under implementation (13) Asian Conservation Company Tranche I Biodiversity WB-IFC/ACC FSP Asian Conservation Company Tranche II Biodiversity WB-IFC/ACC FSP (continued) 4. Activities Funded by the GEF in the Philippines 27 Table 4.1 GEF-Supported Activities in the Philippines Included in the Evaluation (continued) GEF Agency/ national executing Project title Focal area agency Modality Biodiversity Conservation and Management of the Bohol Islands Biodiversity UNDP/FPE MSP Marine Triangle Integrated Coastal Resources Management Project Biodiversity ADB/DENR & LGU FSP Palawan New and Renewable Energy and Livelihood Support Project Climate change UNDP/DOE MSP Efficient Lighting Market Transformation Project Climate change UNDP/DOE FSP Metro Manila Urban Transport Integration Project - Marikina Bikeways Climate change WB/LGU Marikina FSP CEPALCO Distributed Generation Photovoltaic Power Plant Climate change WB-IFC/DOE FSP Rural Power Climate change WB-UNDP/DOE FSP Capacity Building to Remove Barriers to Renewable Energy Climate change UNDP/DOE FSP Development Philippines Sustainable Energy Finance Program Climate change WB-IFC FSP Electric Cooperative System Loss Reduction Project Climate change WB/DOE FSP Implementation of Available, Non-Combustion Technologies for POPs UNDP-UNIDO/DENR FSP Destroying Persistent Organic Pollutants Activities in the pipeline (2) Climate Change Adaptation Project a Climate change WB/DENR Mindanao Rural Development Program Phase II­Coastal and Marine Multifocal WB/DENR Ecosystem Conservation Componentb Note: CI = Conservation International; EA = enabling activity; LGU = local government unit; WB = World Bank. a. Project identification form approved October 2006. b. Project identification form approved December 2006. Activities by GEF Agency and National The World Bank has implemented the following Executing Agency GEF initiatives in the Philippines: Of the 10 GEF Implementing and Executing Agen- z 10 FSPs in four focal areas, representing about cies, only two--the World Bank and UNDP--have 64 percent of GEF portfolio funding in the Phil- a significant number of projects in the Philip- ippines ($91.29 million) pines. The third GEF Implementing Agency, the z 4 projects--two in biodiversity and two in cli- United Nations Environment Programme, is only mate change--executed through the World involved in regional projects; the Executing Agen- Bank's International Finance Corporation cies ADB and UNIDO have only just begun to (IFC), with total funding of $13.83 million implement GEF projects in the Philippines. While the World Bank and UNDP have participated in z 1 FSP in biodiversity, the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, which is managed in the the same number of activities, the World Bank Philippines by Conservation International, for projects tend to have larger budgets than UNDP's. $1.75 million Figure 4.1 shows GEF support in the Philippines distributed by Agency and focal area; figure 4.2 UNDP participation has included all the funding shows shares of Agency support. modalities available through the GEF. In particu- 28 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Figure 4.1 SGP. In all, UNDP GEF projects in the Philippines GEF Funding in the Philippines by GEF Agency and total $24.89 million, or about 17 percent of total Focal Area GEF funding. Million $ ADB became a GEF Agency with direct access to 110 100 the GEF only in 2004 and has thus had limited par- 90 International waters ticipation in the GEF portfolio in the Philippines. POPs 80 ADB is implementing one FSP in biodiversity for Multifocal 70 $9.43 million; this represents about 7 percent of Climate change 60 GEF funding in the Philippines. Biodiversity 50 40 UNIDO, another new GEF Agency, is beginning 30 joint implementation of a POPs project with 20 UNDP worth $4.57 million, or about 3 percent of 10 GEF funding in the Philippines. 0 World Bank UNDP ADB UNIDO The Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Department of Energy are the primary national executing agencies, although Figure 4.2 others are involved as well, as detailed below. Fig- Distribution of GEF Funding in the Philippines by ure 4.3 shows the activities supported by the GEF GEF Agency in the Philippines distributed by executing agency and focus area; figure 4.4 shows shares of total UNIDO support by executing agency. 3% z As the main executing agency and GEF OFP, the DENR has executed 15 activities in four ADB 6% focal areas, sometimes in collaboration with local NGOs, such as the Conservation of Pri- UNDP World Bank ority Protected Areas project. In all, the DENR 74% 17% has executed nine FSPs and six enabling activi- ties totaling $58.49 million, or about 40 percent of GEF funding. z The DOE has been particularly active in execut- ing GEF climate change projects. In all, it has executed six such activities: five FSPs, two of which are jointly executed with the private sec- tor through IFC; and one MSP/enabling activity. lar, UNDP has implemented 15 activities in four The total budget executed has been $41.46 mil- focal areas through the following funding modali- lion, or about 29 percent of GEF funding. ties: three FSPs, four MSPs, six enabling activities, z The Philippine National Oil Company-Energy and one PDF-B. Additionally, UNDP has disbursed Development Corporation/National Power Com- $5.78 million to about 208 projects through the pany (PNOC-EDC/NPC) has executed one proj- 4. Activities Funded by the GEF in the Philippines 29 Figure 4.3 z The private sector is executing two Philippine GEF Funding in the Philippines by National activities, with a combined budget of $4.50 mil- Executing Agency lion, or about 3 percent of total GEF support. Two DOE-executed projects also include Million $ 70 financing for private sector activities. International waters 60 POPs z Local government units, in conjunction with 50 NGOs, have executed only one project, with a Multifocal 40 Climate change total GEF funding of $1.48 million. Several GEF 30 Biodiversity projects target local government units; however, 20 the exact amount of project funding that has 10 been executed by local government units under 0 DENR DOE PNOC- Local NGOs Private these projects could not be determined based EDC/NPC gov't sector units on the information available for the evaluation. Activities by Focal Area Figure 4.4 The largest focal area supported in the GEF port- GEF Support by National Executing Agency folio is climate change, which accounts for about Private sector 55 percent of the supported activities. Biodiver- Local 3% sity follows, which accounts for about 31 percent government units 1% of GEF funds in the Philippines. The multifocal NGOs area accounts for about 11 percent of funds; the 7% remaining funds are for POPs and international waters projects (see figure 4.5). DENR PNOC-EDC/NPC 40% 21% Figure 4.5 GEF Support to the Philippines by Focal Area DOE 28% POPs 3% Int'l Multifocal waters 11% <1% ect, the Leyte-Luzon Geothermal climate change initiative. This was executed with $30 million in Biodiversity Climate change 31% 55% GEF support, or about 21 percent of total. z Collectively, NGOs have executed five projects, all in biodiversity, through two FSPs and three MSPs for a total of $9.74 million or 7 percent. NGOs have also been the main executors of SGP initiatives. 30 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) z Climate change. Thirteen activities have been z Multifocal. Four multifocal activities have been or are in the process of being executed--seven or are in the process of being executed--two by by the World Bank, including two by IFC; and the World Bank (FSPs), one by UNDP (enabling five by UNDP. Nine are FSPs, one is an MSP, activity), and another project through the SGP. two are enabling activities. The last one is sup- z POPs. Two activities have been or are in the ported through the SGP. process of being executed--one each by UNDP z Biodiversity. Fourteen activities have been or and UNIDO. One is an FSP; the other, an are in the process of being executed--eight by enabling activity. UNDP; four by the World Bank, including two by IFC; one by ADB; and one by NGOs. Seven Activities by Objective are FSPs; three are MSPs; two are enabling The specific objectives addressed in the activities activities; and two are PDFs, one granted supported by the GEF in the Philippines are sum- through the SGP, and the other through the marized in table 4.2. A more detailed presentation CEPF. of project objectives related to global benefits and Table 4.2 Main Objectives of GEF-Supported Activities Included in the Evaluation Activity objective Focal area FSP MSP Enabling activity SGP Biodiversity y Terrestrial and marine protected areas y Rehabilitation of y Preparation of the Philippines establishment and management ecosystems First National Report to the y Capacity development y Strengthening United Nations Convention on y Ecosystem management law enforcement Biodiversity y Alternative livelihood generation y Payment for y Establishment of a clearing- environmental house mechanism y Policy and action plans development services y Capacity needs assessment y Biodiversity monitoring y Legislation y Private partnerships for biodiversity conservation y Collaborative protected areas y Integrated coastal resources management management Climate y Climate change adaptation Removing barriers y Preparation of the National Projects change y Solar energy to commercial utili- Communication to the related y Geothermal energy zation of renewable UNFCCC to all energy systems to y Additional capacity building focal y Energy efficiency substitute for the on climate change areas y Cleaner energy use of diesel gen- y Reduction of energy loss erators in Palawan y Increased access to local sources of financ- ing for renewable energy and energy efficiency Multifocal y Institutional strengthening National capacity self-assess- y Ecosystem management ment to manage the global y Payment for ecosystem services environment POPs Implementation of available noncombus- Preparation of the national plan tion technologies for destroying POPs for implementing the Stockholm Convention 4. Activities Funded by the GEF in the Philippines 31 local environmental impacts is in annex G, which Since 1997, the SGP has operated with a country includes this information for relevant GEF-sup- program strategy, which has been revised several ported regional and global projects as well. times. The latest strategy incorporates both GEF focal areas and a geographical focus: Small Grants Programme z Support actions that promote biodiversity con- The GEF SGP in the Philippines was initiated in servation in selected/priority biogeographic 1992. An independent national steering commit- regions, specifically, Sierra Madre (Luzon), tee determines the overall SGP strategy in the Liguasan Marsh (Mindanao), Cebu (Visayas), country, screens projects, provides technical sup- and Negros-Panay (Visayas). port, and oversees the program's management. The committee's members are drawn from vari- z Address concerns of indigenous peoples; in par- ous disciplines and include scientists, academics, ticular, strengthen support for their knowledge environmental and development practitioners, systems in recognition of the role of indigenous and government representatives. Table 4.3 pres- people as guardians of the rich and fragile bio- ents the evolution of the SGP portfolio during the diversity areas. different phases of the program. Table 4.4 shows z Integrate education and awareness activities the distribution of grants to FSPs and smaller and advocacy work in projects. planning activities by focal area. z Institutionalize a system that will allow grass- roots organizations to choose who they can Table 4.3 access for technical needs. Number of Projects by Focal Area and SGP Phase z Support projects that take a proactive "green Phase courts" approach (that is, environmental judi- Focal area Pilot 1 2 3 Total ciary activism), for example, in partnership Biodiversity 27 13 64 29 133 with the Philippine Judicial Academy under the Climate change 3 7 19 4 33 Supreme Court of the Philippines. POPs 3 3 z Ensure the protection of international waters Multifocal 5 3 22 7 37 from environmental impacts of activities from Not classified 1 1 2 within the territorial boundaries of the Philip- Total 35 23 106 44 208 pines. z Help mitigate climate change through the pro- Table 4.4 motion of renewable and sustainable energy in SGP Funding for Full Projects and Planning Grants, rural areas. by Focal Area Focal area Full Planning Total z Conduct active documentation and research Biodiversity 4,150,442 81,150 4,231,592 work in support of SGP modeling, replication, Climate change 789,912 38,551 828,464 and up-scaling, including working for full-scale POPs 0 6,853 6,853 sharing of lessons and experiences within and Multifocal 500,435 162,000 662,435 outside the Philippines. Not classified 48,000 2,497 50,497 z Promote environmentally sound management Total 5,488,789 291,051 5,779,840 of POPs and other chemicals. 32 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) The SGP has been and continues to be an impor- Reasons for this relative inactivity were that tant venue for civil society and its participation in (1) a large amount of GEF funding had been seeking solutions to critical environmental prob- invested in the area in the previous period; lems. Additionally, in recent years, the SGP has and (2) numerous administrative changes were succeeded in entering into cofunding schemes-- being made, including installation of a new GEF for example, with the governments of the Nether- focal point and restructuring of the GEF itself. lands and New Zealand. z GEF-2 (1999­2002) witnessed a surge in proj- The present status of SGP projects in the Philip- ect approvals and subsequent fund allocation: pines by focal area and implementation status is 44 percent of total GEF funding to the Philip- shown in figure 4.6. pines in all. z In GEF-3 (2003­06), there was a more diverse Figure 4.6 distribution of funds over four focal areas. Status of SGP Projects as of December 2006 Figure 4.7 shows how GEF support by focal area Number of projects and Agency has changed over time. 150 120 Completed Figure 4.7 65 Not yet active Ongoing Distribution of GEF Funding across GEF Phases 90 6 a. By focal area 60 Million $ 30 62 22 70 22 Multifocal 1 $0.2 1 1 1 60 POPs $0.5 10 2 14 1 0 50 Int'l waters Bio- Climate POPs Multifocal Not Climate change diversity change classi ed 40 Biodiversity $45.2 30 $30.0 $14.6 20 $4.6 $0.4 $3.2 4.2 Evolution of GEF Funding to 10 $15.5 <$0.1 $16.4 $9.3 0 the Philippines b. By GEF Agency The GEF has had a long-term presence in the Philippines, and each replenishment period has 70 UNIDO seen new initiatives and trends develop. 60 ADB 50 World Bank z Two large FSPs began in the GEF pilot phase: 40 UNDP $46.4 the Conservation of Priority Protected Areas 30 $4.6 $45.5 $9.3 and the Leyte-Luzon Geothermal projects. 20 10 $14.6 These two initiatives account for almost 33 per- <$0.10 $15.9 $3.2 0 cent of total GEF support to the Philippines. Pilot GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 phase z During GEF-1 (1995­98), no projects per se were approved, only two enabling activities. Note: Does not include SGP. 4. Activities Funded by the GEF in the Philippines 33 Cofinancing per year. The decline in ODA is most evident with Cofinancing has varied substantially over time, regard to Japanese aid to the Philippines. Although dropping dramatically from a level of 28.73 Japan remains the country's top ODA donor, its (almost $29 received from other donors for every annual average commitment of $1.05 billion from $1 provided by the GEF) in the pilot phase to 0.33 1991 to 1999 fell by 58 percent during the 2000­05 in GEF-1 (see table 4.5). This particular difference period to $446 million.1 The trend in ODA com- can be explained by the high level of cofinanc- mitments to the Philippines is illustrated in fig- ing--one of the largest for any GEF project world- ure 4.8. (Note that the figure includes all ODA wide--provided to the Leyte-Luzon Geothermal committed to the Philippines, not just aid to the project in the pilot phase, contrasted with the environmental sector.) A complete overview of absence of major activities in GEF-1. The ratio for ODA commitments and disbursements to the GEF-2 in the Philippines is slightly above the 2005 Philippines for the period 1991­2005 is provided global average: 4.7 versus 4.1. In GEF-3, the ratio in annex H. is slightly above the average level for East Asia and the Pacific, which in 2005 was 6.8 (GEF EO 2006). Figure 4.8 The East Asia and Pacific region historically pro- International Bilateral Aid Commitments to the vides more cofinancing than the rest of the world. Philippines, 1991­2005 Million $ Table 4.5 1,800 Total bilateral 1,600 Cofinancing Total and Ratio by GEF Replenishment 1,400 Period 1,200 Japan GEF phase Cofinancing (million $) Ratio 1,000 800 Pilot 1,308.13 28.73 600 GEF-1 0.02 0.33 400 United States GEF-2 292.98 4.71 200 Australia GEF-3 223.26 6.96 0 1991 1995 2000 2005 Total 1,824.39 13.05a Note: Cofunding to regional projects is not included. a. Average ratio; calculated by dividing total cofinancing by the GEF contribution. GEF support to the Philippines has, on average, been approximately $9 million annually for the past 15 years. With overall ODA commitments Changes in International Cooperation in decline, GEF support is becoming increasingly Assistance to the Philippines important to fulfillment of the national agenda and While some neighboring countries (Vietnam, environmental and natural resource priorities. for example) have experienced steep increases in official development assistance (ODA) during the Note past 15 years, the Philippines has not. From 1991 to 1999, the annual average ODA commitment to 1. Japan's net ODA has been on a downward trend since 2000, but the country has indicated it will the Philippines was $1.3 billion; this dropped by increase its ODA volume by $10 billion in aggre- 42 percent for the 2000­05 period to $0.75 billion gate over 2005­09 (DCD-DAC 2007). 34 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) 5. Results of GEF Support to the Philippines This chapter reviews the results, in terms of out- in chapter 3, the Philippines has 16 terrestrial bio- comes and impacts, from the various GEF-sup- geographical zones or subregions and 6 marine ported projects in the Philippines that have been subregions, each of which represents distinct and completed (see annex I) or are near completion. unique clusters of species found nowhere else The origins of these projects are also reviewed in the world. The distribution of these species is so as to assess whether the projects have helped complex and highly uneven, making it difficult advance the policy debate in the country. Results to assess threats to them across the ecosystems were measured using the following parameters: of the world, both within and across countries. Moreover, reliable and comprehensive data are z Global environmental impacts not uniformly available. In recognition of these z Catalytic and replication effects limitations, the GEF has established a Benefits z Institutional sustainability and capacity building Index for Biodiversity, which incorporates the fol- Information on results was compiled from final or lowing elements: near-final project evaluations and interviews. The z Magnitude of taxonomic variability at the spe- documentation focused mostly on outcomes and cies and higher levels, by recognizing species provided only limited information on impacts, richness with special emphasis on threatened suggesting that the existing documentation may species. As speciation is correlated with genetic not be an efficient tool for identifying and evalu- diversity, it also recognizes variability at the ating project impacts. genetic level. 5.1 Global Environmental Impacts z Large and unique ecoregions that provide opportunities for expansion in the global net- Biodiversity work of protected areas, both by area and spe- Because terrestrial and marine biodiversity is cies representation. clustered in unique ecological regions, it is useful z Explicit inclusion of marine and terrestrial bio- to specify a country's biodiversity in relationship diversity, recognizing their distinct contribu- to such ecoregions. According to WWF defini- tions to ecosystems in these spheres. tions, the Philippines has four such regions: Phil- ippines Moist Forests, Palawan Moist Forests, z Recognition that all biodiversity is important Philippines Freshwaters, and Sulu-Sulawesi Seas. and provision of opportunities for sustainable Using the biogeographical distinctions discussed use and the maintenance of ecosystem services 35 at various scales, by ensuring a minimum level range from upper mountain to lowland forest sys- of resources to all countries. tems and from freshwater wetlands to coastal and marine ecosystems). In line with the above, the evaluation established four levels of assessing possible achievements to Achievements in Biodiversity determine the global benefits derived from GEF z Conservation of species and genetic diver- support in the area of biodiversity: sity is addressed and diversity maintained z Conservation of species and genetic diver- or improved through project interventions. sity is addressed and diversity maintained or GEF-supported projects have been imple- improved through project interventions. mented in 10 of the 16 Philippine biogeographic regions (see table 5.1), thereby targeting con- z Project interventions are addressing conserva- servation at the species and subspecies levels, tion of critical ecosystems and habitats within including the majority of the country's endemic representative priority global ecoregions and and threatened species. However, in-scale proj- unique biogeographic regions. ects have largely targeted only about seven of z Ecosystem management approach is taken in the regions, and only the SGP and CEPF ini- project design and implementation. tiatives have focused to some degree on the z Environmental sustainability and sustainable regions where most of the critical threatened use are addressed and improved. species are located. Coastal and marine proj- ects have been or are about to be implemented Context in five of the six marine regions. Almost 24 percent, or about 7.162 million hect- The project documents seldom describe what ares, of the Philippines is still forested; this, species or number of species the projects aim together with the country's 26,000 square kilome- to conserve. Similarly, the terminal evaluation ters of coral reef ecosystems, contributes greatly reports rarely describe what has been accom- to global biodiversity benefits--this is especially plished in terms of species management and true for the country's 829,000 hectares of primary conservation. Despite the lack of documentary forest, the most biologically diverse form of Phil- evidence, it is safe to conclude that numerous ippine ecosystem (Butler 2006). species have benefited from project outcomes in the form of management and policy inter- At the species level, the Philippines contributes to ventions. GEF-supported projects have, for global environmental benefits by hosting at least example, resulted in decreased hunting or fish- 10,600 described plant and land vertebrate species, ing and gathering of threatened species, slowed of which 63 percent is confined to the Philippine the destruction of habitats for numerous spe- ecoregion. Similarly, the coral reef ecosystems, cies, and established no-take zones and better with more than 17,000 described marine species, enforcement of in-place legislation to protect represent an extremely high level of biodiversity rare and vulnerable species. For land-based endemism. biodiversity, a number of single-species popu- Given this high level of biodiversity, project inter- lations are documented to have been better ventions are needed in each of the country's regions maintained, including the critical threatened and their representative major ecosystems, which Philippine eagle, Cebu flowerpecker, and Phil- 36 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Table 5.1 enabling documentation of trends on a num- Biogeographic Distribution of GEF Funding to ber of key indicator species or species under Biodiversity-Specific Projects in the Philippines, threat. The focus of the monitoring efforts has 1992­2006 been on numerous land and resource uses and Biogeographic region/zone FSP MSP SGP CEPF on conservation-dependent threatened species Terrestrial regions in several protected areas. A result reported 1. Batanes X ­ ­ ­ from just one GEF-supported project, Conser- 2. Babuyan ­ ­ ­ X vation of Priority Protected Areas, notes that 3. Greater Luzon X X X X more than 150 corresponding management 4. Lubang ­ ­ ­ ­ initiatives were taken by the local-level manag- 5. Greater Mindoro ­ ­ X X ers and communities over a period of less than 6. Greater Palawan X ­ X X three years (Danielsen and others 2007). 7. Burias ­ ­ ­ ­ 8. Sibuyan ­ ­ X ­ z Project interventions are addressing con- 9. Romblon­Tablas ­ ­ ­ ­ servation of critical ecosystems and habitats 10. Greater Negros­Panay X ­ X X within representative priority global ecore- 11. Greater Mindanao X X X X gions and unique biogeographic regions. The 12. Camotes ­ ­ ­ ­ seven completed and near-completed full- and 13. Siquior ­ ­ X ­ medium-size biodiversity projects have triggered 14. Camiguin ­ ­ X ­ substantial global benefits in about 7 out of 16 of 15. Greater Sulu ­ ­ ­ (X) the Philippine land-based biogeographic regions 16. Sibutu ­ ­ ­ ­ and 5 of the 6 marine regions. The projects have Total 5 2 8 6 often been concentrated in larger priority areas Marine regions in urgent need of conservation action. 1. Northern Philippine Sea X ­ X ­ Major results include expansion of the pro- 2. South China Sea X ­ X ­ tected area network with more than 2 million 3. Visayan Sea X X X ­ 4. Sulu Sea ­ X ­ ­ hectares of protected areas and at least 25 fish- 5. Sulawesi Sea X ­ ­ ­ ery marine protected areas being designated 6. Southern Philippine Sea ­ ­ ­ ­ or gazetted as a result of GEF-supported inter- Total 4 2 3 0 ventions. It is particularly noteworthy that one Note: (X) = partial distribution; ­ = not covered. project, Conservation of Priority Protected Areas, facilitated the country's first five repub- lic acts, which permanently established 5 of 10 ippine crocodile; some, including the Philip- project sites as protected areas. pine cockatoo, have even increased their popu- Some GEF-supported sites have received global lation. Among marine species, similar results or regional recognition as a result of their sig- have been reported for sea turtles, corals, and nificance. These include two sites that have dolphins, among others. been designated under the Ramsar Convention, The establishment of a GEF-supported par- one that obtained status as a World Heritage ticipatory local biodiversity monitoring system Site under UNESCO (Tubbataha Reef Marine under the DENR is a contributing factor to National Park), and one declared as 1 of 11 5. Results of GEF Support to the Philippines 37 Association of Southeast Asian Nations Heri- example, as a result of the CEPF, a recent presi- tage Sites (Mount Apo National Park). Addi- dential executive order declared all key biodi- tionally, the Turtle Islands Heritage Protected versity areas of global importance to biodiver- Area became the world's first transboundary sity to be critical habitats for management and marine protected area. protection. These include 128 areas defined for 209 globally threatened and 419 endemic spe- z Ecosystem management approach is taken cies of freshwater fish, amphibians, reptiles, in project design and implementation. There birds, and mammals, as well as for 62 species are no measurable outcomes or impacts noted of congregatory birds. The areas cover approxi- in the project documentation regarding use mately 20 percent of the total land area of the of an ecosystem management approach. The Philippines. focus on such an approach has shifted over the years, and it was particularly strong during Further Opportunities the GEF pilot phase. Only very recently have While impressive, the GEF impact involving pro- GEF Agencies and the Philippine government tected areas appears to be fragile, and the results begun to design projects integrating marine to may not be sustained. The vast majority of Phil- upland ecosystems in a single project package ippine biodiversity and ecosystems continue to and implementation approach. The shift is now be under massive use and severe pressure due to seen in the inclusion of integrated conserva- the needs of increasing populations, inequitable tion and development projects under the GEF land distribution, unsustainable resource and land multifocal area program. A more integrated use practices, and uneven distribution of wealth approach in natural resource management is derived from biodiversity-related extraction. also a result of lessons learned from previous GEF projects. Concurrent with the 1990­2005 expansion of 2 mil- z Environmental sustainability and sustain- lion hectares in protected areas, the Philippines lost able use are addressed and improved. Sev- approximately 3.4 million hectares--about 32 per- eral projects have been able to catalyze policy cent--of its forest cover. Measuring the total rate action to strengthen natural resource manage- of habitat conversion from 1990 to 2005, the Phil- ment at the local and national levels, support- ippines lost 7.9 percent of its forest and woodland ing new and strengthening existing institutions habitat (Butler 2006). Figure 5.1 shows the decline to enhance good governance and transparency in natural forests in the 1990­2000 decade. in decision making involving natural resources, Unfortunately, the national budget for protected bolstering civil society capacity both of indi- areas and the human resources to manage them vidual and networks of NGOs, and increasing remain insufficient to maintain even those areas knowledge regarding the status of biodiversity declared as protected prior to the GEF program, in the Philippines. much less those created or expanded with GEF z The major achievements supported by the GEF support. Given the scale of the protected areas in this area include the establishment of more network expansion, a better approach might have democratic and participatory management been to support a concerted effort involving other boards for protected areas and development of donors, the major conservation NGOs, and the management plans and tenure instruments. For DENR and to put in place a national long-term 38 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Figure 5.1 The biodiversity interventions supported by the Percentage Change in Forest Area by Type, GEF have probably slowed the downward trend 1990­2000 for a number of the country's threatened species, and the numbers and threat levels appear to have Natural forests World stabilized--at least for the time being (Posa and Asiaa others 2007). However, the number of globally Philippines threatened fauna and flora in the Philippines at risk of extinction stands as one of the highest of Plantations any country in the world, and several subspecies -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 have already become extinct (IUCN 2006). Percentage change 1990­2000 The general lack of skilled staff in natural resource a. Asia does not include the Middle East. and biodiversity management means that capacity development efforts are generally standard outputs financing mechanism for protected areas of global of GEF projects. Current training initiatives fea- importance. However, there are currently no ture the application of a mix of nonformal training agreements within the government and the donor methods and development of needs-based project community as to what should be the long-term training materials. Evaluation results reveal, how- biodiversity-unique priority areas for external ever, that little documentation exists of what was assistance. Attempts to manage and sustain bio- achieved, by how many and how, or if the capacity diversity are therefore fragmented, and assistance development effort improved capacities at indi- to areas of critical importance takes place under vidual or institutional levels. In general, the proj- different portfolios and without a government ects have failed to get a better grasp of what kind program approach. of new institutional and university curriculum arrangements are needed to address biodiversity The GEF-supported projects mostly focus on the and natural resource management capacity con- larger Philippine islands. This means that little or straints and, in this way, transfer capacity-build- no attention is devoted to the unique ecosystems ing efforts and responsibilities away from project and extremely vulnerable biodiversity found on portfolios and to the main government agencies such islands as Sulu and Sibuyan, Romblon-Tablas, and universities responsible for the country's edu- and Siquior and Camiguin, even though this is cational system. where the country's highest numbers of threat- ened species occur and where all natural habitats Most of the protected areas created or expanded are nearly depleted or soon to be fully converted. with GEF support contain numerous communi- Conservation funding for these islands had been ties and significant agricultural area. While this difficult to access in recent years due to the focus approach encourages a broad range of participa- of limited resources on the longer term promise of tion in resource use issues through a protected area conservation in the few remaining larger forested management board, it also potentially complicates landscapes in the Philippines. Only the CEPF and, management objectives and risks mission drift. to a lesser extent, the SGP have financed some Moreover, the protected areas are severely under- small-scale interventions within these biogeo- staffed, and only a very few ecologists have been graphic regions. assigned to guide conservation management. 5. Results of GEF Support to the Philippines 39 A large proportion of the Philippine population Climate Change lives in or adjacent to the resource-rich areas, GEF projects in climate change aim to help devel- and a significant percentage of local subsistence oping countries and economies in transition to livelihood and protein intakes of the people contribute to the overall objective of the United is derived from forest, wetland, and marine Nations Framework Convention on Climate resources. The Philippines is thus culturally Change. The objectives of the support are to mini- and economically closely linked to and highly mize climate change damage by reducing its risk dependent on natural ecosystems. Improving and/or adverse effects through climate change livelihoods has been a crucial part of biodiver- mitigation and climate change adaptation. sity projects as a consequence. Successful initia- tives under the coastal- and marine-based proj- The GEF operational strategy for climate change ects have been able to contribute to increased placed initial emphasis on four operational pro- income for local people while enabling them grams addressing long-term program priorities to shift their sources of income away from to mitigate climate change.1 The nine full- and depleted species and thereby reduce pressure medium-size climate change projects in the Phil- on the resources. This appears not to be the case ippines have focused on the following: for the land-based projects, which have largely z Promoting the adoption of renewable energy failed to achieve success. by removing barriers and reducing implemen- In many of the critical conservation areas sup- tation costs (four projects) ported by the GEF, there are numerous small- z Removing barriers to energy conservation and and medium-size livelihood-focused develop- energy efficiency (three projects) ment projects. Up until now, there has been insufficient emphasis on cofinancing and z Reducing the long-term costs of low-GHG- comanaging livelihood activities. Many projects emitting energy technologies (one project) in the same area are often implemented in iso- z Promoting sustainable transport (one project) lation--and even duplication, as noted during the evaluation field visits--and without link- In addition, the Climate Change Adaptation Proj- ages to local development strategies. To some ect, which was in the pipeline at the time of the extent, the development of livelihood activities evaluation, will focus on adaptation aspects of cli- seems to have become a livelihood strategy on mate change including enhanced resilience to the its own, with some local organizations shifting adverse impacts of climate change for vulnerable from one donor to another once the source of sectors. funds dries up. A programmatic approach that would integrate development programs with Context biodiversity and natural resource management The GEF Benefits Index for Climate Change seeks programs in the key priority areas should be to determine the potential global benefits that can established. In this context, it should be noted be realized from climate change mitigation activi- that the GEF FSPs and MSPs do not coordinate ties in a country. It is constructed from two indica- with the SGP projects operating in the same tors: baseline GHG emissions for the year 2000 in areas, even though these address livelihood tons of carbon equivalent and a carbon intensity support activities. adjustment factor computed as the ratio of carbon 40 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) intensity in 1990 to that in 2000. In keeping with z put in place necessary legislation and policies current GEF programs and strategies, only carbon enabling increased energy conservation and emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement energy efficiency through reduced costs of low- and the emission of other GHGs are included in GHG-emitting technologies. the baseline emissions. GHG emissions associated Thanks to new, innovative laws and a strategic with land use changes have not been included in shift toward environmentally friendly energy the baseline figures, although this would have been diversification--in turn due to the enabling assis- highly relevant in the case of the Philippines. tance provided by a number of donors, including The distribution of baseline GHG emission levels the GEF--substantial progress in this focal area is across eligible GEF recipient countries is highly being made. GHG emissions have been reduced skewed, with 30 countries accounting for 85 per- or avoided through project interventions, and the cent of total GHG emissions, and the remaining impact of GEF-supported projects are now per- 137 countries accounting for 15 percent. The manently reducing the country's CO2 emissions Philippines belongs to the group of countries with to about 2.26 million tons per year. Compared least emissions, at the level of India, and lower to alternative coal-fired-based plants, this would than, for example, Samoa as measured by CO2 imply incremental CO2 emissions at the same emission equivalents in tons per person: 1.37 for level. Measured against the 1990 baseline, this the Philippines, and 2.47 for Samoa as of 1994 represents about 6 percent of the national annual (DENR 1999). emission level. The achievements made in expanding the net- Achievements in Climate Change work of forested protected areas under the biodi- The Philippines has, with support from the GEF, versity focal area are also contributing to reduc- initiated several enabling activities to produce ing CO2 emissions: more than 2 million hectares global climate change benefits. In particular, the of protected forest is neutralizing carbon emis- country has been able to sions while maintaining unique global biodiver- z identify and implement strategies that reduce sity. Similarly, a secondary benefit of the Leyte- GHG emissions and improve local air qual- Luzon Geothermal climate change project is that ity while meeting public health and economic 31,000 hectares of the forest where the plant is development objectives; located are effectively protected and function as a climate change carbon sequestration area. z provide stakeholders with quantitative esti- mates of global and local cobenefits of GHG- GEF support has piloted several initiatives. These reducing policies and technologies; include significant offset of GHG emissions through a range of renewable technology options z engage national stakeholders to lay the ground- (mini-hydro subprojects, geothermal energy, and work for the adoption of cost-effective alterna- solar power energy) and innovative approaches tive renewable energy; to reducing geothermal CO2 emissions by rein- z build analytical, institutional, and human fusion of CO2 to underground geothermal wells; capacity for multidisciplinary monitoring and this promising technology may be replicated else- analysis of GHG mitigation and environmental where, even though it did not prove successful impacts of alternative strategies; in the Leyte-Luzon plant because of the particu- 5. Results of GEF Support to the Philippines 41 lar chemistry of this site. One rural pilot project given that climate change trends have been well seems promising in reducing the long-term costs documented by the Intergovernmental Panel for of low-GHG-emitting energy technologies by Climate Change. The GEF-supported adaptation bringing together the solar and river-flow poten- project that is about to be implemented may con- tial of developing countries in an environmentally tribute substantially to the government's focus on friendly way. The project's power plant is the first widescale adaptation to the development prob- demonstration of its kind anywhere in the world lems that increases in temperature and sea level and serves as a model for replication throughout and changes in weather patterns are creating. the prospective global market. Although promotion of sustainable transport was The greatest potential global benefit of some of piloted through one project intervention and its these innovative pilot projects lies in their long- introduction of nonmotorized transport alterna- term emission-reduction potentials. More strate- tives has been moderately successful, it has not gic reductions that several of the GEF-supported been replicated elsewhere in the country. New projects will bring about are helping to reduce approaches to alternative transport are greatly costs, remove barriers, and expand markets for needed, but legislation is still pending. The issue renewable energy in both the Philippines and glob- comes down to resolving whether encouragement ally. Such developments are expected to produce of bicycling in a hot, humid country merits large- far greater reductions in future GHG emissions. scale replication or if the electrified mass trans- portation that the country is presently backing Further Opportunities would bring about significant local environmental Although the energy sector contributes signifi- benefits and contribute to global benefits. cantly to GHG emissions, accounting for about International Waters 49 percent of the national total, a relatively large portion of GHG emissions stems from the agri- GEF projects to reverse the degradation of inter- cultural sector, particularly through land degra- national waters are informed by, and help to realize dation and conversion of forest. From a strategic the objectives of, a mosaic of regional and interna- point of view, the GEF Agencies in partnership tional waters agreements. These projects enable with government and the private sector could be countries to recognize and learn more about the expected to pilot more multifocal area projects water-related challenges they share, find ways to that could address climate change mitigation as work together, and undertake important domestic well as the reasons behind land degradation and changes in order to solve problems. The primary conversion of forest land. This may include more global environmental benefits are incremental efficient forest management linked to a strategic marine environmental improvements demon- approach to carbon sequestration at the local and strated through working models on marine pollu- national levels. tion reduction/prevention and risk management. Climate change adaptation has become, albeit Context belatedly, a top priority in the Philippine develop- Except for a few SGP projects, there have been no ment agenda. The late focus in building up adap- national GEF-supported projects implemented tive resilience to the adverse impacts of climate under the international waters operational pro- change comes perhaps at a high economic price gram. However, the Philippines does participate in 42 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) both regional and global GEF-supported projects of coastal local government units to provide a plat- aimed at addressing national and transboundary form for scaling up and replication in the country. water pollution through local and regional agree- The initiatives have been institutionalized at the ments, implementation of protection measures of national and local levels of government and serve fishery habitats, and unsustainable exploitation of as valuable examples of how GEF support has fisheries through participatory partnership and facilitated improved governance and enabled the on-the-ground actions. respective governments and stakeholders to con- front and overcome many of the challenges and Among the regional projects supported by the constraints to sustainable development of marine GEF are four national components under the and coastal resources. PEMSEA umbrella. Because its regional program office is located in the Philippines (housed in the Further Opportunities DENR), this is the only international waters pro- International waters activities are often catalytic gram included in this evaluation. The PEMSEA and difficult to evaluate. Although the overall sus- program is intended to reverse environmental tainability of project outcomes and impacts at the degradation trends and to generate benefits in national level appears highly likely, sustainability different GEF focal areas including cross-cutting may not be likely at the regional level, which would issues on land degradation, water bodies, con- provide the program's main global environmental taminants, and development and implementation benefits. No regional framework was developed of public-private partnerships in environmental to allow immediate GEF withdrawal: given the investments. It has established a regional strategy complexity, magnitude, and geographic size of the and framework--the Sustainable Development project site, substantial efforts will be required to Strategy for the Seas of East Asia--and a regional build a policy environment, working models, and implementing mechanism which includes an innovative approaches and methodologies. intergovernmental, multisectoral partnership council. Twelve countries, including the Philip- POPs pines, participate in the PEMSEA program. The objective of GEF's support in this focal area Achievements is to help reduce and eliminate releases of 12 PEMSEA has established a network of national POPs, including pesticides and industrial chemi- and subregional integrated environmental man- cals as well as unintentionally produced POPs. agement programs throughout the East Asian seas, Aside from one enabling activity, no projects have facilitated a critical mass of national and regional yet been implemented in this area. A National multidisciplinary technical expertise in environ- Implementation Plan has been adopted, interven- mental and marine and coastal management, and tion barriers have been removed, and there is an established integrated coastal zone management enhanced capacity to implement enabling proj- sites. In the Philippines, PEMSEA has a dem- ects to destroy POPs. One project was planned for onstration site at Batangas City and two parallel implementation in 2007. integrated coastal zone management projects in the provinces of Bataan and Cavite. An integrated Multifocal Areas Manila Bay action plan has been developed, and Support to multifocal projects in the Philippines technical assistance is being provided to a number is new, and there are only two approved projects 5. Results of GEF Support to the Philippines 43 awaiting implementation in this area. They are activities addressing POPs have also served as therefore not included in this assessment. The catalysts for application of the Basel and Rot- objectives of these projects fall within the biodi- terdam Conventions, thus helping merge key versity (coastal, marine, and freshwater ecosys- components of hazardous chemical manage- tems and forest ecosystems), multifocal (inte- ment policy into a single process among differ- grated ecosystem management), and sustainable ent agencies. land management operational programs. z The National Capacity Self-Assessment enabling activity is intended to be integrated or linked 5.2 Catalytic and Replication Effects to other relevant GEF-funded projects and GEF Agencies and external reviews have pro- activities such as the biodiversity, POPs, and duced no documentation or in any way highlight climate change add-on enabling activities and efforts made in the areas of catalytic and repli- the recently approved Capacity Building to cation effects. This information gap obviates a Remove Barriers to Renewable Energy Devel- full analysis. Based on the information available, opment Project. the overall result is less than satisfactory when it z From the GEF grant for the Leyte-Luzon Geo- comes to synergy, coordination, and replication thermal project, PNOC-EDC/NPC was able to between and among GEF Agencies, donors, and replicate the methodology in quantifying the government agencies. protection afforded by natural vegetation that serves as a sink to CO2 in the atmosphere. The About 60 percent of the projects reviewed appeared methodology established in the project was not to have had any form of synergetic approach used in other company geothermal projects in and thereby missed opportunities for catalytic and Southern Negros and Mindanao. replication effects. Even less satisfactory results are shown across sectors, and between GEF and z Solar-powered voltaic projects were designed government agencies. Nevertheless, there are a to complement ongoing GEF photovoltaic proj- number of examples of GEF-supported activities ects, which are primarily aimed at the off-grid that had catalytic and replication effects among market. They also complement IFC-GEF initia- government programs or between projects, nota- tives targeting efficient use of electricity in the bly the following: Philippines, as well as GEF-financed renewable energy projects and programs. z The catalytic effect of the pilot regional Asian Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strat- z The lessons learned on biodiversity monitor- egy project aims at ensuring that the energy ing systems for protected areas institutional- sector starts reducing future GHG emissions in ized this requirement of the United Nations the Philippines. Convention on Biological Diversity within the DENR, and the system has since been repli- z Some of the Philippine enabling activities have cated by other donor projects and NGOs not a strong catalytic effect, bringing together a only in the Philippines but in other regions of wider audience from all sectors of society, with the world as well. potential replication across sectors. For exam- ple, while designed to comply with the require- z The regional PEMSEA program is largely ments of the Stockholm Convention, enabling catalytic, with replication taking place across 44 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) a number of countries in the region including 5.3 Capacity Building and the Philippines. The program has established a Institutional Sustainability regional strategy and implementing mechanism Projects' capacity development aspects were which have been adopted by all 12 participat- assessed through document review and selected ing countries. The strategy allowed for replica- interviews. These findings, along with those of tion and scaling up of best practices from one other relevant Office evaluations, will be fur- country to another--and even within a country, ther detailed in a forthcoming Evaluation of GEF as seen in the integrated coastal zone manage- Capacity Development Activities. The overall ment demonstration site. assessment for the Philippines is that capacity z The GEF-supported CEPF approached integra- development results are mixed. In some projects, tion of spatial regional development planning such as Coastal and Marine Biodiversity in Min- with conservation priority setting and estab- danao, capacity building has been achieved with lishment of landscape-protected biodiversity positive results and impacts; in others, such as corridors. This approach has had a substantial the NPC training component of the Leyte-Luzon replication effect, with the CEPF having dem- Geothermal project,2 the results were clearly onstrated the value of bringing together the unsatisfactory. full breadth of local stakeholders, including government, academia, and specialized civil In general, all projects in the GEF portfolio include society groups, all working together toward a a capacity development element, and institutional common set of objectives at multiple scales. capacity building in particular is the focus of many Alliances driven by common interests, particu- projects. The element is often linked directly to larly where a broad constituency shares directly the objectives and has specific outputs. However, in the benefits, are more likely to replicate and only a limited number of documents describe the sustain best practices. capacity-building effort and results in detail-- delineating, for example, the number of people to z At the GEF Agency level, designing site-level be trained, training impacts, monitoring follow- portfolios or clusters such as in Mindanao up on results, and lessons learned. Documenta- which hosts several projects of varying sizes is tion is lacking on the impacts of this training and often more effective than one large project. The follow-up, such as looking into how the training cluster approach is seen in some of the World is being applied and if the capacity building has Bank rural development projects blended with improved institutional performance. This lack of GEF grants. These have allowed for site-level information makes it difficult to assess the full components around sites of different ecosys- results of the training effort and hinders future tems being implemented by local stakehold- replication of good practices. Further, it may limit ers with diverse capacities. This approach may the exchange of lessons learned across govern- provide a promising alternative in meeting the ment agencies and GEF Agencies. challenges of the integrated conservation and development project concept rather than have The evaluation found that, in some cases, the a donor make a large grant to a single organiza- training had not been well designed and train- tion to implement a wide range of interventions ers not sufficiently qualified. Of the Samar Island meant to yield conservation and development Biodiversity Project, for example, the final review benefits at the site level. concluded: 5. Results of GEF Support to the Philippines 45 Training and education on biodiversity conservation to institutional capacity development that is both and livelihood is not a one-shot deal. It necessitates process oriented (focused on facilitating institu- a well-tailored plan and careful step-wise implemen- tional functional changes, the capacity-building tation so that the project will know where to begin, what to do next and where to end. The project's train- and development process, sensitive to changes in ing activity lacks clear direction to support its goal for requirements and needs, and so on) and output livelihood development and biodiversity conservation oriented (focused on producing tangible results, (Luna and others 2006). which will ensure that activities are linked to action on the ground and testing of best practices The same project had a strong focus on chang- in the relevant focal area) is needed. ing forest-dependent livelihoods into agricul- ture-based livelihoods. But the project was not Capacity development in GEF support should sufficiently aware of the many dimensions of the therefore be approached in a more strategic man- original forest-based livelihood, which resulted ner with a focus on longer term, permanent train- in the development of an alternative that did not ing initiatives that would gradually transfer ad cover the needs of the target group. hoc capacity-building efforts away from the GEF and other donor project portfolios to the main With regard to institutional sustainability, the departments and universities responsible for the evaluation found that GEF support has enhanced country's natural resource management and edu- the capacity to better fulfill obligations under rel- cational outcomes. evant international instruments, but has perhaps been less successful in enhancing capacity to As noted, the lack of systematic documentation achieve national objectives and targets for sustain- of capacity development in GEF support hampers able development. For example, the GEF helped the sustainability of these results. Development achieve a substantial increase in the number of of a common format and practice for reporting protected areas but not in the amount of human and documenting capacity-building activities resources needed to manage these areas. Pilot should be considered. This would improve the projects and enabling activities helped demon- availability of approaches and methodologies that strate what is needed at the national level in terms have proven successful or that can be adapted to of frameworks and capacity and how the govern- become successful in the relevant context. ment may overcome such challenges, but the response has been weak. If management capacities are weak at the national and/or local levels, then Notes the likelihood of sustaining or scaling up projects 1. GEF-4 (2007­10) introduced new strategic priori- after GEF support ends is greatly reduced. ties, but these were not in place at the time of this evaluation. Overall, it was difficult to assess how institutional 2. One objective of the Leyte-Luzon Geothermal capacity building has been designed, since there project was to strengthen NPC capabilities in seems to be limited use of institutional capacity environmental and social impact analyses. To this assessments. Development of a rapid institutional end, the project included a component for NPC capacity screening tool should be considered technical assistance and training. According to the project's 2000 implementation completion report, for use in the preparation of proposals involving "This objective was not achieved. NPC's capacity institutional capacity development. An approach for social impact analysis is weak." 46 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) 6. Relevance of GEF Support to the Philippines This chapter reviews the relevance of GEF support z Do GEF activities, country commitments, and in the Philippines in the context of both the coun- project counterparts support the GEF mandate try's own and the GEF's goals and priorities. The and focal area programs and strategies? evaluation asked, and this chapter summarizes its findings about, the following: 6.1 Relevance to Country's z Is GEF support within the country's sustain- Sustainable Development Agenda able development agenda and environmental and Environmental Priorities priorities? Does it have country ownership and is it country driven? What is its level compared Relevance to Country Agenda and to other official development assistance in the Priorities environmental sector? The Philippine development agenda and national z Does GEF support help development needs priorities are expressed in the country's various (technology transfer, income generation, capac- medium-term development plans. Since GEF ity building) and reduce challenges (gaps in support was first initiated in 1992, the country capacity building)? Are the various GEF modal- has been guided by three such plans plus a revised ities and project instruments (FSPs, MSPs, plan. The relevance of GEF support to these devel- enabling activities, small grants, and so on) per- opment plans is detailed in annex J. tinent to the country's needs and challenges? By number of projects, GEF support has been z Is GEF support linked to the Philippines fairly evenly divided between activities in the bio- National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, diversity and climate change areas. By funding National Communication to the United Nations level, however, support has been mainly channeled Framework Convention on Climate Change, to climate change activities, which have primarily National Implementation Plan on POPs, and involved energy. This focus is very much in line National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global with MTDP priorities, which promote both energy Environmental Management? efficiency and renewable energy. Since the Philip- z Are project outcomes and impacts related to pines is an island state, renewable energy systems the RAF Global Benefit Indexes for Biodiversity such as those based on solar and wind power are and Climate Change and to other global indica- considered the most cost-effective means of mak- tors for POPs, land degradation, and interna- ing power available in remote areas. In the pres- tional waters? ent MTDP (for 2004­10), the Philippines aims to 47 become a world leader in geothermal energy, plus on the environment and natural resource man- a wind and solar power leader in Southeast Asia. agement, and they all contain concrete goals and lines of action regarding biodiversity. Through The GEF has supported various activities related GEF support of the NIPAS, the country has been to renewable energy, such as the large Leyte- able to expand the system considerably. Another Luzon Geothermal project, the Palawan Renew- priority on the national agenda has been (and con- able Energy and Local Livelihood Support Project tinues to be) the development of ecotourism and (solar energy), Capacity Building to Remove Bar- payment for environmental services. GEF support riers to Renewable Energy, and the Rural Power is relevant to these priorities as well, as is exempli- project (solar energy). With regard to the prior- fied by the Samar Island Biodiversity and Bohol ity area of energy efficiency, GEF support is also Marine Triangle Projects. found to be highly relevant. Two ongoing projects address removal of barriers to energy efficiency The SGP has also been highly relevant to the and seek to increase investments in energy-effi- national agenda and MTDP priorities on environ- ciency activities. ment and biodiversity. SGP support has mainly been focused on biodiversity activities, often in A leading source of CO2 emissions in the Philip- relation to the NIPAS. Many projects have com- pines is urban transportation. This issue has been bined elements of conservation, sustainable addressed in the Metro Manila Urban Transport use, and local livelihoods, which is in line with Integration Project, a component of which sup- the MTDPs. SGP projects have supported civil ported establishment of bikeways in the munici- society participation in the national sustainable pality of Marikina. development agenda. They have also, in many cases, provided complementarity with larger GEF The Philippines is vulnerable to impacts from cli- projects--for example, in the climate change focal mate change such as increasing severe weather area, where awareness and capacity development conditions, changes in storm patterns, and sea were conducted, in some cases, through SGP level rise. In the MTDPs, the prevention of natural activities. disasters is given high priority, and GEF support is relevant to this priority. Adaptation to climate Although the evaluation found that GEF support is change has yet to be addressed, but a capacity- highly relevant to the Philippine national agenda, building and technology transfer project is now in it also determined that some project documenta- the pipeline. Several of the biodiversity and multi- tion fails to establish specific links to the MTDP focal area projects have also been relevant for and how the respective activity supports it. climate change adaptation though their support The newest generation of activities are taking to watershed protection and community-based steps toward a more programmatic approach. In sustainable land and other natural resources the World Bank's National Program Support to management. Environment and Natural Resources Manage- GEF support to biodiversity is found to be highly ment Project, this translates into budget support relevant to the national agenda and was instru- to the DENR long-term investment plan and its mental in the establishment, development, and major final outputs. The plan forms part of the consolidation of the National Integrated Protected environmental agenda and priorities set out in the Areas System. All the MTDPs place high priority national MTDP 2004­10. 48 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Country Base and Ownership 6.2 Relevance to Country's The review of completed and ongoing projects Development Needs and Challenges clearly revealed that almost all project ideas and proposals have originated from Philippine stake- Development Needs holders. Project originators have been national All the projects in the Philippine portfolio have agencies (such as the DOE and the DENR), local a capacity development component; some also authorities (including the Metro Manila Develop- involve technology transfer. In general, capacity ment Authority), NGOs (such as CARE and the building is found to be relevant in meeting both World Wildlife Fund), or local stakeholders (such the objectives of support and the needs of the as those involved in the Tubbataha Reefs National country. In this regard, the evaluation found that Marine Park and World Heritage Site). There Philippine climate change activities supported seems to be national ownership and local driven- the introduction of monitoring technology and ness behind the majority of GEF support. Many helped develop needed capacity to operate the activities are based on existing initiatives and have equipment and use the results. But for the most been demand driven. The evaluation screened for part, the evaluation desk study found that proj- government and civil society commitment to the ect documentation was largely silent regarding projects and their results, and found that, in general, projects' major capacity development aspects and most of the projects in the portfolio had good com- impact. The absence of documentation on capac- mitment from both government and civil society. ity development limits the possibilities for replica- tion and highly increases the risk of inefficient use GEF and Other Official Development of GEF funds. Assistance Chapter 4 described how overall ODA commit- The GEF has extensively supported capacity devel- ments to the Philippines are on the decline and that, opment efforts in the Philippines. Nonetheless, a consequently, the relative importance of GEF sup- recent World Bank evaluation of the environment port might be increasing. Most of the GEF support and natural resources sector concludes that there is cofunded, which, in some cases, includes funding are still substantial gaps in capacity and capabili- from multilateral and bilateral donors. For example, ties, especially at the local level (World Bank 2004). the Sustainable Management of Mount Isarog proj- Local-level DENR and local government units and ect has ODA support from the European Union their environment and natural resource units tend and the governments of Austria and the United to be relatively weak and lack capacity and capa- Kingdom. The SGP has been very successful in get- bilities on many important aspects related to the ting substantial cofunding from bilateral donors, implementation of sustainable natural resource including the government of the Netherlands. management. GEF support may also generate further support, as A large proportion of GEF biodiversity projects with the Conservation of Priority Protected Areas in the Philippines has included components on project, where additional and substantial support income generation and livelihood improvement. was provided by the Danish government during the While the results of these components are mixed, implementation phase. Significant support through the combination of conservation with sustainable the World Bank has been in the form of blended use and alternative income generation is found to projects, where GEF support is linked to a loan. be highly relevant to the country's development 6. Relevance of GEF Support to the Philippines 49 needs. As mentioned in chapter 5, the combina- and the role of civil society is that of an active and tion may be relatively easy to implement in marine critical voice. Support to civil society has the aim of areas but highly difficult in land areas. One rea- ensuring popular participation in the formulation son for this is that protection of marine ecosys- and implementation of national policies, with the tems may result relatively quickly in increased fish goal of improving state services and making them stocks that can be harvested as a buy-in to conser- more efficient. In the case of the Philippines, with its vation approaches linked to sustainable resource strong NGO sector and traditional civil society par- management. Land-based ecosystems and natural ticipation, the decline in bilateral ODA combined resources tend to respond at a much slower rate to with donor harmonization will affect civil society increased management efforts. Hence, successful participation. It will thus be critical to maintain incentives to integrate conservation with alterna- and perhaps even strengthen the SGP as a modal- tive sustainable livelihoods are fewer. In addition, ity for civil participation in the environment sec- the illegal logging organized by the wealthy seg- tor. Attention might also be given to focusing the ments of Philippine society contributes as a disin- SGP toward advocacy and social audit functions centive for upland communities to preserve their with the objective of enhancing social control and forest. transparency in the environment sector. Stronger involvement of NGOs as social actors and advo- Modalities of Support cates could lead to improved compliance with The Philippine portfolio has used most of the GEF environmental laws and regulations. modalities for support. Most GEF focus areas have been supported, except for land degradation 6.3 Relevance to National Action and climate change adaptation. Plans within GEF Focal Areas The quality of the projects has improved over National Biodiversity Strategy and the GEF phases. The newer projects tend to have Action Plan focused objectives and realistic results and are The Philippines National Biodiversity Strategy more embedded in the national framework (see and Action Plan, with support from the GEF, was annex K). Although many of the projects have formulated and approved in 1997. GEF-supported been prepared through PDF funding blocks (A projects in biodiversity formulated after the plan's or B) with the aid of national consultants, consul- completion were all found to be within its objec- tancy trust funds have also been used to bring in tives. All projects make explicit references to the needed international expertise. plan, its objectives, and its lines of action. The SGP is a vital support modality in securing a forum for civil society participation. Such oppor- Communication to the UNFCCC tunities are diminishing as a result of ODA donor The initial National Communication to the harmonization policies and the trend toward chan- UNFCCC was forwarded in 2000. It highlighted neling funds to support national institution budgets the risk of increased extreme rainfall events and and plans. The proliferation of such trends may droughts and identified agriculture, forestry, water necessitate distinguishing between the role of the resources, coastal resources, and human health as state and that of civil society. The state is always the most vulnerable sectors. The Philippines is cur- the central player in the development process, rently preparing its Second National Communica- 50 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) tion, which will include more extensive work on example, to a proposal for improving the coordina- climate change adaptation. After the initial com- tion functions of the GEF operational focal point. munication, several workshops were held to create awareness, and a climate change information cen- 6.4 Relevance to Global ter was established to help disseminate informa- tion. These activities have led to the formulation Environmental Indicators of a new GEF project to support climate change Because the GEF does not have standardized indi- adaptation through capacity building, institutional cators to measure global environmental benefits, development, coordination, and information. the evaluation used the RAF criteria for biodiver- sity and climate change as indicators of potential National Action Plan on Climate Change environmental benefits. The Philippines was one of the first countries to prepare a National Action Plan on Climate Biodiversity Change; this occurred in 1997. GEF support to The GEF global benefits for biodiversity are climate change is highly relevant to the plan. For presented in section 5.1. As noted in chapter 5, example, the Metro Manila Urban Transport-- GEF-supported projects have largely been imple- Marikina Bikeways Component is in accord with mented in 7 of the 16 Philippine biogeographic the plan's recommendation that the transport sec- regions. The support has targeted conservation tor shift from low-occupancy private transport at the species and subspecies levels and addresses modes to high-occupancy and mass public trans- the majority of the country's endemic and threat- port modes and to nonmotorized modes such as ened species. In coastal and marine areas, GEF bicycling and walking. support has been targeted to five of the country's National Implementation Plan for the six marine biogeographic regions. Stockholm Convention on POPs Projects have often been concentrated in larger The Philippines ratified the Stockholm Conven- priority areas with urgent needs for conservation tion in 2004 and formulated the National Imple- action, covering a considerable slice of the areas of mentation Plan in 2005. This led to formulation of unique biogeographical regions and a substantial a Philippine component of a GEF-supported global number of globally threatened species. The focus POPs project implemented by UNIDO and UNDP of the GEF-supported projects is mostly on the which began in 2006. The project's main objectives biogeographic regions located on the larger islands are to demonstrate the viability of available non- of Mindanao and Luzon. The unique ecosystems combustion technologies to destroy POPs, show and extremely vulnerable biodiversity of the nine how the barriers to deployment of these technolo- biogeographic regions located on the small islands gies may be removed, and deploy an immediately in the western Philippines received little atten- available and proven technology to the Philippines tion, even though this area contains the country's to destroy 4,547 tons of PCB wastes.1 greatest number of critical threatened species and all natural habitats here are nearly depleted. National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Environmental Management Future GEF support should aim to include the The Philippine National Capacity Self-Assessment small island biogeographic regions as an immi- was undertaken in 2005. The results have led, for nent and urgent priority. 6. Relevance of GEF Support to the Philippines 51 Climate Change tricity generation using renewable sources (geo- The GEF Benefits Index for Climate Change pro- thermal, wind, and solar power) and thus help vides a relative ranking of countries in terms of reduce carbon emissions and carbon intensity. The their meeting RAF climate change objectives. The Metro Manila Urban Transport­Marikina Bike- index is derived from the following indicators: ways Component seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by promoting the use of zero-emission z Greenhouse gas emissions. The index uses bicycle and pedestrian transport in Marikina. year 2000 GHG emissions from fossil fuels, cement production, and other sources; emis- sions from changes in land use are not consid- 6.5 Relevance of the GEF Portfolio ered. to Other Global and National Organizations z Carbon intensity adjustment factor. Carbon intensity is the amount of carbon equivalent GEF support to the Philippines has a relatively emitted per unit of economic activity (kilo- high level of cofinancing, which often predicts grams carbon/$1 gross domestic product); the the involvement of other donors in the projects. adjustment factor is the ratio of carbon inten- Table 6.1 shows the involvement of other donors sity in 1990 to carbon intensity in 2000. This and cofinancing organizations in selected GEF factor is multiplied by the level of the above projects. emissions. This seeks to reward countries that have reduced carbon intensity levels through Note energy efficiency or increased use of renewable 1. Unfortunately, the planned technology to be energy sources. applied does not work as intended, and the proj- ect was resubmitted in January 2007 to address GEF support is clearly aligned with the RAF cli- the comments of GEF Council members, the GEF mate change index. The climate change projects Secretariat, and the GEF Scientific and Technical reviewed in the Philippine portfolio focus on elec- Advisory Panel. 52 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Table 6.1 Selected GEF-Supported Projects Relative to Other National and International Support Project Status and size Other national and international support Samar Island Biodiversity Project Completed FSP y U.S. Agency for International Development y Foundation for the Philippine Environment y Church-based NGOs Palawan New and Renewable Active FSP y Shell Solar Philippines Corporation has provided guarantee funds Energy and Livelihood Support to Cooperative Bank of Palawan (local financial institution) Project y Cofinancing from Provincial Government of Palawan Leyte-Luzon Geothermal Completed FSP y Build-operate-transfer private power generation contractors y Export-Import Bank of Japan y Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency y Swedish Agency for International Technical and Economic Cooperation y Eurobond investors Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Completed FSP Cofinancing by World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction Conservation in Mindanao and Development) Sustainable Management of Mount Completed MSP y European Union Isarog y CARE USA y Government of Austria y British Embassy Conservation of the Tubbataha Completed MSP y Packard Foundation Reefs National Marine Park and y WWF World Heritage Site Rural Power Active FSP Renewable energy components, with GEF Trust Fund implemented by the World Bank for the rural electrification subprojects and capacity building ($9 million) and by UNDP for the partial credit risk guarantee component ($1 million); cofinancing with the govern- ment, Development Bank of the Philippines, private investors, and consumers ($9.6 million) Asian Conservation Company I Active FSP y Cofinancing through private sector investments y Cofinancing from WWF/bilateral donors Integrated Coastal Resources Man- Active FSP Cofinancing from ADB agement Project Environment and Natural Resources Active FSP Cofinancing by World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction Management Program, Phase 1 and Development) Philippines Sustainable Energy Active FSP y Government Finance Program y Bilateral donors y NGOs 6. Relevance of GEF Support to the Philippines 53 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in the Philippines This chapter reviews the efficiency of GEF-sup- 7.1 Time and Effort in Project ported activities in the Philippines as measured by Development and Implementation the following indicators: The review included the original documents z Time, effort, and funds needed to develop and including project documents, GEF CEO endorse- implement a project, by type of GEF support ment letters, GEF Secretariat emails, GEF CEO modality correspondence, project implementation reviews, z Roles and responsibilities of different stake- and final evaluations. In some cases, there were holders in project implementation inconsistencies between documents, which cre- ated information gaps.1 z The GEF operational focal point mechanism The evaluation looked at how long projects spent z Lessons learned across GEF projects in various phases of the GEF Activity Cycle, which z Synergies among GEF stakeholders and projects is shown in figure 7.1. These calculations are pre- sented in table 7.1 for completed full-size projects. Consistent with the findings of other GEF Evalua- tion Office reviews, the foremost issue facing this As the table shows, there is considerable variation evaluation was the absence of baseline project in the time it takes for a proposed FSP to move information, particularly Activity Cycle details. from one phase to another. On average, it takes This type of information has yet to be properly about 24 months from entry into the GEF pipe- compiled and systematized. line to CEO approval (points A to C in the Activity Figure 7.1 GEF Activity Cycle B D 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Predesign/ Approval by Design/ Council/work Approval by IAs/ concept executing Implementation Completion development preparation program inclusion agencies A C E Entry into GEF GEF CEO Project start-up pipeline endorsement 54 Table 7.1 Duration in Days of the Activity Cycle in GEF-Supported FSPs in the Philippines Project phases Project A­C C­E A­E Samar Island Biodiversity Project 696 2 698 Palawan New and Renewable Energy and Livelihood Support Project Not available 488 488 Conservation of Priority Protected Areas 1,100 162 1,262 Leyte-Luzon Geothermal 736 664 1,400 Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation in Mindanao 477 102 579 Asian Conservation Company Tranche I 637 163 800 Average, all completed FSPs 729 263 992 Cycle), and an additional 8.7 months to project start due to delays on the part of either the GEF Sec- (points C to E). Total time from entry to start-up retariat or the GEF Agencies. For both FSPs and averages 2.8 years. This duration is comparable to MSPs, more scrupulous and detailed recordkeep- that for Costa Rica, where the average FSP took 2.9 ing is apparent at the beginning and end of the years (1,056 days) to move from point A to point E. cycle rather than during its interim. For this rea- NGO respondents to the evaluation survey cited a son, and given the small amount of available data, similar time frame for medium-size projects, which at this point, no consistent patterns regarding time they said could take up to a year to move from point lags can be discerned. A to point C, with the complete process (points A through E) taking up to three years. No data are Access to Procedural Information available to calculate the length of the Activity Cycle The OFP position in the Philippines is not insti- for enabling activities; in general, enabling activities tutionalized, as is further discussed in section 7.3. have a duration of two years. This circumstance has led to weaknesses in capac- ity for understanding and conveying information The long processing period for FSPs and MSPs on GEF procedures and strategies. Notwithstand- creates a difficulty in that stakeholders who pro- ing recent initiatives by the OFP--such as the issu- posed the project may not be available at the time ance of circulars defining parameters for prioritiz- the project is actually implemented. The long ges- ing biodiversity and climate change projects to be tation period also increases the risk of interven- endorsed to the GEF--the rapid turnover in the ing policy changes and operational setbacks that OFP position often makes for a lack of familiarity could render project outputs obsolete or irrel- with GEF review criteria and an inability to deter- evant or diminish stakeholder commitment. Sev- mine the "GEF-ability" of a submitted concept. eral attempts have been made to address the issue; Similarly, GEF concepts, criteria, procedures, and unfortunately, the project cycle continues to be a programs are often regarded as too complicated major problem. for a non-GEF specialist. Consequently, project A few conclusions can be drawn from these small proponents and GEF Agencies frequently hire data sets on time lag in the GEF Activity Cycle for focal area specialists with previous GEF experi- the Philippines projects. For FSPs, there are long ence to provide the appropriate GEF language in time lags at various stages of the cycle; these are proposals that will facilitate their approval. 7. Efficiency of the GEF-Supported Activities in the Philippines 55 Lack of information regarding the requirements, Actual Project Completion Dates norms, and mechanisms of the GEF Activity Cycle Table 7.2 compares the start-up date and actual and the progress of proposal reviews within the closing date as reported in the project completion cycle was cited as a problem by several of the reports. The average planned length of implemen- stakeholders interviewed. Where information was tation for the FSPs was 58 months. In compari- available, several respondents noted that it was of son, the actual average implementation period poor quality. It is difficult to find out what stage was about 76 months, or 6.3 years. For MSPs, a proposal is in, which requirements or priorities the average planned implementation period was are set by the GEF and which by the GEF Agen- 51 months, which in reality became 54.5 months, cies, and so on. This information gap is a leading or 4.5 years, with the extensions. source of confusion and frustration. The absence of a clear, publicly accessible proposal tracking mechanism is a critical shortcoming. 7.2 Stakeholder Roles and In addition, there is general confusion about the Responsibilities in Project implementation of the RAF, particularly regarding Implementation how projects are dropped from the pipeline. Stake- Evaluation of stakeholder roles and responsi- holders do not understand the criteria utilized to bilities in project implementation focused on the make these decisions and perceive inconsisten- following: cies and arbitrariness. Furthermore, information about RAF implementation, although available, is z Who implements projects? not clear, leaving much room for interpretation by z Are stakeholder roles and responsibilities clear? different sectors. z How is coordination among projects handled? Table 7.2 Planned and Actual Duration of FSPs and MSPs in the Philippines Planned Target Actual duration Extension Project (size) completion date completion date (months) Samar Island Biodiversity Project (FSP) December 1, 2004 December 31, 2006 54 25 Palawan New and Renewable Energy and Livelihood December 1, 2002 December 1, 2005 34 36 Support Project (FSP) Conservation of Priority Protected Areas (FSP) June 30, 2002 June 30, 2002 94 0 Leyte-Luzon Geothermal (FSP) June 30, 1999 March 31, 2000 53 9 Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation in Mind- December 1, 2002 December 1, 2005 40 36 anao (FSP) Asian Conservation Company I (FSP) August 27, 2010 Ongoing 74 NA Sustainable Management of Mount Isarog (MSP) December 1, 2004 May 5, 2005 54 6 Conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs National Marine September 1, 2004 October 1, 2004 48 1 Park and World Heritage Site (MSP) Note: NA = not applicable. Enabling activities were not included because of insufficient information. 56 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Who Implements Projects? maintain opportunities for continued support to The primary GEF Agencies in the Philippines NGOs and civil society. are the World Bank and UNDP, which together have implemented about 81 percent of the coun- Are Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities try portfolio. The World Bank has implemented Clear? only FSPs, while UNDP has implemented projects This question was analyzed by reviewing reports across all GEF modalities. The national executing on completed projects. In several projects, social agencies are dominated by the DENR (15 activi- preparation had been insufficient, including clari- ties) and the DOE (6 activities); together, these fication of roles and responsibilities. For example: two departments have executed 68 percent of z The review of the Samar Island Biodiversity GEF funding. Other national government agencies Project observed that the inception period (PNOC-EDC and NPC) have executed one project, should be used to explain and clarify the proj- accounting for almost 21 percent of GEF funding. ect's purpose and objectives, and the roles and NGOs have executed five projects--two FSPs and responsibilities of the different stakeholders three MSPs--representing 7 percent of funding; among project management office, partners, they have also been the main executors of the coun- and key stakeholders because at project start- try's Small Grants Programme. Local government up, there had been different assumptions and and the private sector executed only about 4 per- understandings. cent of GEF funding, all through FSPs (see table 7.3). (For detailed information, see annex C.) z The 2004 midterm evaluation report of the Bohol Marine Triangle Project concluded that The SGP is the main vehicle for support to civil project preparation must be improved, noting: society, including to NGOs. As noted earlier, the The participation and engagement of all significant current trends of donor harmonization and insti- stakeholders, particularly the national, provincial tutional budget support mean that support for and municipal governments, must be secured dur- civil society could easily be overshadowed by that ing pre-project conceptualization and design, and to government agencies; it is thus important to through the implementation stages, in order to Table 7.3 GEF-Supported Activities in the Philippines Executed by NGOs and the Private Sector GEF funding Project title GEF Agency National executing agency Phase (million $) Conservation of Priority Protected Areas World Bank NIPA Inc. Pilot 12.650 Asian Conservation Company Tranche I World Bank-IFC Asian Conservation Company GEF-2 1.600 Asian Conservation Company Tranche II World Bank-IFC Asian Conservation Company GEF-2 2.900 Sustainable Management of Mount Isarog UNDP CARE GEF-2 0.750 Conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs UNDP WWF GEF-2 0.770 National Marine Park and World Heritage Site Biodiversity Conservation and Management UNDP Foundation for Philippine Envi- GEF-2 0.740 of the Bohol Islands Marine Triangle ronment in partnership with the Bohol Alliance of NGOs Small Grants Programme UNDP Various Ongoing 5.779 7. Efficiency of the GEF-Supported Activities in the Philippines 57 enhance the effectiveness of the project and the sus- Lack of coordination is mentioned in several donor tainability and replication of the overall initiative. project reviews. For example, in the review of the z The World Bank's 2003 evaluation of support European Union's National Integrated Protected to the environment sector, Governance of Nat- Areas Programme, one observation pointed to ural Resources in the Philippines: Lessons from a need for improving donor coordination in the the Past, Directions for the Future, found that in project areas and noted that the national execut- order to be more effective, the stakeholders-- ing agency (the DENR) was not adequately pre- including World Bank staff, NGOs, local com- pared to fulfill this responsibility. During the eval- munity leaders, and participant farmers--must uation, several stakeholders raised the question of have clearly defined roles. whether the National Economic and Development Authority should handle coordination among the The conclusion is that roles and responsibilities various donors. among stakeholders are not always sufficiently clear and that there is a need for improving this aspect during project preparation and implemen- 7.3 The GEF Focal Point Mechanism tation. The long time period noted in table 7.1 in the Philippines from when a project is entered into the GEF sys- The GEF OFP operates out of the DENR, spe- tem until actual start-up could be used for this cifically in the Foreign Assisted Projects Office. kind of preparation. In 1996, technical focal points for each GEF focal How Is Coordination among Projects area were created within the relevant DENR and Handled? Department of Agriculture bureaus to under- take technical assessment of GEF projects (see This question was analyzed by reviewing reports figure 7.2). of completed projects and through interviews with stakeholders. In general, and despite the few The OFP position in the Philippines is not insti- stakeholders involved, there seems to be limited tutionalized. Since 1992, there have been at least coordination among the GEF Agencies working eight different OFPs, most whom were politically in the Philippines--a problem that is exacerbated appointed undersecretaries. In more recent years, by not having a GEF country program and foster- the OFP position has been restaffed almost every ing competition rather than collaboration among other year. Technical interagency committees for stakeholders. This circumstance sometimes leads biodiversity, land degradation, and climate change to the preparation of overlapping projects. For serve as a forum for information sharing and to example, UNDP helped the DENR develop a pro- facilitate recommendations of projects for GEF grammatic framework for support and manage- funding. The technical focal points for multilat- ment in the environment sector (Framework Plan eral environmental agreements supporting the for Environment and Natural Resources Manage- OFP are spread across a number of bureaus and ment). In parallel, the World Bank developed the drawn from technical staff already occupied with Natural Resources Governance: Way Forward numerous other assignments. Action Plan for DENR, which has the same goal as the UNDP work, namely to achieve a more The present OFP office has an insufficient num- programmatic approach in the environment and ber of staff members to cope with the challenges natural resources sector. identified, and their capacity to develop concept 58 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Figure 7.2 Current Coordination Mechanism for the GEF OFP (2007) GEF operational focal point Technical focal points for multilateral environmental agreements DENR Department of Agriculture DENR Protected Areas and Bureau of Soils and Environmental Wildlife Bureau Water Management Management Bureau Mandate to conserve Conserve and protect Control pollution and the country's biodiversity agricultural resources manage the environment Biodiversity Land degradation Climate change Ozone layer POPs International waters proposals and project briefs/documents or to In addition, definitive strategies and plans for conduct monitoring and evaluation is inadequate. utilizing GEF resources are lacking, although the Consequently, the DENR tends to use substantial RAF would appear to trigger a new approach. No and costly consultant assistance through project macrolevel framework for the GEF in the Philip- development facility grants. pines has yet materialized, even though several attempts have been made. Consequently, the GEF The DENR has not established a GEF project focal areas, review criteria, and other guidelines database and has no GEF monitoring and evalua- appear to be inadequately understood. These tion system in place that links to the more efficient weaknesses may produce the impression of a lack M&E system of the National Economic and Devel- of clear leadership from the DENR, which affects opment Authority. Despite obvious advantages, the overall guidance and execution of GEF sup- the DENR has not fully involved the NEDA in ex port. To this end, the evaluation has identified a ante GEF activities unless these are blended with need for support to strengthen the OFP office. loan-funded projects. NEDA inputs are requested, if at all, in the ex post evaluation of GEF projects. The lack of an overall strategic framework Considering the development priorities of the makes for competition among the GEF Agen- government and NEDA's strong M&E capacities, cies in obtaining proposal endorsements. In this there seems to be a disconnect. regard, the location of the GEF OFP within the 7. Efficiency of the GEF-Supported Activities in the Philippines 59 DENR is seen by some as a conflict of interest z Establish knowledge- and information-sharing when proposals that originate (or that will be mechanisms (for instance, a GEF Philippines implemented) within DENR subagencies are Web site). endorsed as opposed to those originating in other departments. 7.4 Lessons Learned across GEF In a recent presentation, the OFP outlined some Projects of its problems and challenges in the Philippines; In the first phases of GEF support to the Philip- these included the following:2 pines, lessons learned from other projects were infrequently applied to the design of new proj- z The technical focal points for the multilateral ects. Furthermore, because no formal modality environmental agreements and other stake- exists for exchanging lessons learned across the holders have yet to be fully oriented on GEF GEF portfolio, these lessons and best practices strategies to expand coordination to include are learned and applied across GEF Agencies in a more NGOs. random manner; consequently, many opportuni- z The coordination system for developing proj- ties for replication and scaling up of best practices ects in the international waters, biosafety, and have been lost, which puts the effectiveness and POPs focal areas needs improvement. efficiency of GEF support at risk. z The country's M&E system and GEF project This situation may be changing, partly because database are both limited. of recent critical external evaluations and also z The existing monitoring mechanisms of the because there is now more documentation of best GEF Implementing and Executing Agencies practices in multilateral and bilateral assistance. (such as project implementation reviews) need GEF projects in the Philippines have been sub- to be linked with the monitoring activities of ject to these influences, as illustrated by the new the OFP. project, National Program Support for Environ- ment and Natural Resources Management, whose To meet these challenges, the OFP recommended program document states that the project's design the following: generally reflects key findings from the World Bank studies Governance of Natural Resources z Begin building a database. in the Philippines and Natural Resources Gover- z Develop M&E systems and procedures for GEF nance: Way Forward Action Plan, as well as les- projects in the Philippines. sons learned from completed projects and GEF evaluations. The design also addresses issues and z Institutionalize and strengthen a coordination concerns related to environmental impact assess- mechanism. ments, solid waste, and air and water pollution. z Focus more intently on defining specific national priorities in line with GEF programs Similarly, the Philippine energy sector has appar- and strategies. ently incorporated lessons learned from multi- lateral and bilateral donor initiatives both in its z Strengthen the capacities of the OFP and the design of new energy projects and the Philip- multilateral environmental agreement techni- pine national energy plan. For example, the Rural cal focal points. Power project incorporates lessons learned from 60 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) the World Bank/GEF review, the GEF Solar PV ernment agencies but are less successful in coordi- Portfolio: Emerging Experience and Lessons. nating with other donors' implementing agencies. The relatively numerous interagency meetings 7.5 Synergies among GEF and workshops held in the environment and natu- Stakeholders and Projects ral resources sector are a proven venue for formal and informal exchange among representatives of Attempts have been made to establish a mecha- GEF Agencies and other stakeholders. In addition, nism for strategic planning, coordination, and GEF Agencies use bilateral meetings with experts lessons learned in an effort to increase synergies to help in design and implementation. A final tool among the portfolios of the various GEF Agencies for synergy building used by all the GEF Agencies and the effectiveness of GEF investments. Results is publication and dissemination of reports con- have been mixed, however. Staff from one GEF taining lessons learned. Agency note that it is very hard to get the other Agencies to participate and that this can be attrib- uted to a lack of leadership on the part of the Phil- Notes ippine government. Coordination must be initi- 1. One of the biggest challenges in preparing this ated within the government, which means that the evaluation was a pervasive lack of information. government must have a clear idea of the direction The GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies have not in which it is moving and be able to communicate been able to coordinate a solution to this recurrent problem. this to donors. 2. Undersecretary Francisco S. Bravo, GEF OFP, GEF In general, the GEF Agencies tend to have coor- Subregional Consultation Workshop, April 2­3, dinated well with their own partners within gov- 2007. 7. Efficiency of the GEF-Supported Activities in the Philippines 61 Annex A. Terms of Reference A.1 Background and Introduction Resource Allocation Framework which allocates funds to countries, the GEF will need to further The GEF Council has requested the GEF Evalu- research and assess how the GEF is implemented ation Office to conduct evaluations of the GEF at the country level. Finally, these evaluations portfolio at the country level: GEF country portfo- will provide additional opportunities for the GEF lio evaluations. The Office conducted its first such Evaluation Office to collect evaluative evidence evaluation in 2006 in Costa Rica on a pilot basis to be incorporated into other evaluations con- with the objective of assessing the feasibility and ducted by the Office or reviews conducted by the cost effectiveness of this type of evaluation and to GEF Secretariat and for the Office to collaborate develop, based on the experience, methodologies with the evaluation offices of GEF partners that to fully implement this type of evaluation in sub- are conducting country evaluations of their own sequent years. programs and/or strategies. The objective of these evaluations, as requested by Based on the experience in Costa Rica, the GEF the Council, is twofold: (1) to provide the Council Evaluation Office prepared standard terms of refer- with additional information on the results of GEF- ence for country portfolio evaluations; these were supported activities and how these activities are approved by the Director of the Office on October implemented, and (2) to evaluate how GEF-sup- 27, 2006. This document presented the objectives, ported activities fit into the national strategies and main questions, scope, and methodology of the priorities as well as within the global environmen- country portfolio evaluations. It is proposed that tal mandate of the GEF. The Council is thus inter- these evaluations be conducted fully and indepen- ested in using this type of evaluation primarily to dently by the GEF Evaluation Office and, when assess and report on experiences across different possible, in partnership with other Implement- types of countries. ing Agency/Executing Agency (IA/ExA) evalua- There are several other reasons to conduct tion offices, governments, or NGOs. Even though country portfolio evaluations in the GEF. First, every country portfolio evaluation during GEF-4 although the GEF has been in existence for more will be conducted following these standard terms than a decade, no assessments have ever been of reference, particular terms of reference will be conducted of a GEF portfolio using a country as developed for each selected country. In addition a basis for analysis, regardless of GEF focal area to the key issues, these specific terms of reference or Implementing Agency. Second, given the new will include particular questions relevant to the 63 selected country and other relevant evaluations year 2007 (July 2006­June 2007), two countries under implementation by the Office at the time of were selected for evaluation: the Philippines and the evaluation. Samoa. There are about 160 GEF-eligible countries. The In the Philippines, the GEF has, through the World GEF Evaluation Office cannot evaluate all their Bank, UNDP, United Nations Environment Pro- portfolios. Straightforward and transparent cri- gramme, and ADB, invested about $146.32 million teria have thus been developed by the Evalua- for environmental management. Most of these tion Office to conduct the selection of countries activities are recent, and are focused heavily on for each year. The criteria ensure that all of the climate change (54 percent, or about $78.39 mil- 160 countries have a fair chance of being chosen. lion), with a smaller amount targeted at biodiver- sity conservation (30 percent, or $43.9 million). The GEF Evaluation Office will attempt to con- The main Implementing Agencies are the World duct at least two such evaluations per year. Where Bank and UNDP. Table A.1 provides details on the possible, cost efficiencies will be applied, such as Philippine portfolio. combining two countries in one region or com- bining a large portfolio with a small one. In addi- A.2 Objectives of GEF Country tion, the Evaluation Office will take into account the fact that many GEF recipient countries are Portfolio Evaluations presently (at the beginning of GEF-4) conduct- The purpose of GEF country portfolio evaluations ing self-assessment exercises so as to be ready for is to provide the GEF Council with an assessment implementation of GEF-4 and the RAF. For fiscal of how the GEF is implemented at the country Table A.1 The Philippines GEF Portfolio Number of projects GEF support (million $) GEF portfolio (as January 2007) Approved Pipeline Approved Pipeline By focal area Biodiversity 11 4 43.66 9.19 Climate change 13 1 78.39 3.40 International waters 1 3 16.22 16.1 Persistent organic pollutants 1 0 0.50 0 Land degradation 0 0 0 0 Multifocal 2 0 7.55 0 Total 28 8 146.32 28.69 By IA/ExA World Bank 8 3 86.7 22.72 UNDP 13 4 18.95 1.96 World Bank­UNDP 1 0 10.35 0 ADB 1 0 9.35 0 IFC 4 0 13.83 0 UNIDO 1 1 4.77 3.92 64 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) level, report on results from projects, and assess on analysis of the evaluative information and per- how these projects are linked to national envi- ceptions collected during the evaluation exercise. ronmental and sustainable development agen- These questions are as follows: das as well as to the GEF mandate of generating z Relevance of GEF support and activities global environmental benefits within its focal areas. These evaluations thus have the following ­ Is GEF support relevant to the national sus- objectives: tainability development agenda and envi- ronmental priorities, national development z Independently evaluate the relevance and effi- needs and challenges, and action plans for ciency of GEF support in a country from sev- the GEF's national focal areas? eral points of view:1 national environmental frameworks and decision-making processes, ­ Are the GEF and its Agencies supporting the the GEF mandate and achievement of global environmental and sustainable development environmental benefits, and GEF policies and prioritization and decision-making pro- procedures. cesses of the country? ­ Is GEF support in the country relevant to the z Assess the effectiveness and results of completed objectives of the different global environ- projects aggregated by focal area.2 mental benefits (biodiversity, greenhouse z Provide additional evaluative evidence to other gases, international waters, POPs, land deg- evaluations conducted or sponsored by the radation, ozone)? GEF Evaluation Office. ­ Is the country supporting the GEF mandate z Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to (1) and focal area programs and strategies with the GEF Council in its decision-making process its own resources and/or support from other to allocate resources and to develop policies donors? and strategies, (2) the country on its participa- z Efficiency of GEF support tion in the GEF, and (3) the different agencies and organizations involved in the preparation ­ How much time, effort, and money are and implementation of GEF-funded projects needed to develop and implement projects, and activities. by GEF support modality? Furthermore, these evaluations are conducted to ­ What are the roles, types of engagement, and bring to the Council's attention different experi- coordination mechanisms among different ences and lessons on how the GEF is implemented stakeholders in project implementation? at the national level in a wide variety of countries. ­ How successful is dissemination of GEF Country portfolio evaluations do not have the project lessons and results? objective of evaluating the performance of Imple- ­ What synergies exist between GEF project menting Agencies, Executing Agencies, national programming/implementation and GEF governments, or individual projects. Agencies, national institutions, GEF proj- ects, and the projects and activities of other A.3 Key Evaluation Questions donors? GEF country portfolio evaluations are guided by a ­ What is the level of sustainability of GEF- set of key questions that should be answered based supported activities? Annex A. Terms of Reference 65 z Results and effectiveness sustainable development and environmental poli- cies, strategies, and priorities; the legal environ- ­ What are the results (outcomes and impacts) ment in which these policies are implemented of completed projects? and enforced; IA/ExA country strategies and pro- ­ What are the aggregated results at the focal grams; and GEF policies, principles, programs, area and country levels? and strategies. ­ What is the likelihood that objectives will be achieved for those projects that are still The way the GEF operates imposes several dif- under implementation? ficulties in conducting this type of evaluation. For example, the GEF does not have country Each of these questions is complemented by a programs, so there is no GEF framework against short list of indicative aspects to be explored and which to assess results or effectiveness. Further- potential sources of information. Annex B pres- more, GEF support rarely works in isolation but ents a table of evaluation guidelines with these instead through partnerships with many institu- indicative aspects and sources of information. tions. This makes the issue of attribution difficult to determine. On the positive side, an assessment A.4 Focus and Limitations with the objectives as described above may pro- The country portfolio evaluations will focus on all vide important insights which may allow the GEF types of GEF-supported activities in a country at all to become more effective at the country level and stages of the Activity Cycle (pipeline, ongoing, and within the context of RAF operationalization. completed) and implemented by all IA/ExAs in all The GEF has not yet used (as of the beginning of focal areas, including applicable GEF corporate 2007) country strategies or programs; therefore, activities such as the Small Grants Programme. and in significant contrast with other agencies such The aggregate of these activities constitutes the as the World Bank, UNDP, and the regional banks, GEF portfolio. Project status will determine the there is no GEF program to be used as a reference. evaluation's expected focus (see table A.2). Similarly, the GEF focal areas do not have a clear set of indicators that can be used at the country Table A.2 level to assess country portfolio performance. Focus of Evaluation by Project Status The initiation of the RAF process is expected to Project Rele- Effective- status vance Efficiency ness Results lead the way toward more country programming Completed Full Full Full Full or at least prioritization of projects or areas in Ongoing Full Partially Likelihood Likelihood which a government determines it would like to In pipeline Expected Processes NA NA focus GEF support. The GEF Evaluation Office Note: NA = not applicable. The main focus of the evaluation will be may encounter countries in which these exer- relevance and efficiency; it will explore possible methodologies on how to evaluate project effectiveness and results. cises have been completed, which will provide an additional context in which to assess the GEF portfolio. The context in which these projects were devel- oped and approved and are being implemented The inclusion of regional and global projects constitutes another focus of the evaluation. This potentially increases the complexity of this type includes a historical assessment of the national of evaluation, since these projects are developed 66 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) and approved in a different context (that is, in be developed to conduct interviews with different accordance with regional or global policies and stakeholders. Examples of both protocols have been strategies). Given the limited time and financial prepared but will need to be adapted to the particu- resources available to conduct country portfolio lar year of the country portfolio evaluation so as to evaluations, they will in principle not be included include particular issues related to the country or to unless the project implementation unit is located the GEF Evaluation Office work program. in the country under evaluation. In each specific Country portfolio evaluations will primarily be case, the feasibility of including regional and global based on the review of existing information and projects and their relevance for the national port- on additional information gathered for the pur- folio will be looked at when preparing the terms of pose of this evaluation. The expected sources of reference for the specific evaluation. information to be utilized include the following: A.5 Methodology z At the project level, project documents, project GEF country portfolio evaluations will be con- implementation reports, terminal evaluations, ducted by staff of the GEF Evaluation Office and reports from field visits, scientific literature international and local consultants; this will con- z At the country level, national sustainable devel- stitute the evaluation team. opment agendas, environmental priorities and strategies, GEF focal area strategies and action The methodology includes a series of components plans, GEF-supported national capacity self- using a combination of qualitative and quantitative assessment, global and national environmental methods and tools. The qualitative aspects of the indicators, literature review evaluation will include a desk review of existing documentation such as GEF project documents; z At the IA/ExA level, country assistance strate- policy and strategy documents from national, gies and frameworks and their evaluations and GEF, and convention levels; relevant scientific reviews literature; IA/ExA national strategic frameworks z Evaluative evidence at the country level coming (particularly those related to the GEF focal areas); from GEF Evaluation Office evaluations, GEF extensive interviews with GEF stakeholders; con- Second and Third Overall Performance Stud- sultation workshops; and field visits to a few project ies, and national evaluation organizations sites. The quantitative analysis will use indicators to assess the relevance and efficiency of GEF sup- z Interviews with GEF stakeholders and benefi- port using projects as the unit of analysis (linkages ciaries with national priorities, time and cost of preparing z Information from national consultation work- and implementing projects, and so on) and to mea- shops sure GEF results (progress toward achieving global The methodology for the Philippines country port- environmental impacts) and project performance folio evaluation will include the following steps: (implementation and completion ratings). 1. Initial GEF Evaluation Office visit to do the The evaluation will develop different tools and following: protocols. For example, a project review protocol will be prepared to conduct the desk and field z Secure government support, in particu- reviews of GEF projects, and questionnaires will lar from GEF focal points. The focal point Annex A. Terms of Reference 67 will be requested to provide support to the analyzed through time so as to be able to evaluation, such as identification of key connect with particular GEF support. The people to be interviewed; support to orga- experience in Costa Rica showed that this nize interviews, field visits, and meetings; analysis should preferably be done by an and identification of main documents. environmental lawyer. z Identify a local consultant. The consultant z Global environmental benefits assessment, should qualify under the GEF Evaluation which provides an assessment of the coun- Office Ethical Guidelines. try's contribution to the GEF mandate and its focal areas based on appropriate indi- z Identify local evaluators/evaluation associa- cators, such as those used in the RAF (for tions as possible partners in the evaluation. biodiversity and climate change) and oth- z Conduct a first workshop to present the ers used in project documents. evaluation and receive comments to develop 5. The evaluation team conducts the evaluation, country-specific terms of reference. including at least one visit by GEF Evaluation 2. Prepare country-specific terms of reference. Office representatives. 3. Collect information and conduct literature 6. Prepare draft report. review to extract existing reliable evaluative 7. The GEF Evaluation Office conducts a visit to evidence. present the draft report at a second consulta- 4. Prepare specific inputs to the country portfo- tion workshop with major stakeholders. lio evaluation:3 8. Prepare final report, which incorporates com- z GEF portfolio database, which describes all ments and is then presented to the GEF Coun- GEF-supported activities within the coun- cil and the recipient government. try, including basic information (IA/ExA, focal area), implementation status, project A.6 Output and Timetable cycle information, GEF and cofinancing The main output of the evaluation will be a report, financial information, major objectives and the GEF country portfolio evaluation. Following expected (or actual) results, key partners GEF Evaluation Office practice, the report will be per project, and so on. discussed with the government of the Philippines, z Country environmental framework, which other national stakeholders (including project provides the context in which GEF projects staff), the GEF Secretariat, and the GEF Agencies. have been developed and implemented Comments will be requested from them on factual (this framework may already be available, issues. The final report, a document from the GEF prepared by IA/ExAs or national govern- Evaluation Office, will be presented to the Council ments). This document will be based on for its information. information on environmental legislation, environmental policies of each govern- The evaluation will be conducted between Janu- ment administration (plans, strategies, ary and May 2007, with the final report to be pre- and so on), and the international agree- sented to Council at its June 2007 meeting. The ments signed by the country presented and key milestones of the evaluation are presented in table A.3. 68 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Table A.3 Evaluation's Key Milestones Milestone Deadline 1. Desk review of country and IA/ExA information January 8, 2007 2. GEF Evaluation Office field mission to finalize terms of reference with international con- January 15­19, 2007 sultants; conduct consultation workshops with government officials, project coordina- tors, and NGOs; and conduct field visits to projects 3. Project review protocol and questionnaires January 23, 2007 4. Global environmental benefits assessment for the Philippines February 28, 2007 5. Desk review of all 25 national GEF projects (16 under implementation and 9 completed) February 1­March 15, 2007 6. Interviews with stakeholders January 15­February 28, 2007 7. Interviews with GEF Secretariat, World Bank, and UNDP in New York and Washington, D.C. February 2007 8. Draft report March 12­25, 2007 9. First draft March 31, 2007 10. National workshop to present preliminary conclusions and results April 10, 2007 11. Prepare final country portfolio evaluation report, which incorporates comments from April 27, 2007 stakeholders 12. Presentation to Council June 1, 2007 Notes 2. Results: the output, outcome, or impact (intended or unintended, positive and/or negative) of a GEF 1. Relevance: the extent to which the objectives of activity; effectiveness: the extent to which the GEF the GEF activity are consistent with beneficia- activity's objectives were achieved or are expected ries' requirements, country needs, global priori- to be achieved, taking into account their relative ties, and partner and donor policies; efficiency: importance. a measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, and so on) are converted 3. These inputs are working documents and are not to results. expected to be published as separate documents. Annex A. Terms of Reference 69 Annex B. Evaluation Matrix Key question Indicators/basic data Sources of information Methodology component Is GEF support relevant to... Country's sustainable y GEF support is within the country's y Country level over y Desk review of relevant development agenda sustainable development agenda and time country-level information and environmental environmental priorities y Interviews with gov- y Desk review of project-level priorities? y GEF support has country ownership and is ernment officials information country based (in terms of project origin, y Project reviews y National consultation design, and implementation) y National consultation workshops y Level of GEF funding compared to other workshops y Interviews official development assistance in the environment sector y National committee to coordinate GEF support y Relevance of GEF focal point Country's develop- y The GEF supports development needs y Country-level and ment needs and (such as technology transfer, income IA/ExA strategies challenges? generation, capacity building) and reduces y Interviews with gov- challenges (for example, gaps in capacity ernment officials building) y Project reviews y Desk review of relevant y The GEF's various modalities, project com- country-level information ponents, and instruments (including FSPs, y Desk review of project-level MSPs, enabling activities, small grants, IA/ information ExA blended projects, technical assis- y Desk review of IA/ExA tance, microcredits) are applied according country strategies to the country's needs and challenges y National consultation National GEF focal GEF support is linked to the National Biodi- y GEF-supported workshops area action plans versity Strategy and Action Plan, National enabling activities y Interviews (enabling activities)? Communication to the UNFCCC, National y Interviews with Implementation Plan on POPs, National government, NGOs, Capacity Self-Assessment IA/ExAs y Project reviews Global environmental Project outcomes and impacts are related y Country level Desk review of project-level indicators and vice to the GEF Benefits Indexes for biodiversity y Project reviews information versa (biodiversity, and climate change and to other global GHGs, international indicators for POPs, land degradation, and waters, POPs, land international waters degradation)? 70 Key question Indicators/basic data Sources of information Methodology component GEF mandate and GEF activities, country commitment, and y Project reviews Desk review of project-level focal area programs project counterparts support GEF mandate y Interviews with GEF information and strategies? and focal areas programs and strategies Secretariat staff and (catalytic and replication) IA/ExA technical staff Is GEF support efficient? Time, effort, and y Process indicators: project processing tim- y Project reviews Desk review of project-level money required to ing (according to Activity Cycle phases), y Interviews with GEF information and project field develop and imple- preparation and implementation cost Secretariat, IA/ExAs, visits ment a project, by by modality; Activity Cycle phases in the and government type of GEF support Philippines y Field visits modality y Project dropouts from PDF and cancellations Roles, engagement, y Full participation and coordination y Clear roles and responsibilities among different y Coordination among projects y Project reviews stakeholders in proj- y Interviews with proj- ect implementation ect staff Lessons learned Project design, preparation, and implemen- y Field visits across GEF projects tation have fully incorporated lessons from previous projects within and outside the GEF Synergies among IA/ y Project reviews y Desk review of project-level ExAs for GEF support y Interviews with information programming and IA/ExAs implementation y Extensive interviews y Consultation workshops Synergies among y Project reviews national institutions y Acknowledgment of each others' projects y Interviews with proj- for GEF support y Communication ect staff programming and y Technical support y Field visits implementation Synergies between y Project reviews GEF projects and y Interviews with NGOs other donors' support and bilateral donors y Field visits What are the methodologies to measure the results and effectiveness of GEF support? Project level y Project outcomes and impacts according to GEF programs y Existing ratings for project outcomes (self- ratings; independent ratings) y Changes in global benefit indexes and other global environmental indicators y Desk review of projects y Attribution to the GEF y Project reviews y Field visits y Field visits Aggregate level y Aggregated indicators from above y Interviews with govern- (portfolio/program) y Evaluative evidence y Catalytic and replication effects ment officials by focal area and y Attribution to the GEF IA/ExA Country level y Aggregated indicators from above y Overall outcomes and impacts of the GEF y Catalytic and replication effects Annex B. Evaluation Matrix 71 Annex C. GEF-Funded Activities in the Philippines GEF GEF Agency/ GEF Co- id. GEF executing funding financing no. Project title phase Modality agency (mil. $) (mil. $) Biodiversity 45.508 93.066+ 79 Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Pilot FSP WB/DENR & 15.520 1.130 NIPA Inc. 432 Preparation of the Philippines First National Report GEF-1 Enabling UNDP/DENR 0.036 0.020 to the CBD and Establishment of a CHM activity 1440 Assessment of Capacity Building Needs for Bio- GEF-2 Enabling UNDP/DENR 0.160 0.040 diversity Conservation and Management in the activity Philippines 653 Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation in GEF-2 FSP WB/DENR 1.250 5.310 Mindanao 1089 Asian Conservation Company Tranche I GEF-2 FSP WB-IFC/ACC 1.600 15.300 2345 Asian Conservation Company Tranche II GEF-2 FSP WB-IFC/ACC 2.900 2.200 836 Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund­Philippines GEF-2 FSP WB/CI 1.750 5.250 1102 River Basin and Watershed Management Program GEF-2 PDF-B UNDP/DENR 0.350 0 (Liguasan Marsh Wetland Biodiversity Conservation (canceled) 2 Samar Island Biodiversity Project: Conservation and GEF-2 FSP UNDP/DENR 6.110 7.120 Sustainable Use of the Biodiversity of a Forested Protected Area 798 Sustainable Management of Mount Isarog GEF-2 MSP UNDP/CARE 0.750 1.487 799 Conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs National GEF-2 MSP UNDP/WWF 0.770 0.830 Marine Park and World Heritage Site 913 Biodiversity Conservation and Management of the GEF-2 MSP UNDP/FPE 0.740 0.379 Bohol Islands Marine Triangle 1185 Integrated Coastal Resources Management Project GEF-3 FSP ADB/DENR & 9.340 54.000 LGU Small Grants Programme ­ 133 projects SGP UNDP 4.232 Climate change 79.253 1,570.456+ 328 Preparation of the National Communication Pro- GEF-1 Enabling UNDP/DENR 0.015 0 gram in Response to Its Commitments to UNFCCC activity 854 Climate Change: Additional Financing for Capacity GEF-2 Enabling UNDP/DENR 0.100 0 Building in Priority Areas activity 72 GEF GEF Agency/ GEF Co- id. GEF executing funding financing no. Project title phase Modality agency (mil. $) (mil. $) 80 Leyte-Luzon Geothermal Pilot FSP WB/PNOC & 30.000 1,303.600 NPC 652 CEPALCO Distributed Generation Photovoltaic GEF-2 FSP WB-IFC/DOE 4.030 1.780 Power Plant 785 Metro Manila Urban Transport Integration Project­ GEF-2 FSP WB/LGU 1.480 86.150 Marikina Bikeways Marikina 1071 Rural Power GEF-2 FSP WB-UNDP/ 10.350 26.500 DOE 1532 Electric Cooperative System Loss Reduction Project GEF-2 FSP WB/DOE 12.350 50.300 2108 Philippines Sustainable Energy Finance Program GEF-2 FSP WB-IFC/DOE 5.300 20.000 3243 Climate Change Adaptation Project (pipeline) GEF-2 FSP WB/DENR 5.370 50.000 29 Palawan New and Renewable Energy and Livelihood GEF-2 MSP UNDP/DOE 0.750 1.800 Support Project 1264 Capacity Building to Remove Barriers to Renewable GEF-2 FSP UNDP/DOE 5.450 18.326 Energy Development 1103 Efficient Lighting Market Transformation Project GEF-3 FSP UNDP/DOE 3.230 12.000 Small Grants Programme ­ 33 projects SGP UNDP 0.828 International waters 0.350 0 2759 Manila Third Sewerage Project (PDFs pending; need GEF-3 FSP WB/DENR 0.350 0 PIF for further processing) POPs 5.077 7.345+ 1449 Initial Assistance to the Philippines to Meet Its Obli- GEF-2 Enabling UNDP/DENR 0.500 0.083 gations under the Stockholm Convention on POPs activity 2329 Demonstration of the Viability and Removal of Bar- GEF-3 FSP UNDP- 4.570 7.262 riers That Impede Adoption and Successful Imple- UNIDO/DENR mentation of Available, Non-Combustion Technolo- gies for Destroying Persistent Organic Pollutants Small Grants Programme ­ 3 projects GEF-3 SGP UNDP 0.007 Multifocal 15.482 150.100+ 2159 National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Envi- GEF-2 Enabling UNDP/DENR 0.200 0.100 ronmental Management activity 2761 Environment and Natural Resources Management GEF-3 FSP WB/DENR & 7.350 80.000 Program, Phase 1 LGU 2975 Mindanao Rural Development Program Phase II­ GEF-3 FSP WB/DENR 7.270 70.000 Coastal World Bank and Marine Ecosystem Conser- vation Component (Pipeline) Small Grants Programme ­ 37 projects SGP UNDP 0.662 Unspecified 0.050 + Small Grants Programme ­ 2 projects GEF-2 SGP UNDP 0.050 GEF-3 Total 145.720 1,820.967+ Note: CI = Conservation International; LGU = local government unit; WB = World Bank. Completed projects are in green. Annex C. GEF-Funded Activities in the Philippines 73 Annex D. GEF-Funded Activities Not Included in Evaluation GEF GEF funding Project Focal area Modality Agency (million $) Regional Biodiversity Indicators for National Use Biodiversity MSP UNEP 0.848 Emergency Response Measure to Combat Fires in Indonesia and to Multifocal MSP UNEP 0.750 Prevent Regional Haze in South East Asia Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Int'l waters FSP UNEP 16.749 Sea and Gulf of Thailand (PEMSEA) East Asian Seas Region: Development and Implementation of Public Int'l waters MSP UNDP 1.000 Private Partnerships in Environmental Investments (PEMSEA) Marine Aquarium Market Transformation Initiative Int'l waters FSP IFC 6.915 Global Biodiversity Country Studies­Phase I Biodiversity Enabling UNEP 5.000 activity Harnessing Multi-Stakeholder Mechanisms to Promote Global Envi- Biodiversity MSP UNDP 0.750 ronmental Priorities Fuel Cells Financing Initiative for Distributed Generation Applica- Climate change FSP World 6.575 tions­Phase 1 Bank Efficient Lighting Initiative Climate change FSP World 5.650 Bank Development of a Strategic Market Intervention Approach for Grid- Climate change MSP UNEP 1.000 Connected Solar Energy Technologies Demonstrating and Promoting Best Techniques and Practices for POPs FSP UNDP 11.051 Reducing Health-Care Waste to Avoid Environmental Releases of Dioxins and Mercury Reduction of Environmental Impact from Tropical Shrimp Trawl- Int'l waters FSP UNEP 4.780 ing through Introduction of By-catch Technologies and Change of Management Note: UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme; World Bank = World Bank. 74 Annex E. People Interviewed and Workshop Participants E.1 National Government Jesus Javier, Section Chief Reforestation Division, FMB Institutions Isabelita Austria, FMB Alicia Castillo, FMB Department of Foreign Affairs Bernarditas Muller, GEF Political Focal Point Repre- Department of Agriculture sentative, DFA-UNIO Gina Nilo, Director and National Technical Land Deg- Fritz Fernandez radation Focal Point, BSWM Rogelio Concepcion, BSWM DENR Carmencita Kagoan, Division Chief, Bureau of Agricul- Francisco Bravo, Undersecretary, GEF OFP tural Research Analiza Rebuelta-Teh, Assistant Secretary, FASPO and Marico Ramos, Bureau of Agricultural Research Assisting OFP Cristina Regunay, Division Chief, Multilateral Invest- NEDA ment Program, FASPO, DENR Rolando Tungpalan, Assitant Director General Gloria Arce, Monitoring and Evaluation Division, Gem Santos, Public Investment Staff FASPO Sheila Encabo, Director, Agriculture Staff Elma L. Elena, FASPO Jan Andrew Zubiri, Agriculture Staff Lieell Bobadilla, Head Executive Assistant, FASPO Luisa Jolongbayan, Agriculture Staff Eda Soriano, Technical Staff, FASPO, DENR Adonis de los Reyes, Agriculture Staff Joy Goco, National Technical Focal Point on Climate Oliver Abrenilla, Environment and Natural Resources Change, EMB and, IACCC Unit Gigi Merillo, EMB and IACCC Violeta S. Corpus, Rural Development Monitoring and Consolacion Crisostomo, EMB Evaluation Division Ella Deocadiz, EMB-POD Armando Andrade Mundita Lim, Director and National Technical Focal Grace Morta, Project Monitoring Staff Point on Biodiversity, PAWB Jesse David, Project Monitoring Staff Meriden Maranan, Division Chief, PAWB Planning Bureau Department of Transportation and Nancy Corpuz, PAWB Planning Bureau Communication Angie Brabrante, Project Manager and National Tech- Dante Lantin, Assistant Secretary for Land Sector nical Focal Point on POPs, EMB Ildefonso Patdu, Director Florendo Barangan, Director, CMMO Robert Jara, Coordinator International Waters Pro- Department of Energy gram, CMMO Lilian Fernandez, Director for Planning Bureau 75 Mylene Capongcol, Director, Energy Power Industry Amelia Supetran, Portfolio Manager, UNDP­Philippines Management Bureau Imee Manal, Programme Manager Climate Change, Alice de Guzman, Officer in Charge of Rural Electrica- UNDP­Philippines tion Management Division Edgardo Policarpio, Programme Assistant, UNDP­ Nenito Jariel, Senior Science Research Specialist, Geo- Philippines thermal and Coal Francisco Morito, Programme Assistant, UNDP­Phil- Hershey de la Cruz, Energy Cooperation and Collabo- ippines ration Mala Hettige, Principal Evaluation Specialist, Opera- Francisco Benito, Project Manager, CBRED Project tions Evaluation Department, ADB Raquel Huliganga, Director and Project Director of Cristina P. Roldan, Senior Operations Evaluation Assis- PELMAT Project tant, ADB Charo Mojica, Task Specialist on Capacity Bldg, Jose Padilla, Environment and Social Safeguards Divi- PELMAT Project sion, ADB Noel Verdote, Project Manager, PELMAT Project Richard Bolt, Senior Economist, Economics and Arturo Zabala, EELS Specialist, PELMAT Project Research Department, ADB Agnes C. de Jesus, Vice-President, Environment & Joven Balbosa, ADB External Affairs, PNOC-EDC Jamilur Rahman, Principal Project Specialist, Agricul- Francis M. Dolor, Senior manager, Planning & Control ture, Environment and Natural Resources Divi- Division, PNOC-EDC sion, ADB Nelda A. Habacon, Supervisor, Planning & Control Annie Idanan, Consultant, ADB Division, PNOC-EDC Axel Hebel, Agriculture and Natural Resources Man- Raymond Quiroz, PNOC-EDC agement Specialist, Agriculture, Environment and Marianne Paje, PNOC-EDC Natural Resources Division, ADB David McCauley, Senior Environment Economist, E.2 GEF Agencies Regional and Sustainable Development Depart- ment, ADB Samuel Wedderburn, Senior Operations Officer, GEF Coordination Team, World Bank E.3 Academe, NGOs, Private Sector Idah Z. Pswarayi-Riddihough, Task Manager, World Bank­International Bank for Reconstruction and Noriel Tiglao, University of the Philippines, National Development College of Public Administration/National Center Selina Wai Sheung Shum, Task Manager, World for Transportation Studies Bank­International Bank for Reconstruction and Karl Vergel, University of the Philippines, National Col- Development lege of Public Administration/National Center for Carol Figueroa-Geron, Senior Operations Officer, Transportation Studies World Bank­Manila Michael Atrigenio, CEPF Philippines Grant Manager Joe Tuyor, Operations Manager, World Bank­Manila Artems Antolin, Conservation International­Philippines Maya Villaluz, Environment Operations Officer, World Luz Teresa Baskinas, Vice President, WWF­Philippines Bank­Manila Annabelle Plantilla, Executive Director, Haribon Foun- Jesse O. Ang, Principal Investment Officer, World dation for the Conservation of Nature Bank­IFC Amy Lecciones, Executive Director, Philippine Sustain- Catherine Cassagne, Senior Project Officer, Sustain- able Development Network able Business Innovator, World Bank­IFC Christine Reyes, Executive Director, Foundation for Euan Marshall, Country Coordinator, World Bank­IFC the Philippine Environment Clarissa Arida, Programme Manager Biodiversity, Irma Rose C. Marcelo, Executive Director, El Nido Foun- UNDP­Philippines dation, Inc. 76 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Ramon Faustino Sales Jr., Philippine Network on Cli- Madlyn Cordova, Site Coordinator, CBCF mate Change Vitaliano Lingo, CBCF Helen Mendoza, Philippine Network on Climate Change Godfrey Jakosalem, Field Projects Officer, CBCF Leigh A. Talmage-Perez, Director, Asian Conservation Expedicitas S. Lenares, MANRO, LGU, Dalaguete Company Municipality Vincent S. Perez, Chairman, Merritt Partners Pte. Ltd. Felix Villacosta, SB Member, LGU, Dalaguete Municipality E.4 GEF Projects Edgardo P. Lillo, Instructor, CSCST, Aragao Municipality Pedro Villacita, Forest Warden, Nug-as PEMSEA Project Teodoro Amaca, Forest Warden, Nug-as Chua Thia-Eng, Regional Programme Director Henry Bendrilao, Forest Warden, Alcoy, Cebu Adrian Ross, Senior Programme Officer Hemres Alburo, Assistant Professor, CSCST, Aragao Huming Yu, Senior Programme Officer Municipality PEMSEA ICM Demonstration Site: Flordeliza P. Geyrozaga, Forester, CENRO, DENR, Batangas Bay Argao Municipality Bresilda M. Gervacio, Technical Officer, PEMSEA Orencio V. Ambayec, Barangay Captain, Babayon, Dalaguete Municipality Ronaldo Geron, Provincial Administrator Moreno Isgaroz, CENR Officer, Krelao Municipality Socorro Perez, Office the Provincial Planning and Development Office Bohol Marine Triangle Project Ester Mioliñawi, Provincial Agricultural Office Peoro R. Honculada Jr., SB Member, LGU Danis Philip Baroja, Batangas City LGU Municipality Evelyn L. Estigoy, Engineer, Department Head, PG-ENRO Luciano Bongalo, LGU Danis Municipality Luis A. Awitan, Assistant Department Head, PG-ENRO Dennis B. Hora, SB Member, Panglad Municipality Loreta A. Sollestre, Head, Planning Section, PG-ENRO Ellen Grace Z. Gallares, Partner, Bangon/FCBFI Concepcion Dimayuga, Head, Batangas Environment Remedios Regacho, CRM Sector Head, Bohol Provin- Laboratory, PG-ENRO cial Environment Management Office Rowell Sandoval, Mayor of Mabini Municipality Juanito Obispo, Chairman POFBD, Padayon Antionio Atienza, Mayor of Tingloy Municipality Enrique Auxilio, Executive Director, BIDEF Minda Villas, Municipal Environment and Natural Resti Tejico, Executive Director, PADAYON BMT Resource Office, Mabini Municipality Management Office Benjamin Espina Jr., President, Batangas Coastal Magda D. Narido, Staff, PADAYON BMT Manage- Resource Management Foundation ment Office Noel Mendoza, Coordinator, Batangas Coastal Nenita Clenyar, Staff, PADAYON BMT Management Resource Management Foundation Office Representatives of the Badjao Indigenous community, Luceline Calotes, Staff, PADAYON BMT Management Batangas Office Marikina Bikeway Project Mary Ann Tercero, Project Manager, FPE­Bohol Project Bayani, Mayor, Municipality of Marikina Ramie V. Debuayan, Administrative Assistant, FPE­ Bohol Project Lota Contreras, Project Manager Amy Araniego, Staff, PADAYON BMT Management CEPF and SGP Projects Office Lisa Maria Paguentalan, Director for Field Operations, Christopher Nistal, Barangay Captain, San Isidro CBCF Jovencid Aranjuez, Barangay Kagawad, President, SIFFO Annex E. People Interviewed and Workshop Participants 77 Fructuoso Mrutan, Barangay Kagawad, Member, SIFFO Geron P. Wenceslao, Senior Forester Jose A. Nistan, Barangay Kagawad, Member, SIFFO Ulysses Rex Bonita, Production Manager Rodrigo Eugenio, Barangay Kagawad, Member, SIFFO José Rufino Peñaranda, Deputy Manager Lito Abafal Sr., Barangay Kagawad, Member, SIFFO Manuel C. Paete, Resident Manager Alfredo Mistral, Barangay Kagawad, Member, SIFFO Gloria Amboy, Supervisor Pamilacan Island PO Ecotourism Women Association Tubbataha Marine National Park Project Leyte-Luzon Geothermal Project Angelique Songco, Park Manager, Tubbataha Reef Garry F. Cañete, Operations Engineer Marine National Park & World Heritage Site Ruperto R. Villa, Jr., Process Geochemist Mindanao Coastal Biodiversity Project Leonita Sabando, Environmental Field Supervisor Gilbert Braganza, ENR Consultant and Sociologist (pre- Albert M. Azarcom, Senior Forester viously Operations Manager, World Bank­Manila) 78 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Annex F. Literature Reviewed F.1 The Philippines and GEF the Philippines: Key Biodiversity Areas." Quezon City, Philippines. Activities in the Philippines Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. 2001. "The Phil- Anda, A.D. 2002. "Impacts and Risks from Differ- ippines Hotspot: Ecosystems Profile." ent Land Uses in Samar Island Forest Reserve." USAID-DENR-REECS. Quezon City, Philippines. --. 2006. "CEPF and Poverty Reduction: A Review of the Philippines CEPF Portfolio." Asian Conservation Company. 2005. "PES: Sustain- able Financing for Conservation and Develop- --. 2007. "Assessing Five Years of CEPF Investment ment. Proceedings from the National Conference in the Philippines Biodiversity Hotspot." Draft. on Payments for Environmental Services: Direct Danielsen, Finn, Marlynn M. Mendoza, Anson Tagtag, Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation and Pov- Phillip A. Alviola, Danilo S. Balete, Arne E. Jensen, erty Alleviation." Manila, March 1­2, 2005. Martin Enghoff, and Michael K. Poulsen. 2007. Asian Development Bank. 2006. "Philippines Country "Increasing Conservation Management Action by Visit Report." Unpublished. Pasig City, Philippines. Involving Local People in Natural Resource Moni- toring." Ambio 36(5). Baastel. 2006. "Evaluation of the Environmental Finance (IFC) Group's GEF Funded Initiatives in the Philip- Daruma Technologies, Incorporated. 2003. "Assess- pines." Final report. Quebec. ment of Capacity Building Needs for Biodiversity Conservation and Management." Final report. Butler, Rhett A. 2006. "Data on Forest Cover Trends." Quezon City, Philippines: DENR PAWB, UNDP, http://rainforests.mongabay.com/20philippines.htm. and GEF. Chua, Thia-Eng, and Nancy Bermas, eds. 1999. "Chal- Department of Energy. 2004. "Philippine Energy Plan lenges and Opportunities in Managing Pollution 2004­2010." www.doe.gov.ph/PEP/default.htm. in the East Asian Seas." PEMSEA. Departments of Agriculture, Environment and Natural Chua, Thia-Eng, and others. 1999. "Sharing Lessons Resources, Science and Technology and Agrarian and Experiences in Marine Pollution Manage- Reform. 2004. "The Philippine National Action ment." Quezon City, Philippines. Plan to Combat Desertification, Land Degradation, Drought and Poverty." Quezon City, Philippines Collar, N., N.A.D. Mallari, and B.R. Tabaranza. 1999. Threatened Birds of the Philippines. The Haribon DENR Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau. 1992. Foundation/BirdLife International Red Data Book. "National Wetlands Action Plan." Quezon City, Makati, Philippines: Bookmark, Inc. Philippines. Conservation International. "Biodiversity Hotspots-- --. Data on protected areas. www. pawb.gov.ph. Philippines." www. biodiversityhotspots.org. --. 1997. "National Biodiversity Strategy and Conservation International, Department of Environ- Action Plan--Philippine Biodiversity: An Assess- ment and Natural Resources, and Haribon Foun- ment and Action Plan." Makati City, Philippines: dation. 2006. "Priority Sites for Conservation in Bookmark Inc. 79 --. 1999. "The Philippines Initial National Com- EarthTrends. 2003. "Country Profiles. Forests, Grass- munication on Climate Change." Quezon City, lands, and Dry Lands--Philippines." Philippines. Environmental Science for Social Change. "Decline of --. 2000. "National Integrated Protected Areas the Philippine Forest." Environmental Science for Programme Final Completion Report." Quezon Social Change, Inc. and Bookmark, Inc. Quezon City, Philippines. City, Philippines. --. 2005. "General Program of Action 2005­2010." Foundation for the Philippine Environment. 2004. 2003 Quezon City, Philippines. Annual Report. Quezon City, Philippines. --. 2006. "National Implementation Plan for the GEF Evaluation Office. 2007. "Back to Office Report: Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pol- Visit to the Philippines and Samoa." lutants." Quezon City, Philippines. --. 2007. "Minutes of Meeting March 1, 2007, DENR Forest Management Bureau. Philippine forestry with IFC Catherine Cassagne, Biodiversity statistics. Quezon City, Philippines. Team Leader, Regarding Country Portfolio Evaluation--Philippines." DENR GEF Philippine Operational Focal Point. 2005. "Report on the Proceedings of the Write Shop for Griffiths, T. 2005. "Indigenous Peoples and the Global the GEF Strategy for the Philippines." Quezon City, Environment Facility. Indigenous Peoples Experi- Philippines. ence of GEF Funded Biodiversity Conservation: A Critical Study." --. 2006. "Circular 2006-01. Subject: Defining the International Finance Corporation. 2007. "IFC Response Parameters for Prioritizing Projects on Biodiversity to the Review of IFC's Global Environment Facility to be Endorsed to GEF." Quezon City, Philippines. Portfolio: Philippines." Washington, DC. --. 2006. "Circular 2006-02. Subject: Defining the IUCN. 2006. "Red List of Threatened Species." Parameters for Prioritizing Projects on Climate Change to be Endorsed to GEF." Quezon City, Jensen, Arne E. 2003. "Case Study on Protected Area Philippines. Management. Main Report and Annexes: Profiles of Mt. Isarog National Park, Puerto Princesa Subterra- --. 2006. "MOU between UNEP and DENR for nean River National Park and Northern Sierra Madre Country Support Programme for GEF Focal Natural Park." Washington, DC: World Bank. Points Component under UNEP." Quezon City, Philippines. --. 2005. "GEF Supported Natural Resources Man- agement Program in the Philippines." Identification --. 2007. "Briefing on Country Support Pro- Mission Report. Washington, DC: World Bank. gramme." PowerPoint presentation. Quezon City, Philippines. Lasco, R.D., and J.M. Pulhin. 2006. "Environmental Impacts of Community-Based Forest Management --. 2007. "Minutes of the First GEF Country Dia- in the Philippines." International Journal for Envi- logue." Quezon City, Philippines. ronment and Sustainable Development 5(1):46­56. --. 2007. "Review of the GEF4 Pipeline Project Lasmarias, N., and others. 2004. "Mapping Popula- under Biodiversity and Climate Change." Power- tion-Biodiversity Connections in the Philippines." Point Presentation. Quezon City, Philippines. DENR-PAWB, Conservation International Philip- pines, and NEDA. Quezon City, Philippines. DENR and the Haribon Foundation for the Conserva- tion of Natural Resources, eds. 2003. "Building on Magraf, Josef, and Paciencia P. Milan. 1997. "Mag-Rain- Lessons from the Field, Protected Areas Manage- forestation Farming." Philippine-German Applied ment Experiences in Southeast Asia." Proceedings Tropical Ecology Program and Visayas State Col- of the IUCN-World Commission on Protected lege of Agriculture. Areas, Third Southeast Asia Regional Meeting, Manila Observatory. 2005. "Integrated Environmental April 1­5, 2003. Mandaluyong City, Philippines. Strategies. Philippines Project Report. Metropoli- DENR and UNDP. 2006. "Framework Plan for Environ- tan Manila. Focus on the Transport Sector." Que- ment & Natural Resources Management. Volume I." zon City, Philippines. 80 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) NEDA. 1993. "Medium-Term Philippine Development Primavera, J.H. 2000. "Development and Conservation Plan 1993­1998." Makati City, Philippines. of Philippine Mangroves: Institutional Issues." Eco- logical Economics 35:91­106 --. 1996. "Medium-Term Philippine Develop- ment Plan 1996­1998. Updated Plan." Makati City, Renewable Energy Asia. 2005. "Renewable Energy in Philippines. Asia: The Philippines Report. An Overview of the Energy Systems, Renewable Energy Options, Ini- --. 1999. "Medium-Term Philippine Development tiatives, Actors and Opportunities in the Philip- Plan 1999­2004." Makati City, Philippines. pines." Manila. --. 2004. "Medium-Term Philippine Development Roberts, Callum M., and others. 2002. "Marine Biodi- Plan 2004­2010." Pasig City, Philippines. versity Hotspots and Conservation Priorities for OECD.Stat Extracts. Creditor Reporting System. http:// Tropical Reefs." Science 295(5558):1280­84. stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Default.aspx?DatasetCode Subida R., M.A. Velas, and others. 2004. "Integrated =CRSNEW. Environmental Strategies--Philippines Project. Ong, P.S., L.E. Afuang, and R.G. Rosell-Ambal, eds. Report/Metropolitan Manila: A Focus on the 2002. "Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Pri- Transport Sector." Manila. orities: A Second Iteration of the National Biodi- Talmage-Perez, Leigh. 2005. "Asian Conservation versity Strategy and Action Plan." DENR-PAWB, Company and Investment in Ten Knots Group." Conservation International Philippines, Biodiver- PCSD Environment and Economic Summit 2005. sity Conservation Program University of the Phil- Palawan. ippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies, and Foundation for the Philippine Envi- --. 2005. "Asian Conservation Company and Ten ronment. Quezon City, Philippines. Knots Group: Private Business in El Nido­Taytay Managed Resource Protected Area." Padilla, J.E. 2004. "Sustainability Assessment of Alter- United Nations. 2002. "Johannesburg Summit native Land Uses for the Proposed Samar Island 2002--Philippines Country Profile." Natural Park." United Nations Statistical Databases. http://unstats. PEMSEA. 2006. "Integrated Coastal Management: un.org/unsd/default.htm. Revitalizing the Coastal and Oceans Program in the Philippines." Vol. 2, No. 1. Quezon City, World Bank. 2003. "Philippine Country Water Philippines. Resources Assistance Strategy." --. 2006. "Securing the Future through ICM: --. 2004. Governance of Natural Resources in The Case of Batangas Bay Region." Quezon City, the Philippines: Lessons from the Past, Directions Philippines. for the Future. Part I. Manila: World Bank, Rural Development and Natural Resources Sector Unit, Philippine Council for Sustainable Development. "Phil- East Asia and Pacific Region. ippine Agenda 21." www.psdn.org.ph/agenda21/ main.htm. --. 2005. "Governance of Natural Resources in the Philippines: NRM Way Forward Action Plan Philippine National Statistical Coordination Board. for the Philippines. Part II." Draft final report. 2003, 2004, and 2006. Socioeconomic data. Manila: World Bank, Rural Development and Nat- Philippine National Statistics Office. 1993, 1995, and ural Resources Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific 2003. Socioeconomic data. Region. --. 2006. "Philippine Environment Monitor 2005: Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development. Coastal and Marine Resources." Manila. www.psdn.org/pienc/pssd.htm. World Resources Institute. 1997. "Carbon Counts: Posa, M.R.C., A.C. Diesmos, N.S. Sodhi, and T.M. Estimating Climate Change Mitigation in Forestry Brooks. 2007. "Hope for Threatened Tropical Bio- Projects." diversity: Lessons from the Philippines." BioSci- ence. Accepted. --. 2006: "Earth Trend Environmental Information." Annex F. Literature Reviewed 81 F.2 The GEF F.3 World Bank GEF documents can be accessed from the GEF Web World Bank. 1996. "Country Assistance Strategy site, www.thegef.org; Evaluation Office documents are 1996­1998." available at www.gefeo.org. --. 1999. "Country Assistance Strategy 1999­2002." GEF. 1997. "GEF Operational Programs." --. 2003. "Country Assistance Strategy 2003­2005." --. 2001. "Medium Size Projects Evaluation." --. 2006. "Country Assistance Strategy 2006­2008." --. 2001. "Second Overall Performance Study. Interim Report." F.4 UNDP --. 2002. The First Decade of the GEF: The Second UNDP. 1997. "Country Cooperation Framework for Overall Performance Study. the Philippines 1997­2001." --. 2002. "Results from the GEF Climate Change --. "Capacity Development Initiative: Country Program." Capacity Development Needs and Priorities: --. 2003. "Third Study of GEF's Overall Perfor- Regional Report for Asia and the Pacific." GEF- mance (OPS 3) Evaluative Framework, 2003." UNDP Strategic Partnership. --. 2005. "Achieving the Millennium Development --. 2002. "Country Cooperation Framework for Goals, a GEF Progress Report." the Philippines 2002­2005." --. 2005. "The GEF Resource Allocation Frame- --. 2002. "Framework Plan for Environment and work." Natural Resources Management." --. 2005. "Implementing the GEF Resource Allo- --. 2004. "Common Country Assessment of the cation Framework." Philippines." --. 2006. "GEF RAF Framework: Indicative --. 2005. "Country Program Action Plan between Resource Allocations for GEF-4 for Biodiversity the Government of the Philippines and the United and Climate Change Focal Areas." Nations Development Programme 2005­2009." GEF Evaluation Office. 2004. Biodiversity Program www.undp.org.ph/casts/cpap/CPAP.pdf. Study 2004. --. 2005. "The United Nations Development Assis- --. 2004. Climate Change Program Study 2004. tance Framework in the Philippines 2005­2009." --. 2004. Program Study on International Waters --. 2006. "Country Cooperation Framework for 2004. the Philippines 2006­2009." --. 2006. GEF Annual Performance Report. Report --. Undated. "MDG7 Progress Towards Envi- No. 31. ronmental Sustainability." www.undp.org/energy andenvironment/sustainabledifference/PDFs/ --. 2006. The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Pol- Asia/Philippines.com.pdf. icy. Document No. 1. --. 2007. Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities. Report No. 33. F.5 ADB Asian Development Bank. 1998. "Country Operation --. GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Costa Rica Strategy." (1992­2005). Report No. 32. GEF Secretariat. 2000. "Revised Guidelines for Support --. 2003. "Country Assistance Program Evaluation to Strengthen the National Coordination Activities in the Philippines." of the GEF Focal Point through One of Its Imple- --. 2004. "Country Environmental Analysis for the menting Agencies." Philippines." Ong, Perry. 2005. "Overview of GEF in the Philippines. --. 2005. "Country Strategy and Program Technical Report." Manila: World Bank. 2005­2007." 82 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) --. 2006. "Special Evaluation Study on Multilateral Completed and Ongoing National Projects Joint Evaluation of GEF Project Process and Imple- mentation of Selected ADB's GEF Co-Financed Enabling Activities Projects Proposed Evaluation Approach." Enabling the Philippines to Prepare the National Communications Program in Response to its Com- mitments to the UNFCCC F.6 The GEF SGP z Final Project Document GEF Small Grants Programme. sgp.undp.org. z Philippine National Action Plan on Climate Change GEF SGP. 2003. "Annex 1 Report of the GEF SGP Global z First Philippine National Communications on Cli- Workshop Executive Summary." Nairobi. mate Change z Initial National Communication on Climate --. 2003. "Annual Report 2003." Change 1999 --. 2003. "Annual Progress Report September Enabling Activity to Prepare the Philippines First 2002­February 2003." National Report to the CBD and Establishment of a --. 2003. "Annual Report February­August 2003." Clearing House Mechanism z Project Brief --. 2004. "Annual Report March­August 2004." z Final Proposal --. 2005. "GEF Small Grants Programme Philip- z First National Report to the Convention on Bio- pines: Country Programme Strategy 2005­08." logical Diversity 1998 z Second National Report to the CBD 2002 --. 2005. "Project Document. Third Operational z Third National Report to the Convention on Bio- Phase." logical Diversity z National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan --. 2006. "DENR Endorsement Letter of SGP to the z Second Iteration of the National Biodiversity Strat- Global Manager of GEF-SGP for RAF Allocation." egy and Action Plan, Final Report 2002 GEF SGP and Philippine Tropical Forestry. 2005. "Phil- Climate Change Enabling Activity (additional ippines Current Profile July­December 2005." financing for capacity building in priority areas) UNDP. 1998. "Second Independent Evaluation of the z Project Concept GEF Small Grants Programme: Transition to an z Proposal for Review Operational Phase. Volume 1: Main Report." New z Status Report on the CDM in the Philippines York. Assessment of Capacity Building Needs for Biodi- --. 2003. "Report of the Third Independent Evalu- versity Conservation and Management in the Phil- ation of the Global Environment Facility Small ippines (add-on) z Project Brief Grants Programme 1999­2002." www.undp. org/gef/05/documents/me/SGP3rdIndepEval- Initial Assistance to the Philippines to Meet Its Obli- 20May2003.pdf. gations under the Stockholm Convention on POPs z Revised Project Brief UNDP GEF and Royal Netherlands Embassy. 2003. z National Implementation Plan for Stockholm Con- "Small Grants Programme­Philippines. Summary vention on POPs (includes a summary and several of Projects." Makati City, Philippines. chapters) --. 2004. "Small Beginnings, Infinite Possibili- z Final Report (main report and annexes) ties: The SGP through the Eyes of our Partners. A National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Envi- Directory of Grants and Programmed Interven- ronmental Management tions. Volume 2." Makati City, Philippines. z Project Brief z NCSA to Meet the Country's Obligations to the F.7 GEF Projects in the Philippines Three UN Conventions Volumes 1­5. z Draft NSCA Publication The list only presents the titles of the documents and z Capacity Enhancement for the Global Environ- not the bibliographic references. ment: The Change Report Annex F. Literature Reviewed 83 MSPs and FSPs Leyte-Luzon Geothermal Project Samar Island Biodiversity Project z Final Project Document z Project Document z Implementation Completion Report z Project Inception Report z Terminal Evaluation Review z Accomplishment Reports 2001­2005 CEPALCO Photovoltaic Demonstration Project z PIR 2001­2006 z Project Document z Financial Reports 2001­2005 z IFC Project Summary z Final Report of the Terminal Evaluation Mission z PIR 2005 z Perception Survey 2002 z PIR 2006 z Ecotourism Feasibility Studies for SNBNP z Ecotourism Feasibility Studies for Pinipisakan Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation in Falls, N. Samar Mindanao z Harvesting and Utilization Study z Project Brief z Biological Resource Assessment z PIR 2005 z Community Outreach Program Framework Plan z PIR 2005 z Information, Education, and Communication and z Technical Assistance Completion Report Advocacy Framework Plan z 2006 Implementation Completion Report for the z Forest Protection Plan Grant and Loan Portfolio z Forest Land Use Planning Framework Metro Manila Urban Transport­Marikina Bikeways z Watershed Planning Framework Component z Livelihood Framework z Project Brief z Project Pre-Implementation Documents z Final Project Document z SAMBIO Final Report z Tracking Sheet z PIR 2004 Palawan New and Renewable Energy and Liveli- z PIR 2005 hood Support Project z Technical Assistance Completion Report z Final Project Document z PIR 2005 Sustainable Management of Mount Isarog's Territo- z PIR 2006 ries Project z Midterm Review z Project Brief z GEF Local Benefits Case Study Working Document z Project Document z Project Review Conservation of Priority Protected Areas z PIR 2004 z Project Document z PIR 2005 z PIR 2002 z Midterm Evaluation z PIR 2003 z 2005 Consolidated Participatory Final Review and z Implementation Completion Report Evaluation z Terminal Evaluation Review z Final Report on Improving Biodiversity Conserva- Conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs National tion in Protected Areas of the Philippines Marine Park and World Heritage Site z Community-Oriented Biodiversity Conservation z Project Document in the Philippines: Initiatives and Impacts: Case z Project Summary Study on Mt. Canlaon Natural Park z Project Implementation Framework z Community-Oriented Biodiversity Conservation z PIR 2004­2005 in the Philippines: Initiatives and Impacts: Case z Annual Report 2002 Study on Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park z First Participatory Evaluation of Tubbataha Marine z Community-Oriented Biodiversity Conservation National Park: Process and Results in the Philippines: Initiatives and Impacts: Case z Final Report of the Terminal Evaluation Mission Study on Mt. Kitanglad Range Natural Park z Research Report 2001­2003 (PDF File) z Community-Oriented Biodiversity Conservation z GEF Local Benefits Case Study Working Document in the Philippines: Initiatives and Impacts: Case z Policy Paper on Fishery Cases Study on Apo Reef Natural Park z State of Conservation Report 2004 84 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) z Sustainable Financing Business Plan z PIR 2005 z Park Management Plan z PIR 2006 z Capacity Building and Training Framework Plan Philippine Sustainable Energy Finance Program z Information, Education, and Communication Frame- z Final Project Brief work Plan z Sustainable Resource Management and Livelihood z Project Brief Annexes Framework Plan for Cagayancillo z Executive Summary z Cagayancillo Coastal Resource Management Plan Global Program to Demonstrate the Viability and Bohol Marine Triangle Project Removal of Barriers that Impede the Successful z PDF-A Project Proposal Implementation of Available Non-Combustion z Project Document MSP Grant Technologies for Destroying Persistent Organic z Project Document Pollutants z 2004 Midterm Evaluation Report and Annexes z Revised Project Brief z PIR 2004 z National Implementation Plan for Stockholm Con- z PIR 2005 vention on POPs z PIR 2006 z Final Report Rural Power Project Asian Conservation Company Tranche II z Project Document z Project Document z Project Document Annexes z Interview Notes ACC and WWF Philippines z Background Note z Talking Points LCF National Program Support for Environment and z Final Aide Memo November 2006 Natural Resources Management Project z Technical Assistance Completion Report z Project Executive Summary z PIR 2005 z Revised Project Brief z PIR 2006 z Project Appraisal Document z Implementing Guidelines z GEF Project Implementation Plan z Aide Memoirs 2005­2006 Asian Conservation Company Tranche I z Project Brief Global Programme to Demonstrate the Viability z Project Document and Removal of Barriers That Impede Adoption z PIR 2005 and Successful Implementation of Available, Non- z PIR 2006 Combustion Technologies for Destroying Persis- tent Organic Pollutants Philippine Efficient Lighting Market Transforma- z Final Project Document tion Project z CEO Endorsement z Council Document z Project Document z PIR 2006 Projects in the Pipeline Integrated Coastal Resource Management Project Manila Third Sewerage Project z Proposal for Entry into Pipeline and PDF-B Grant z Revised PDF-B Project Concept z ADB Loan and Project Summary Mindanao Rural Development Project Phase II- Capacity Building to Remove Barriers to Renewable Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Component Energy Development z Project Identification Form z Project Document z PDF Project Concept z Project Document Annexes z Pipeline Entry and PDF-B Approval z PIR 2005 z Environmental Assessment z PIR 2006 z Indigenous Peoples Development Framework Electric Cooperative Systems Loss Reduction Project Philippine Climate Change Adaptation Project z Project Document z PDF-B Document z Final Project Brief z Project Identification Form Annex F. Literature Reviewed 85 Regional Projects Building Partnerships in Environmental Protection Asia Least-Cost Gas Abatement Strategy and Management for the East Asian Seas z Project Briefs 1 and 2 z Final Project Document z Project Implementation Report 2005­2006 z ALGAS Country Study Report 1998 z PEMSEA Terminal Evaluation Report 2006 z ALGAS TA Completion Report z PEMSEA Terminal Evaluation Executive Summary z Final Report: External Evaluation Study of ALGAS Project Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in z ADB's Initiative in the Climate Change Area 2004 the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand z ALGAS (PowerPoint) z Final Project Document z Initiative in Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency z Project Implementation Review Report 2005 and Climate Change (PowerPoint) Marine Aquarium Market Transformation Initiative z Regional Workshop on Climate Change z PDF B Final Proposal Regional Programme on Prevention and Manage- z Project Brief ment of Marine Pollution in East Asian Seas z Project Document z Program Document z CEO Endorsement z Final Project Evaluation 1998 East Asian Seas Region: Development and Imple- z Specially Managed Project Review 2002 mentation of Public Private Partnerships in Envi- z 2004 Manila Bay Refined Risk Assessment ronmental Investments z 2001 Manila Bay Coastal Strategy z Final Project Document 86 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Annex G. Global and Local Benefits: Achievements at the Project Level Project title/global objective Global benefits achieved/intended Local impacts Biodiversity 2 Samar Island Biodiversity Project Establishment of 428,700-hectare y Functional protected area management board To conserve a representative sample protected area with legal bound- y 10-year management plan of the biodiversity of the Philippines ary demarcation by presidential y Biodiversity monitoring system partly in place by creating a new protected area in proclamation y Protected area bill in Congress the Eastern Visayas biogeographic area 79 Conservation of Priority Pro- Establishment in 8 out of 10 project y Functional protected area management tected Areas sites of more than 1 million hectares boards in most of the sites Conservation and management of protected area lands, wetlands, and y 10-year management plans for all sites of resources within 10 globally seas with legal boundary demarcation y Biodiversity monitoring system in place at important biodiversity priority sites by presidential proclamation project end in six protected areas under the government's National y One site became the world's first transbound- Integrated Protected Areas System ary marine protected area and is on the UNESCO World Heritage list; another site became a designated Ramsar Site y Project facilitated the country's first five Republic Acts permanently establishing 5 of 10 project sites as protected areas 653 Coastal and Marine Biodiver- y Creation of Paril-Sangay and Bongo y Increased local-based protection in place and sity Conservation in Mindanao Island marine protected area includ- decline in poaching of giant clams and sea- To conserve and restore glob- ing protected habitats for endan- turtle eggs, among others, and in large-scale ally important coastal habitats gered species such as sea-turtles cutting of mangrove and related marine biodiversity y Both sites showed a trend with fish y Local community awareness of the value of in Mindanao by mainstreaming population increasing in density, coastal and marine biodiversity conservation biodiversity and marine ecosystem species diversity, and biomass; and protection enormously heightened conservation in community devel- branching coral cover increased opment and in the coastal fisheries by 27 to 38 percent compared to sector baseline data 798 Sustainable Management of 10,100 hectares declared as a pro- y Formation and strengthening of forest guards; Mount Isarog tected area by presidential proclama- establishment of biodiversity monitoring system The biodiversity of Mount Isarog is tion and with legal boundaries y Increased involvement by local government units protected, and effectively and effi- and water users in protected area management ciently managed for sustainable use y Decrease in forest destruction y Formation of the Biodiversity Conservation Management Network y Integrated Conservation and Development Project model = IUCN PA Category VI 87 Project title/global objective Global benefits achieved/intended Local impacts 799 Conservation of the Tubba- y At least 22,000 hectares proclaimed y Law enforcement and patrol system in place taha Reefs National Marine Park and included as UNESCO World y Functional protected area management board and World Heritage Site Heritage Site and as Ramsar Site and park management office with improved To conserve the unique and y Habitat protection indicators resource management capacities relatively pristine condition of the reveal that conservation initiatives y Management plan implemented globally significant biological diver- are highly effective in conserving y Sustainable financing plan in place: one of the sity and ecological processes of the biodiversity country's best-practice payment for ecosystem Tubbataha Reefs National Marine y Both marine ecosystems and species services systems established Park and to manage the park and populations are among the best its surrounding area preserved in the country; regional unique seabird population stabilized 913 Biodiversity Conservation and y More effective management of the y Local government and stakeholders in active Management of the Bohol Islands Bohol Triangle waters in line with management board Marine Triangle Project IUCN Category VI protected area y Biodiversity baseline and monitoring systems To ensure that options and exis- y Establishment of up to 21 smaller in place, but data not processed and used in tence values embodied in the glob- fish sanctuaries and of 21 marine management decisions ally significant Bohol Marine Tri- protected area management teams y Alternative livelihood linked to ecosystem angle are conserved through more y Decrease in unsustainable resource management and conservation in place effective, equitable, and sustainable extraction and increases in popula- y Livelihood motives were force-fitted into the planning, implementation, and tions of some key indicator species GEF project log frame; the result was distort- monitoring and law enforcement of such as dolphins ing both the project's conservation purpose biodiversity conservation efforts and the development/livelihood aspirations of stakeholders 1089 Asian Conservation Com- y 92,0000 hectares under presidential y Establishment of Environmental Law Enforce- pany Tranche I­El Nido Managed proclamation as managed resource ment Council and more than 60 deputized Reserve protected area fish wardens and composite teams regularly To conserve significant coastal and y Improved habitat management and conducting actual patrols marine biodiversity in two regions protection of endangered species y Improved participatory management as of the Philippines through a unique y Conserved biodiversity and ensured seen in functional protected area manage- partnership between a private sustainable use of its components in ment board and 11 local fisheries and aquatic equity investment holding com- the production environment resource management councils pany while establishing a private y Improved enabling environment y Environmental sustainability partly addressed sector/conservation community (political, economic, and social partnership and model to sustain aspects) this conservation in the long term y More fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of local natural resources 88 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Project title/global objective Global benefits achieved/intended Local impacts 836 Critical Ecosystem Partnership y Five protected areas with a com- y Presidential Executive Order 578 declared all Fund­Philippines bined total area of approximately key biodiversity areas to be "critical habitats" Enhanced biodiversity conserva- 517,000 hectares were created or and directed the DENR to promulgate guide- tion and sustainable use within expanded. Protected area manage- lines for their management and protection. each ecosystem funded by CEPF ment boards and management These included 128 key biodiversity areas (three major biogeographical plans were established and are defined for 209 globally threatened and 419 regions in the Philippines); develop- operational in each of these pro- endemic species of freshwater fishes, amphib- ment objectives: (1) CEPF grants tected areas. ians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, as well as 62 significantly increased impact and y Three watersheds totaling 14,000 species of congregatory birds. The key biodi- level of success for implementing hectares, which serve as refuges for versity areas cover approximately 20 percent of biodiversity conservation projects globally threatened species, now the total land area of the Philippines. in biological hotspots, and (2) other benefit from municipal-level pay- y NEDA incorporated biodiversity conserva- players including donors, lending ments for ecosystem services. tion priorities into the newly updated 30-year instruments, government, and y Management effectiveness was Regional Physical Framework Plan of Region 2 private sector adjust policies and improved in existing protected areas which lies at the center of the globally unique practices to be more compatible covering nearly 448,000 hectares. and fully forested Sierra Madre mountain with biodiversity conservation y Several globally critically endan- range. gered species such as the Philip- y Several types of innovative partnerships were pine eagle, Philippine cockatoo, forged with local government units which can Cebu flowerpecker, and Philippine be replicated and scaled up to expand their crocodile have been locally better overall impact. protected; and populations have y Locally driven, low-profile alliances and part- either maintained or increased. nerships and likely more sustainable partner- ships were forged (for example, the Philippine Eagle Alliance comprising Conservation Inter- national, WWF Philippines, Philippine Eagle Foundation, and BirdLife International/Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Nature). 1916 Marine Aquarium Market Intended: No major accomplishments yet: about 350 hect- Transformation Initiative (regional y Overcome barriers to mainstream- ares of no-take zones/marine protected areas in project) ing the transformation of the marine collection areas (22,000 hectares) established To transform the marine aquarium aquarium industry industry of Philippines and Indo- y Diminish damage to hundreds of nesia to ecological and economic reefs sustainability using conservation y Increase unique opportunities to management and rehabilitation to realize globally significant levels of ensure the health of the coral reef conservation and sustainable man- ecosystems and their contribution to agement of the world's most diverse poverty alleviation and food security coral reef Climate change 29 Capacity Building to Remove y 12,000 tons of carbon per year emit- y Market transformation reducing implementa- Barriers to Renewable Energy ted from diesel combustion would tion costs to productively use solar energy in Development: be cut, and CO2 emissions from remote areas Reduce the long-term growth of CO2 wood, straw, and kerosene burn- y Improved awareness and understanding of emissions by removing barriers to ing would be reduced; large-scale technologies and productive uses among commercial utilization of renewable commercialization of renewable users energy systems to substitute for the energy systems for rural electrifica- use of diesel generators in Palawan tion would be achieved; delivery mechanism can serve as a model for replication y 996 solar photovoltaic units sold and used, avoiding a total of 93.6 tons of CO2 emissions per year Annex G. Global and Local Benefits: Achievements at the Project Level 89 Project title/global objective Global benefits achieved/intended Local impacts 80 Leyte- Luzon Geothermal y The project has a significant impact y The project developed a 440-megawatt Promote the adoption of renewable on mitigation of GHG emissions geothermal energy field to expand Leyte energy by removing barriers and since an alternative coal-fired-based geothermal capacity from 200 to 640 mega- reducing implementation costs to plant would imply incremental car- watts to meet increasing demand for power in meet the increasing demand for bon emissions of about 2.2 million Luzon using indigenous and environmentally power in Luzon using geothermal tons per year. superior geothermal energy resources. energy; construct a pilot reinjection y CO2 absorption and sequestration in y In 1999, geothermal power (with substantial plant for CO2 the Leyte Geothermal Reservation is share from this project) accounted for about highly satisfactory, in recognition of 27 percent of total power generation in the the potential role of tropical forests country. in mitigating global warming. y To compensate for about 250 hectares of y About 17,000 hectares of the forest rainforest removed to establish the plant, where the plant is located are effec- 7,000 hectares of single-species reforestation tively patrolled and forest cover well was carried out. This is good in terms of carbon maintained to the benefit of neutral- sequestration but less good in maintaining izing carbon emissions and maintain- biodiversity. ing unique global biodiversity. y Lately, plans have been made to introduce y The PNOC geothermal opera- rainforestation on a smaller scale. tions area is more than 100,000 hectares. Even areas relatively far from the plants and outside of the 17,000-hectare core area appear to be relatively free from forest destruction as a result of PNOC's presence and active interagency collaboration. This benefits both cli- mate change carbon sequestrations and global biodiversity. y The project piloted innovative approaches to reduce CO2 emissions by reinfusion of CO2 to underground energy deposits. 652 CAPALCO Distributed Genera- y Significant future benefits for GHG y Project built and operates a nominal 1-mega- tion Photovoltaic Power Plant emission reductions: 24,000 tons of watt solar photovoltaic demonstration power Demonstrate the technical, opera- CO2 avoided annually plant tional, and, ultimately, economic y Plant is first-of-a-kind demonstra- y Project reduced long-term costs of low-GHG- feasibility of utilizing photovoltaic- tion project anywhere in the world emitting energy technologies based solar energy for supplement- and serves as a model for replication ing and firming up the productive elsewhere; prospective market for capacity of existing hydro projects, replication of this type of project, initially in the Philippines, but also which brings together solar and as a model that can be replicated river-flow potential of developing elsewhere in the developing world countries in an environmentally friendly way, is promising 90 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Project title/global objective Global benefits achieved/intended Local impacts 785 Metro Manila Urban Trans- y Promotion of nonmotorized trans- y The Marikina pilot project will only margin- port Integration Project­Marikina port technologies and measures, ally contribute to the overall project target of Bikeways especially in a medium-scale grow- annual reduction of about 20,000 tons of CO2 To reduce GHG emissions by ing city; project demonstrated that equivalent; however, as a model to introduce promoting the use of zero-emission nonmotorized transport networks nonmotorized transport alternatives, it has bicycle and pedestrian transport are a low-cost and acceptable alter- been moderately successful in introducing in Marikina; to demonstrate and native method of city transportation a new approach to transport for replication publicize the benefits and viability over short-to-moderate distances elsewhere in the country. of bicycles as an alternative trans- y Overall project target of annual y The project may have significant long-term port mode to encourage replication reduction of about 20,000 tons of local environmental benefits, provided pend- of this pilot program in other parts CO2 equivalents was met ing legislation is passed and the approach of Metro Manila, elsewhere in the adopted by other cities. This has not yet taken Philippines, and in other countries place on the expected scaled; only one city is now replicating the model. y Actual achievements from the baseline of 4 percent of traffic volume being bicycle-based to 9 to 10 percent in 2006; 55 percent of local households today have bikes, and 22 percent use bikes regularly but not necessarily for transport to work as intended in the project design; 35 kilometers of bicycle lanes have been established, as well as a demonstra- tion center and continued massive public awareness. 1071 Rural Power y Contribute toward global objective No accomplishments yet Mitigate global climate change of mitigating climate change caused caused by GHG emissions through by GHG emissions through wider wider user of clean-energy use of clean, renewable energy tech- technologies nologies in power generation y Significant offset of GHG emis- sions through range of renewable technology options (two mini-hydro subprojects); planned CO2 emission avoided per year: 13,184 tons 1103 Efficient Lighting Market Total GHG emission due to lighting y Power sector policies on government incen- Transformation Project sector reduced by 4 percent at the tives for energy efficiency updated and To address the barriers to wide- end of year 2 and 11 percent at the implemented spread utilization of energy-efficient end of the project relative to the y Energy-efficient lighting applications con- lighting systems in the Philippines; baseline sumer awareness improvement program aimed at contributing to the real- implemented ization of the country's sustainable y Multisectoral working group on promotion of development objectives and its goal widespread utilization and commercialization of reducing GHG emissions in the of energy-efficient lighting established energy sector y No major accomplishments yet Annex G. Global and Local Benefits: Achievements at the Project Level 91 Project title/global objective Global benefits achieved/intended Local impacts 1264 Capacity Building to Remove y Annual CO2 reduction: Emissions y Increased access to local sources of financing Barriers to Renewable Energy avoided during PIR reporting period for renewable energy and energy efficiency Development = 1.96 megatons CO2/year and facilitated market transformation with ref- Long-term emission reduction erence to off-grid rural electrification, on-grid potentials, which are basically power supply, and nonpower uses for produc- indirect; more strategic reductions tive application that the project will bring about, y Facilitated power sector policy frameworks and that are expected to produce supportive of renewable energy and energy far greater reductions in future GHG efficiency: adoption/creation/enactment of emissions, are in helping reduce 11 new policies and legislation for on-grid costs, remove barriers, and expand renewables markets for renewable energy in the y Building and financial mechanisms: 220 institu- Philippines and globally tions and 110,000 end users reached through coverage of target respondents using multi- media initiatives y Number of households benefiting from increased livelihoods from renewable energy as a result of project intervention = 1,361 y Cumulative volume of investments in renew- able energy capacity installation as a direct result of the project = $2.04 billion (estimated at $2,500/kilowatt for the 816-megawatt new renewable energy capacity installed) 1532 Electric Cooperative System Intended benefits are to reduce GHG No major accomplishments yet. In the first year, Loss Reduction Project emissions through the removal of bar- progress has been made in regulatory and To reduce GHG emissions through riers to energy efficiency and system policy reforms. the removal of barriers to energy- loss reduction investments in the rural efficiency investments in the rural power distribution subsector, thus power distribution subsector; this contributing to GEF's climate change will be achieved through the pilot goals use of innovative contractual mechanisms and GEF-funded partial credit guarantee program to promote private investments and financing 2108 Philippines Sustainable The intended benefits are to signifi- No major accomplishments yet Energy Finance Program cantly expand and deepen the market Increased access to local sources of for commercial financial institutions' financing for renewable energy and engagement in sustainable energy energy efficiency; development of a finance while also strengthening sustainable commercial financing local sustainable energy firms to market for sustainable energy proj- yield a significant quantity of global ects in the Philippines. The program environmental benefits in the form will be particularly geared to energy of reduced GHG emissions from efficiency, where the market drivers the additional sustainable energy are particularly strong, but will be investments that will be financed. The designed also to support commer- primary benefits generated relate to cial renewable energy investments, the program's objective of establish- where such market opportunities ing a self-sustaining commercial lend- emerge. ing market for sustainable energy by Philippine financial institutions. These are the indirect benefits. 92 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Project title/global objective Global benefits achieved/intended Local impacts 3243 Climate Change Adaptation Some global benefits in relation to The project has yet to start; the benefits of Project natural resource management of valu- the proposed project's activities will primarily To implement pilot cases to develop able ecosystems be local, for instance, in agriculture or water and apply systematic diagnosis resources and options analysis for climate risk management, which would include an enhanced institutional framework and planning capacity for climate risk management: y Enhanced resilience of the agricul- ture and natural resources sectors as a whole y Enabling government programs and investments to deliver their expected benefits in terms of economic development and poverty alleviation, in the face of the negative impacts of climate change y A Special Climate Change Fund alternative would generate ben- efits by enhancing interagency coordination and provision of scientific information for climate risk 385 Asia Least-Cost Greenhouse The project played an important role ALGAS identified renewable energy tech- Gas Abatement Strategy (regional in securing that the energy sector nologies as a priority area in the country's GHG project) starts reducing future GHG emissions abatement strategy. Develop human resources, institu- in the Philippines. tional capability, and technologies to understand and address the issues relating to climate change; reduce the growth of net GHG emis- sions in the Asia region International waters 396 Prevention and Management Incremental marine environmental y Demonstrated working models on marine of Marine Pollution in the East improvements pollution reduction/prevention and risk Asian Seasa management Support the efforts of the participat- y Developed necessary local policies and techni- ing East Asian governments in the cal capability to implement international prevention, control, and manage- conventions relating to marine pollution ment of marine pollution, at both y Strengthen institutional capacity to manage national and subregional levels, on marine pollution problems a long-term and self-reliant basis y Develop a regional network of stations for marine pollution monitoring and information management y Facilitated standardization and intercalibration of sampling and analytical techniques and environmental impact assessment procedures Annex G. Global and Local Benefits: Achievements at the Project Level 93 Project title/global objective Global benefits achieved/intended Local impacts 597 Building Partnerships for the The project intends to produce y A network of various national and subregional Environmental Protection and benefits in different GEF focal areas integrated environmental management pro- Management of the East Asian including cross-cutting issues on land grams throughout the East Asian Seas Seas degradation y A demonstration site at Batangas City, two par- To enable the participating coun- allel integrated coastal management projects tries of the East Asian Seas Region (Bataan, Cavite), and an integrated Manila Bay to collectively protect and manage action plan developed the coastal and marine environ- y Critical mass of national and regional multidis- ment through intergovernmental ciplinary technical expertise in environmental and intersectoral partnerships and marine and coastal management y Pool of local NGOs, religious groups, and environmental journalists to champion and reinforce environmental protection initiatives y A structured, integrated information manage- ment system that accelerates the delivery of environmental management objectives y A sustainable and effective regional mecha- nism to coordinate and mobilize resources for effective implementation of international conventions y Not accomplished: viable financing mecha- nisms for enhancing environmental invest- ment from multilateral banking and financial institutions and the private sector 885 Reversing Environmental Although the overall sustainability of Expected: Degradation Trends in the South the project outcomes at the national y Seven sets of national management plans China Sea and Gulf of Thailand level appears highly likely, sustainabil- and seven national databases for four specific To create an environment at the ity is not as likely at the regional level, habitats regional level in which collabora- which would provide the main global y Adopted portfolio of priority habitat projects tion and partnership in addressing environmental benefits of the project. within the region environmental problems of the y Four national and one regional management South China Sea among all stake- plans to establish a system of refugia to main- holders and at all levels are fostered tain important transboundary fish stocks and encouraged; and to enhance y Evaluation of a blast fishing detection device the capacity of the participating governments to integrate environ- y Agreed regional priority listing of transbound- mental considerations into national ary pollution hotspots development planning y Regionally adopted water quality objectives, and water quality and effluent standards y Meta-database of national legislation relating to the environment of the South China Sea y Regional review of country obligations under global conventions 94 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Project title/global objective Global benefits achieved/intended Local impacts 2188 East Asian Seas Region: Intended: Development and Implementa- y Catalyze financial resource mobilization for tion of Public-Private Partnerships implementation of reforms and stress reduc- in Environmental Investments tion measures agreed through transboundary To build confidence and capabilities diagnostic analysis strategic action program in public-private sector partnerships or equivalent processes for particular trans- as a viable means of financing and boundary systemsb sustaining environmental facilities y Expand global coverage of foundational and services for the protection and capacity building addressing the two key pro- sustainable use of the marine and gram gaps and support for targeted learningb coastal resources of the East Asian y Undertake innovative demonstrations for Seas region (increased investment reducing contaminants and addressing water opportunities for environmental scarcity issues improvement and coastal and Accomplished: marine resource development and management) y Solid waste management project in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija y Sewerage and wastewater treatment project in Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro, Philippines y Municipality of Puerto Galera, Mindoro: Ordi- nance for the establishment of an environment user fee system and trust fund; City of San Fernando, Pampanga: implementation of an integrated solid waste management system y Training workshop and local government unit sharing forum on financing sustainable envi- ronmental projects were held in Manila POPs 2329 Demonstration of the Viabil- The project aims at achieving envi- The project has yet to start. ity and Removal of Barriers That ronmentally sustainable economic Impede Adoption and Success- and industrial development, and ful Implementation of Available, improved water quality to the benefit Non-Combustion Technologies of the global environment and con- for Destroying Persistent Organic servation of biological diversity. Pollutants To demonstrate the viability to promote replication at global level of available noncombustion tech- nologies for use in the destruction of obsolete POPs, specifically PCB wastes, PCB-containing equipment, and the cleanup of POPs, and spe- cifically PCBs in different matrixes including contaminated soils or sediments Note: Completed projects are in green. a. Regarding the local impacts, activities in the pilot phase project are catalytic. However, no regional framework was developed to allow imme- diate GEF exit in view of the complexity, magnitude, and geographical size of the project site, which will require substantial efforts in order to build a policy environment, working models, innovative approaches, and methodologies. b. Appears not yet to be in place. The public-private partnerships are no doubt the weakest component of PEMSEA efforts to generate resources for integrated coastal management. Annex G. Global and Local Benefits: Achievements at the Project Level 95 Annex H. ODA to the Philippines, 1991­2005 Table H.1 Commitment Current million $ Donor (level 03) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Bilateral 1,623.4 1,243.8 1,240.7 1,377.9 1,454.7 734.4 1,260.4 1,184.2 1,886.2 931.9 1,112.4 1,007.3 541.0 491.4 431.4 Australia 10.7 9.1 26.8 6.8 0.2 64.2 29.1 20.4 66.1 12.4 49.6 14.7 48.6 111.2 73.6 Austria 0.2 2.9 16.7 16.9 0.1 0.1 3.1 26.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 Belgium 4.3 2.6 5.3 6.5 3.9 5.8 7.8 6.8 11.5 6.3 6.6 14.2 8.0 Canada 9.7 13.2 18.0 11.2 14.4 7.0 24.3 17.6 19.0 10.1 6.3 18.0 11.3 13.0 29.1 Denmark 1.6 0.2 2.7 0.6 8.7 3.3 3.7 9.9 1.1 1.0 17.1 6.8 1.6 Finland 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 1.6 1.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.2 France 37.0 9.4 18.1 37.4 30.7 11.0 10.5 17.2 5.2 1.1 1.8 1.1 1.1 18.9 1.2 Germany 12.0 69.6 84.8 105.5 31.3 2.6 4.9 103.2 33.5 23.8 60.6 54.6 26.6 91.9 Greece 0.0 0.3 0.1 Ireland 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.9 1.3 1.1 Italy 17.5 8.0 36.9 1.6 15.5 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.2 Japan 1,165.3 883.6 848.1 1,211.8 1,166.3 529.5 1,060.7 1,007.5 1,588.4 756.1 863.0 643.3 195.5 155.6 63.2 Luxembourg 0.1 0.1 Netherlands 8.6 4.8 1.4 7.5 4.2 14.1 16.1 10.4 4.3 10.9 4.3 71.7 15.6 1.3 33.6 New Zealand 1.0 2.1 3.1 4.2 4.6 Norway 4.6 7.0 3.4 3.2 5.0 1.6 3.0 1.3 2.6 2.7 0.3 1.4 0.5 1.5 2.5 Portugal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spain 48.8 40.8 7.9 8.8 7.2 15.4 36.9 22.7 10.1 12.7 Sweden 1.3 0.9 43.3 2.4 2.3 1.9 12.9 1.4 5.6 0.6 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.4 5.6 Switzerland 1.7 0.9 0.4 19.9 37.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 United Kingdom 8.6 13.4 2.0 12.8 11.7 14.7 0.4 8.8 1.0 1.7 26.6 0.4 1.3 0.2 United States 344.0 223.4 101.7 60.2 46.3 45.5 38.4 58.2 72.2 77.6 104.9 121.6 161.6 122.6 100.7 Multilateral 198.4 146.1 108.8 16.3 134.5 61.3 63.3 41.2 27.4 11.9 28.9 13.5 41.6 24.2 71.0 AsDF 132.4 88.2 18.0 76.0 29.0 36.6 23.8 EC. 6.8 20.8 16.3 49.3 17.6 26.7 1.9 21.4 8.9 8.5 7.6 13.7 16.7 45.4 IDA 66.0 36.0 70.0 9.0 IFAD 15.1 9.2 14.7 15.5 14.8 21.7 UNDP 6.0 UNICEF 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.6 3.9 3.7 96 Donor (level 03) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 UNAIDS 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 UNFPA 2.6 3.1 4.4 GFATM 10.7 3.5 Grand total 1,821.8 1,390.0 1,349.6 1,394.2 1,589.2 795.7 1,323.7 1,225.4 1,913.7 943.8 1,141.3 1,020.7 582.6 515.5 502.4 Source: OECD.Stat Extracts. Note: AsDF = Asian Development Fund; EC = European Commission; IDA = International Development Association; IFAD = International Fund for Agricultural Development; UNICEF = United Nations Children's Fund; UNAIDS = Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; UNFPA = United Nations Population Fund; GFATM = Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Table H.2 Gross Disbursement Current million $ Donor (level 03) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Bilateral 434.3 1,221.9 1,078.9 671.9 691.2 814.7 694.5 709.2 754.9 757.9 738.0 862.2 1,189.7 944.2 1,074.7 Australia 32.7 17.6 31.4 32.0 31.7 32.0 33.3 43.1 Austria 0.1 7.2 16.3 7.5 1.5 3.6 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 Belgium 4.3 7.8 6.8 11.5 6.0 6.6 9.4 8.0 Canada 24.1 20.6 23.7 17.1 14.2 14.9 10.9 7.4 10.4 11.8 13.9 10.6 9.9 14.5 Denmark 5.0 0.8 2.4 2.8 4.2 3.7 1.8 13.1 1.0 Finland 1.1 1.3 3.3 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.9 0.3 2.1 0.9 0.6 0.5 France 10.0 28.1 14.0 15.7 26.5 25.4 12.1 23.5 10.6 5.4 4.1 1.7 1.9 4.3 1.9 Germany 17.6 38.0 55.0 26.4 40.5 76.2 33.8 28.9 9.2 11.4 23.0 21.9 42.1 54.6 74.6 Greece 0.0 0.3 0.3 Ireland 0.2 0.9 1.3 1.1 Italy 0.3 30.9 37.3 1.9 1.6 5.4 1.0 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 1.2 Japan 333.4 1023.4 878.6 587.2 604.3 661.5 580.5 545.0 661.7 642.1 566.4 601.3 942.2 662.9 750.1 Luxembourg 0.1 0.1 Netherlands 19.7 20.6 25.9 16.1 17.0 27.8 New Zealand 1.9 2.2 3.4 3.9 Norway 0.5 0.7 1.9 1.9 2.4 Portugal 0.0 0.0 Spain 28.2 17.9 9.7 15.7 7.2 11.5 20.4 30.6 19.5 12.7 Sweden 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.6 1.1 14.9 15.7 2.5 2.8 1.5 1.8 0.8 1.2 4.6 0.8 Switzerland 0.1 1.4 1.2 1.1 United Kingdom 1.0 0.8 0.4 5.8 1.6 2.2 1.9 6.5 United States 71.7 70.6 40.2 15.7 11.5 7.9 12.9 13.0 33.5 40.9 132.7 94.8 103.8 124.8 Multilateral 3.0 5.6 5.9 12.1 13.5 31.8 EC 0.7 21.5 UNICEF 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.6 3.9 3.7 UNAIDS 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 UNFPA 2.6 3.1 4.4 2.6 GFATM 3.1 6.9 6.4 Grand total 434.3 1,221.9 1,078.9 671.9 691.2 814.7 694.5 709.2 754.9 760.9 743.6 868.1 1,201.8 957.7 1,106. Source: OECD.Stat Extracts. Note: EC = European Commission; UNICEF = United Nations Children's Fund; UNAIDS = Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; UNFPA = United Nations Population Fund; GFATM = Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Annex H. ODA to the Philippines, 1991­2005 97 Annex I. Description and Results of Completed Projects Included in Evaluation I.1 Completed FSPs and MSPs: z Information, education, and communication to increase public awareness of the benefits of biodiver- Biodiversity sity conservation and access to information on the park's value and the impact of human behavior on it Sustainable Management of Mount Isarog Description Results/Impacts1 Mount Isarog is a 10,112-hectare protected area in z The project has resulted in many changes to the Camarines Sur, with an unusually high concentration of policy, legislative, and regulatory environment of biological diversity. Its geographic isolation makes for a protected areas. large number of endemic species. Like most protected ­ The park is securing congressional action that areas, the mountain faces intense anthropogenic pres- will include it in the Philippine NIPAS. sures from communities living around its boundaries ­ Creation of a special legal committee composed and within the park, and from external interest groups. of volunteer lawyers was approved in principle. The project sought to build local capacities for conserva- tion and development, creating a "social fence" around ­ Eight local government units were declared con- the park capable of resisting the forces that were deplet- servation farming communities and are now ing it. The project aimed to address the threats through adopting community sustainability indicators. a series of targeted strategies and activities: ­ 184 Mount Isarog guardians were recruited, trained, deputized, and mobilized for forest pro- z Institution building and capacity development to tection and law enforcement. strengthen the capabilities of key stakeholders, nota- bly the Protected Area Management Board, com- ­ A policy for the Environmental Defense Fund for munities/local government units, and community- the Mount Isarog guardians is being developed. based organizations in community-based protected ­ 96 Mount Isarog guardians are covered by a area management 10-year binding contract with municipal local z Sustainable livelihoods to increase income-generat- government units that ensures funding for their ing opportunities, decreasing environmental pres- operations, insurance, and legal defense, among sure on the park's forest resources other concerns through the reforestation man- agement agreement. z Forest rehabilitation to rehabilitate/restore degraded ­ The Naga local government allocated ­100,000 in areas annual budget for the Mount Isarog guardians. z Increase land tenure security in adjacent communi- ­ Four out of five municipal reforestation manage- ties to encourage investment in sustainable agricul- ment agreements provide for the comanagement ture activities of existing reforestation/assisted natural regen- z Biodiversity monitoring and socioeconomic research eration sites and include 10-year assured funding to generate updated information on the park's bio- for maintenance and protection activities. diversity and socioeconomic status of adjacent com- ­ Results have served as a basis for formulating munities for various stakeholders an ordinance prohibiting wildlife hunting in 98 Guinaban, creating the Watershed Management ­ The project worked with indigenous communi- Council in Hiwacloy, imposing regulations on ties through the Agta Tabangon tribe. the cutting of coco trees in Comaguingking, cre- ating an ordinance prohibiting electric and poi- Conservation of the Tubbataha Reef son fishing in Lupi. National Marine Park and World Heritage z The project has raised awareness among the forest- Site edge communities, partner local government units, academia, neighboring elementary school pupils, Description and the general public. The project's overall objective was to protect the unique z The project has resulted in changes in institutional and relatively pristine condition of the globally signifi- arrangements and mandates concerning protected cant biological diversity and ecological processes of the areas: Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park and to manage the park and its surrounding area on a sustainable and ­ Formation and strengthening of the Mount Isa- ecologically sound basis. This objective was largely rog guardians and the Mount Isarog Network, pursued through implementation of an approved man- among other entities. agement plan. The park's conservation also depends on ­ Partner academic institutions have institutional- actions in the surrounding areas, including the islands ized biodiversity conservation in their respective of Cagayancillo and Cavili. Human inhabitants of these core plans and/or curricular programs. islands threaten the park as they are using and per- ­ A Biodiversity Conservation Management Net- mitting the extraction of park resources. The project's work composed of local government units, park immediate objectives were as follows: communities, NGOs, and academics has been z Conservation management--bring about the effec- formed that aims to assist in sustaining project initiatives on biodiversity conservation. tive long-term conservation management of the park z Management capacity has been improved: z Conservation awareness--raise awareness regard- ­ Two communities have developed community ing the importance of conserving the park such that resource management plans. stakeholders (local communities, government, dive ­ Nine community-based organizations have been operators, tourists, and others) are aware of and created with a fully functional internal structure, actively participating in conservation and the capacity and resources to comanage community forests. z Regulations, policy, and advocacy--ensure that rel- evant policies, regulations, and government appro- z New financial mechanisms for protected areas have priations support conservation and resource man- been created or existing mechanisms strengthened. agement in the park For example, the operating guidelines for the water user fee system were approved by the Protected Area z Ecosystem research and monitoring--enhance eco- Management Board. Intensive information, educa- logical understanding and adaptive management tion, and communication have been undertaken. of the park and nearby reefs through an ecosystem The system will be tested, pending public hearings research and monitoring program and negotiation with water districts. z Sustainable resource management and livelihood-- z Relationships have improved between protected enhance conservation by developing and imple- areas and local communities: menting effective community-based resource man- ­ Biodiversity has been mainstreamed into area- agement and livelihood projects wide political and spatial planning through par- ticipation in the development of the Environment Results/Impacts Code for the province through the Provincial z Improved reef health condition as shown by a Council Committee on Environment. The code 10 percent increase in hard coral cover from 1999 to provided for complementary conservation ini- 2004, recovering from coral bleaching in 1998; gen- tiatives that will contribute further to the park's erally increasing trends have been observed not only protection and conservation. in Tubbataha but also in surrounding reefs. Annex I. Description and Results of Completed Projects Included in Evaluation 99 z More fish species have been identified, bringing the and fisheries modernization plans, drawn from con- total count to 463. Fish biomass fluctuates over the sultations with communities and local and technical years, which could be attributed to fish being highly agencies versus a project target of at least 50 percent mobile. But all sites show fish biomass values higher local government unit participation. than that of an averagely healthy reef in the Philip- z Annual investment plans of the five provinces indi- pines. cate a higher amount of provisions for budgetary z An effective management structure is in place, with allocations for agricultural and fisheries develop- the Tubbataha Protected Area Management Board ment investments. having a clear mandate to sustain long-term opera- z Overall cropping intensity increased from 198 per- tions. The board and the Tubbataha Management cent to 214 percent; average production per farm Office take full responsibility over park management; increased by 86 percent (wet season) and by 76 per- the municipal government of Cagayancillo and the cent (dry season). Pangabuhian Foundation take full responsibility of the coastal resource management and livelihood z Six marine sanctuaries were established since the program in Cagayancillo. The Tubbataha Protected project started; previously, no marine sanctuaries Area Bill was refiled in Congress to enable the board had existed in the project area. to operate autonomously and with greater authority. z Crop production increased by 63 percent; Commu- z A park management plan was developed in 1998 nity Fund for Agricultural Development beneficia- and reviewed and reformulated in 2005 to make use ries experienced a 43 percent increase in their nomi- of research results and feedback in management nal annual household incomes. effectiveness monitoring and evaluation. z Law enforcement and patrol systems are in place, Samar Island Biodiversity Project with a ranger station maintained with basic patrol Description and surveillance equipment and a composite team This project established the Samar Island Natural Park, of rangers. a new protected area zoned for multiple uses center- z Sustainable financing is in place, with the Tubba- ing on protection, but providing for sustainable har- taha Trust Fund financing 50 percent of 2005 core vests of nontimber forest products, and instituted a operations. The park fee collection amounted to comprehensive range of ancillary conservation mea- ­3.08 million in 2005, the highest in seven years. sures to insulate the park from human pressures. Park management was operationalized in partnership with forest-edge communities to conserve biodiversity and Coastal and Marine Biodiversity reduce poverty among the local communities. Inter- Conservation in Mindanao ventions were aimed at strengthening participatory Description planning, process-response monitoring, surveillance and enforcement functions; enhancing the conserva- The project aimed to increase incomes and improve tion management capacities of communities; impart- food security of targeted agricultural and fishing com- ing conservation values to wider Samareño society; munities in around 32 municipalities in five provinces backstopping advocacy operations; and abetting devel- and to conserve coastal and marine biodiversity in two opment of conservation-compatible village livelihoods. provinces of Mindanao. It looked to respond to com- Implementation was phased to nurture nascent con- munity priorities for rural infrastructure and test a servation processes to maturity. community-based system for supporting rural develop- ment as well as approaches for improving local govern- Results/Impacts ment capability for agricultural development planning z An adaptive management framework for conserva- and implementation in partnership with concerned tion and management has been established: national agencies. ­ The Samar Island Natural Park was established Results/Impacts by presidential proclamation in August 2003. z All participating local government units (5 provinces ­ The Protected Area Management Board was and 32 municipalities) adopted local agricultural established and held its first general assembly 100 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) in November 2004. Subsequently, the board but five demonstration farms were established and a approved the framework for a management plan, market study into priority crops undertaken. a 10-year management plan, and a biological z Sustainable financing for recurrent costs of conser- resource assessment study. vation activities was undertaken. Few activities were ­ A biodiversity monitoring system was put in planned under phase one, but initial actions have place. led to some finance being pledged, most notably ­ A protected area office has been established and with the DENR paying 16 regular park staff and 13 staffed, and staff development accomplished. others on a contract basis. ­ Boundary demarcation of the protected area has been mapped but not demarcated on the ground Conservation of Priority Protected Areas until passage of a congressional act on the Samar Description Island Natural Park. The Conservation of Priority Protected Areas project, z A community outreach program is operating in financed by a grant from the GEF Trust Fund, comple- 62 local government units, mostly in the buffer zone, mented the World Bank­financed Environment and in place of community forestry program originally Natural Resources Sector Adjustment Program. The envisaged. Community profiles have been estab- project aimed to support the Philippine policies for the lished for all local government units. The frame- design and development of a protected areas system to work of buffer zone management units with village conserve the nation's biodiversity heritage. Its objec- conservation committees was replaced unsuccess- tives were to protect 10 areas of high biodiversity value, fully by a watershed management approach. improve management of protected areas by strength- z Communications strategy, awareness program, and ening the Department of Natural Resources, incor- awareness materials have been completed. A com- porate local people and NGOs into the management munication plan was prepared in 2003, and aware- structure of protected areas and establish permanent ness-raising and advocacy activities have united the funding mechanisms, confirm the tenure of indigenous people of Samar and their civic and religious leaders cultural communities, and develop sustainable forms as never before. A protest caravan with the theme of of livelihood consistent with biodiversity conservation. "Yes to SINP, No to Mining" involving over 15,000 Project components were as follows: people was held on August 8, 2003; five days later, z Site development--provision of appropriate levels the Samar Island Natural Park proclamation was of staffing and construction of infrastructure in pro- signed by the president. The Samar Island Council tected areas for Sustainable Development has been formed. z Resource management--establishment of a commu- z Provincial workshops on integrated conservation nity-based and NGO-supported management struc- and development were merged with workshops ture, development of management plans, mapping, undertaken for the watershed management plan- boundary demarcation, and habitat restoration ning approach. These workshops were part of park conservation objectives in local government unit z Socioeconomic management--development of non- development planning. A resource valuation study destructive livelihood projects in buffer zones and is being undertaken; results are not yet available. multiple-use areas, supported by community con- sultation and training, and capacity development z An alternative conservation-enabling sustainable and recognition of renewable energy and appropri- livelihood has been promoted. The feasibility study ate delivery mechanisms at the local government for nontimber forest products harvest was com- unit level pleted for some products, but provisional harvest quotas have not been set. A community consensus z National coordination, monitoring, and technical has been reached for ecotourism priorities, but no assistance--providing for NGO-based project coor- ecotourism management plan has yet been drafted; dination, monitoring of project implementation, however, feasibility studies for the Pinipisakan Falls trends in biodiversity inventories, and assessment and Borogan-Llorante-Sohonon have served as a of management impacts; and technical assistance to basis for implementation of some ecotourism activi- individual protected areas and to DENR's Protected ties in the area. The farming systems review failed, Areas and Wildlife Bureau. Annex I. Description and Results of Completed Projects Included in Evaluation 101 At the midterm review, the components were recast Results/Impacts within the original objectives: z Nine presidential proclamations except for Subic- z Protected area planning and management--includ- Bataan were issued designating areas as protected ing mobilizing/organizing protected area residents areas and provide measures for their protection in participative management, strengthening pro- until such time as when Congress shall have enacted tected area management boards and project imple- a law finally declaring such areas part of the NIPAS. mentation units, preparing community-oriented z Four protected area laws have been enacted by Con- protected area management plans, protected area gress, namely Batanes Protected Landscape and gazetting, and establishment of the Integrated Pro- Seascape, Northern Sierra Madre National Park, tected Areas Fund Mount Kanlaon National Park, and Mount Kitan- z Biodiversity conservation--including patrolling by glad Range National Park. staff and communities; information, education, and z Protected area management boards for 10 sites were communication support; boundary demarcation, organized, and members of the boards have received resource assessment, and rehabilitation/restoration their certificates of appointment from the DENR. activities; biodiversity monitoring; and construction z The 10 sites have functional Integrated Protected of basic infrastructure and installation of equip- Areas Fund subaccounts, where earnings gener- ment ated from the use of resources in the protected area, z Tenurial security--covering surveys, claims docu- donations, grants, and other such income accrue. mentation and processing, and issuance of tenur- z Management plans for 10 sites were prepared to ial instruments; socioeconomic management; the provide the overall framework in the protection and development of nondestructive livelihood projects management of each protected area. in buffer zones and multiple-use areas, supported by community consultation and training: and capacity z Sustainability plans for 2002­05 were developed by development and recognition of renewable energy the 10 sites and endorsed to their respective man- and appropriate delivery mechanisms at the local agement board. government unit level z A biodiversity monitoring system was installed in z Livelihood systems--including the establishment nine sites. of capital savings and mobilization schemes for organized protected area residents, and establish- I.2 FSPs and MSPs: Climate Change ment of mechanisms for use of Integrated Protected Areas Fund; development and implementation of Leyte-Luzon Geothermal nondestructive livelihood projects with technology and market support, socioeconomic profiling, and Description information, education, and communication train- This project aimed to assist the Philippines in meet- ing and support of livelihood development ing the rapidly increasing demand for electrical power z Project management and coordination--including using technology that substantially reduces GHG emis- program coordination, monitoring and evaluation, sions. The project's objectives were to fund management, procurement and provision of z meet the increasing demand for power in Luzon technical and other assistance from experts and part- using geothermal energy; ners; policy advocacy, lobbying, and networking z strengthen the energy sector by implementing insti- The project was jointly implemented by the DENR, tutional, planning, and financial improvements rec- which is legally responsible for the protected areas, ommended by the Energy Sector Plan; and an NGO established to implement the project, z support the large ongoing private sector participa- the NGO for Integrated Protected Areas Incorpo- tion in power generation, and facilitate it by extend- rated. The NGO was to be responsible, in particular, ing the national grid; for implementation of the field operations designed to improve the livelihoods of those living in or near the z strengthen National Power Corporation capabilities protected areas. in environmental and social impact analyses; 102 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) z introduce enhanced cofinancing operation in the utilization of renewable energy power systems to sub- Philippines; stitute for use of diesel generators in Palawan. It was intended to demonstrate the viability of direct sales of z ensure the financial viability of NPC and the Philip- solar home systems as a delivery mechanism toward pine National Oil Company for undertaking a long- achieving the target of providing energy to 1,000 overdue investment program. households in Palawan. It also looked to demonstrate NPC project components included interconnection the viability of economic activities of productive use of of the electrical power systems of Leyte and Luzon renewable energy services for rural communities. Proj- Islands and the strengthening of its environmental ect objectives were as follows: and social engineering departments. PNOC compo- z Increased capacity and recognition of renewable nents included the construction and operation of a 440-megawatt geothermal electric generation plant energy and appropriate delivery mechanisms at the under a build-operate-transfer contract, reinjection local government unit level of waste gases to further reduce GHG emissions, and z A revised provincial energy master plan and estab- connection of the power station to the national grid. lishment of a range of nonrenewable energy finan- cial incentives Results/Impacts z Increased public awareness of renewable energy sys- The project achieved the objective of meeting the tems and nonrenewable energy delivery mechanisms increasing demand for power in Luzon using indige- nous and environmentally superior geothermal energy z Increased information and services provided to resources. In 1999, geothermal power accounted for potential investors in renewable energy about 27 percent of the total power generation in the z A commercial and sustainable delivery mechanism country, including 80 percent and 15 percent of the and workable risk-sharing schemes to increase power generation in the respective systems in Visayas renewable energy services in Palawan and Luzon. Compared to the early 1990s, when the country was suffering from power shortages, consum- The original project document included the estab- ers are better served and the elimination of the power lishment of a renewable energy service company; the crisis contributed to the country's economic growth. project replaced demonstration and support of this Other results include the following: approach with a direct sales delivery mechanism, in view of the decision of the main project partner (Shell z Institutional, planning, and financial improvements Solar Philippines Corporation) to change its approach recommended by the Energy Sector Plan were of marketing solar home systems in Palawan to direct implemented. sales of these systems. z Almost 51 percent of the total financing require- ment was funded by the private sector. PNOC-EDC Results/Impacts entered into three build-operate-transfer agree- z Only 28,980 liters of diesel oil had been displaced ments with two private power companies for the out of the about 67,500 equivalent liters (approxi- construction and 10-year operation of three geo- mately 30 liters of diesel per household) targeted to thermal power plants. be displaced, covering 2,200 households by the end z Through the successful implementation of enhanced of 2004. cofinancing operation under this project, NPC z Only 966 solar home systems installed out of a tapped the international bond market for the first targeted cumulative installed capacity of about time, which paved the way for its subsequent long- 132 kilowatts; approximately 2,200 solar home sys- term commercial borrowings from this market. tems operational by the end of 2004. Palawan New and Renewable Energy and z An energy unit exists at the provincial level in Pala- wan, although there is no nonrenewable energy unit Livelihood Support Project within the Provincial Planning and Development Description Office. This project aimed to reduce the long-term growth of z An agreed-upon risk-sharing mechanism between GHG emissions by removing barriers to commercial the PGP, the private solar energy system vendor(s), Annex I. Description and Results of Completed Projects Included in Evaluation 103 and the financial institution(s) was established. The implement and update the National Biodiversity Strat- Cooperative Bank of Palawan is providing loans on egy and Action Plan and fulfill its commitments to the a regular basis to household borrowers intending to convention. Project components included the following: purchase solar home systems. z Capacity assessment for protected area management z Updating of the Philippine clearing-house mecha- I.3 Enabling Activities nism and defining mechanisms for its sustainability Following are descriptions of completed enabling z Capacity assessment for the preservation and main- activities conducted in the Philippines. No information tenance of biodiversity-related knowledge of indig- is provided about their results or impacts. enous peoples and local communities Asia Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas z Capacity assessment for the conservation and sus- Abatement Strategy tainable use of biological diversity important to agri- culture The ALGAS project helped 12 major developing coun- tries in Asia, with a combined population of half the z Preparation for the second Philippine national world, formulate least-cost GHG abatement strategies report to the Convention on Biological Diversity within the context of their individual economic, social, and institutional development goals. The 12 partici- Assessment of Capacity Building Needs pating countries, all signatories to the UNFCCC, were for Biodiversity Conservation and Bangladesh, China, Democratic People's Republic of Management in the Philippines (add on) Korea, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Mongo- This add-on enabling project focused on capacity lia, Myanmar, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and assessment in specific areas and provided consultation Vietnam. ALGAS, which was cofinanced by ADB and toward the second Philippine national report to the the GEF through UNDP, has been the largest technical United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. The assistance executed and administered by ADB to date. results of capacity assessment will serve as inputs into The project's main outputs were as follows: the various biodiversity conservation projects, particu- z National inventory of GHG emissions larly capacity-building activities, being implemented by z Projection report on GHG emissions the Philippine government and NGOs. It will also allow z Report on least-cost GHGs up to 2002 implementation of a priority country-driven clearing- z Portfolio of possible projects house mechanism project. The overall objective of the z Report on abatement action plan project is to assess the capacity-building needs of the Philippines to implement the National Biodiversity Enabling the Philippines to Prepare Strategy and Action Plan and fulfill its commitments to the convention. National Communication Program in Response to Its Commitments to UNFCCC Initial Assistance to the Philippines to The immediate objective of this project was to facili- Meet Its Obligations under the Stockholm tate the preparation of the first national communica- tion of the Philippines to the conference of the parties, Convention on POPs in accordance with article 12.1 of the UNFCCC, and The objective of the project was to create sustainable the guidelines adopted by COP-2 for the preparation of capacity and ownership in the Philippines to meet its national communications of non-annex I parties. obligations under the Stockholm Convention, includ- ing initial preparation of a POPs implementation plan, Enabling Activity to Prepare the and broader issues of chemicals safety and manage- ment as articulated in chapter 19 of Agenda 21. The Philippines First National Report to the implementation plan describes how the Philippines CBD and Establishment of a CHM will meet its obligations under the convention to phase This project aimed to assist the national government out POPs sources and remediate POPs-contaminated in meeting its obligations under the United Nations sites in the country. The enabling activity established Convention on Biological Diversity. Its objective was to project coordinating mechanisms, provided capacity assess the capacity-building needs of the Philippines to building in support of project implementation, assessed 104 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) the national infrastructural and institutional capacity, z Promote more effective incorporation of environ- prepared initial POPs inventories, set objectives and mental issues into national development processes priorities for POPs and POPs reduction and elimina- and sectoral planning and decision making tion options, prepared a draft implementation plan for z Raise awareness and identify particular capacity needs meeting obligations under the Stockholm Convention, of key constituency groups and decision makers dur- and handled review and finalization of the plan. ing the consultation and assessment processes z Focus on the capacity of local government units National Capacity Self-Assessment for and other local stakeholders to contribute to meet- Global Environmental Management ing Philippine global environmental obligations and national sustainable development goals The primary objective of this effort was to identify priority capacity needs related to global environmen- z Contribute to more effective implementation of existing environmental laws and policies by explor- tal management in the Philippines and examine any ing their global environmental dimension barriers to effectively addressing these needs that exist. The initiative concentrated on three thematic z Encourage cross-thematic dialogue and the estab- areas--climate change, biodiversity, and land degra- lishment of mechanisms for information sharing and collaboration dation--and explored synergies among and across these areas. Upon finalization and approval of the National Capacity Self-Assessment, the Philippines Note will develop a plan of action and resource mobiliza- 1. Results/impacts information is drawn from project tion strategy to address the identified capacity needs. implementation reports, implementation comple- It will also use the process to pursue the following sec- tion reports, terminal evaluations, and other evalu- ondary objectives: ative documents reviewed during this evaluation. Annex I. Description and Results of Completed Projects Included in Evaluation 105 Annex J. Relevance of GEF Support to National Development Plans GEF phase/MTDP Project name and duration MTDP section Pilot phase 1992­94 79 Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Relevant to MTDP 1993­99 & MTDP 1999­2004 on MTDP 1993­98 1994­2002 sustainable management and use of natural resources, especially sections on protected areas and wildlife 80 Leyte-Luzon Geothermal 1994­2000 Relevant to MTDP 1993­99 energy section GEF-2 1998­2002 29 Palawan New and Renewable Energy and Relevant to MTDP 1999­2004 energy section, which MTDP 1999­2004 Livelihood Support Project 1999­2005 places a high priority on renewable energy resources 653 Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conserva- Relevant to MTDP 1999­2004 on the promotion tion in Mindanao 2000­05 of sustainable management and use of natural resources 798 Sustainable Management of Mount Isarog Although relevant to the section on environment, 2000­05 there is no reference or direct linkage to the MTDP in project document 799 Conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs Although relevant to the section on environment, National Marine Park and World Heritage Site there is no reference or direct linkage to the MTDP in 2000­04 project document 785 Metro Manila Urban Transport Integration Not specifically linked to MTDP 1999­2004 in project Project­Marikina Bikeways 2001­07 brief; project targets transport problems in metro Manila area, which is consistent with MTDP priori- ties, which state that the "program targets transport problems in metro Manila for special attention" 913 Biodiversity Conservation and Manage- Relevant to MTDP 1999­2004 on the promotion ment of the Bohol Islands Marine Triangle of sustainable management and use of natural Project 2001­07 resources; relevant to MTDP 2004­10 which has a special line of action to expand the coverage and strengthening protection of coastal and marine ecosystems GEF-3: 2002­06 652 CAPALCO Distributed Generation Photo- Relevant to the MTDP 2001­2004, which emphasizes MTDP 1999­2004 voltaic Power Plant 2003­08 sustainable renewable energy resources; highly rel- MTDP 2004­10 evant to the MTDP 2004­10, in which the Philippines strives to become a world leader in renewable energy 1071 Rural Power 2004­09 Highly relevant to the MTDP 2004­10, in which the Philippines strives to become a world leader in renewable energy 1089 Asian Conservation Company 2004­10 Relevant to MTDP 2004­10, which has a special line of action to expand the coverage and strengthen protection of coastal and marine ecosystems; the MTDP also stresses public-private partnerships 106 GEF phase/MTDP Project name and duration MTDP section 1103 Efficient Lighting Market Transformation Relevant to MTDP 2004­10, which has a special sec- Project, 2004­09 tion on energy efficiency including the shift to more efficient lighting systems 1185 Integrated Coastal Resources Manage- Relevant to MTDP 2004­10, which has a special line ment Project, 2007­10 of action to expand the coverage and strengthen protection of coastal and marine ecosystems; the MTDP also stresses local government unit capacity building in integrated coastal resources management 1264 Capacity Building to Remove Barriers to Highly relevant to the MTDP 2004­10, in which Renewable Energy Development, 2005­08 the Philippines strives to become a world leader in renewable energy 1449 Initial Assistance to the Philippines to MTDP 1999­2004 on sustainable development and Meet Its Obligations under the Stockholm reduction of pollution Convention on POPs 2002­ 1532 Electric Cooperative System Loss Reduc- MTDP 2004­10 energy/power sector reforms tion Project 2004­11 2108 Philippines Sustainable Energy Finance MTDP 2004­10 energy/power sector reforms and Program 2006­11 renewable energy promotion 2329 Demonstration of the Viability and MTDP 2001­10 line of actions regarding waste Removal of Barriers that Impede Adoption management and Successful Implementation of Available, Non-Combustion Technologies for Destroying Persistent Organic Pollutants 2007­10 2345 Asian Conservation Company Tranche II Relevant to MTDP 2004­10, which has a special line 2006­10 of action to expand the coverage and strengthen protection of coastal and marine ecosystems 2761 Environment and Natural Resources Man- MTDP 2004­2010, which underpins the country's agement Program, Phase 1, 2007­11 strategic framework for economic development, pov- erty reduction, social inclusion and equity, recognizes the ENR sector concerns mentioned above; it broadly encompasses promotion of sustainable and respon- sible natural resource use, protection of ecologically fragile areas and reforestation, and promotion of a healthy environment Annex E. People Interviewed and Workshop Participants 107 Annex K. Relevance of GEF Support to National Environmental Framework GEF phase Project name and duration Law/action plan Pilot phase 79 Conservation of Priority Protected y Philippines Agenda 21 1992­94 Areas 1994­2002 y NIPAS 1991 y National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 1997 y Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act 1997 80 Leyte-Luzon Geothermal 1994­2000 y Renewable Energy Power Program 1993 y Philippine Agenda 21, 1996 GEF-2 29 Palawan New and Renewable y Strategic Environmental Plan Law of Palawan 1992 1998­2002 Energy and Livelihood Support Project y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 1999­2005 y Clean Air Act (RA 8749) 1999 y Electric Power Industry Act 2001 653 Coastal and Marine Biodiversity y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 Conservation in Mindanao 2000­05 y NIPAS 1991 y National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 1997 y The Fisheries Code 1998 798 Sustainable Management of Mount y NIPAS 1991 Isarog 2000­05 y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 y National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 1997 y Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act 1997 y Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities (2002) 799 Conservation of the Tubbataha y NIPAS 1991 Reefs National Marine Park and World y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 Heritage Site 2000­04 y National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 1997 y Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Act 1998 y The Fisheries Code 1998 y Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities (2002) y Conservation and Protection of Wildlife Resources 2003 785 Metro Manila Urban Transport y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 Integration Project­Marikina Bikeways y Clean Air Act (RA 8749) 1999 2001­07 y The Integrated Air Quality Improvement Framework and Air Quality Action Plan (2000) y Draft National Action Plan on Climate Change (2005) 913 Biodiversity Conservation and Man- y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 agement of the Bohol Islands Marine y National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 1997 Triangle Project 2001­07 y The Fisheries Code 1998 y Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities (2002) y Conservation and Protection of Wildlife Resources 2003 108 GEF phase Project name and duration Law/action plan GEF-3 652 CAPALCO Distributed Generation y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 2002­06 Photovoltaic Power Plant 2003­08 y Clean Air Act (RA 8749) 1999 y Philippine Energy Plan 2005­2014 y Draft National Action Plan on Climate Change (2005) 1071 Rural Power 2004­09 y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 y Clean Air Act (RA 8749) 1999 y Philippine Energy Plan 2005­2014 y Draft National Action Plan on Climate Change (2005) 1089 Asian Conservation Company y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 2004­10 y National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 1997 y The Fisheries Code 1998 1103 Efficient Lighting Market Transfor- y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 mation Project, 2004­09 y Clean Air Act (RA 8749) 1999 y Philippine Energy Plan 2005­2014 y Draft National Action Plan on Climate Change (2005) 1185 Integrated Coastal Resources y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 Management Project, 2007­10 y The Fisheries Code 1998 y Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities (2002) y Conservation and Protection of Wildlife Resources 2003 1264 Capacity Building to Remove y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 Barriers to Renewable Energy Develop- y Clean Air Act (RA 8749) 1999 ment, 2005­08 y Philippine Energy Plan 2005­2014 y Draft National Action Plan on Climate Change (2005) 1449 Initial Assistance to the Philip- y Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act, 1990 pines to Meet Its Obligations under the y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 Stockholm Convention on POPs 2002­ y Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, 2001 1532 Electric Cooperative System Loss y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 Reduction Project 2004­11 y Clean Air Act (RA 8749) 1999 y Philippine Energy Plan 2005­2014 y Draft National Action Plan on Climate Change (2005) 2108 Philippines Sustainable Energy y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 Finance Program 2006­11 y Clean Air Act (RA 8749) 1999 y Philippine Energy Plan 2005­2014 y Draft National Action Plan on Climate Change (2005) 2329 Demonstration of the Viability and y Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act, 1990 Removal of Barriers That Impede Adop- y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 tion and Successful Implementation of y Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, 2001 Available, Non-Combustion Technolo- y National Implementation Plan for Stockholm Convention on Persis- gies for Destroying Persistent Organic tent Organic Pollutants, 2006 Pollutants 2007­10 2345 Asian Conservation Company y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 Tranche II 2006­10 y National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 1997 2761 Environment and Natural y National Wetland Action Plan (1992) Resources Management Program, y Philippines Agenda 21, 1996 Phase 1, 2007­11 y National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 1997 y Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities (2002) y National Action Plan to Combat Desertification, Land Degradation, Drought and Poverty (2004­2010) y Framework Plan for Environment and Natural Resources (2006) Annex K. Relevance of GEF Support to National Environmental Framework 109 Annex L. Management Response This is the management response to the GEF Coun- L.1 Evaluation Conclusions try Portfolio Evaluation: Philippines (1992­2007), We welcome work carried out to evaluate the port- prepared by the GEF Evaluation Office. The man- folio of 30 GEF national projects, the GEF Small agement response has been prepared by the GEF Grants Programme, and a few selected regional Secretariat in consultation with the GEF Imple- projects in which the Philippines participate with menting and Executing Agencies. an estimated GEF investment of $145 million. We The objective of the evaluation is to provide the are encouraged by the conclusions reached on the GEF Council with an assessment of how the GEF relevance and results of GEF support to the Phil- is implemented in the Philippines. It reports on ippines but are troubled that these are jeopardized results from projects and assesses how these proj- by declining environmental trends and lack of ects are linked to national environmental and sus- compliance. We also take note of the conclusions tainable development strategies as well as the GEF about portfolio inefficiencies in the Philippines. mandate of generating global environmental ben- efits within its focal areas. In line with these objec- Conclusion 1: GEF support has been relevant tives, the evaluation explores three key questions to Philippine national development plans and for the GEF and the Philippines: environmental priorities. We are pleased with the finding that GEF sup- z Is GEF support relevant to the Philippine port is in line with the development and national national development agenda and environmen- priorities set up in the Philippine medium-term tal priorities, and to the GEF mandate? development plan. It is particularly encouraging z Is GEF support efficient as indicated by the that there is a high level of country ownership and time, effort, and money it takes to develop and commitment to GEF support. implement GEF projects; synergies and part- nerships among GEF projects and between the The evaluation finds that some project documen- GEF and government agencies as well as other tation actually fails to establish specific links to GEF stakeholders? the Philippine MTDP and how the activity sup- ports it. According to the evaluation report, this z What are the results of the GEF support? appears to be a result of a weak M&E system of the We generally agree with the overall recommenda- GEF project portfolio. The Secretariat has taken tions provided by the GEF Evaluation Office and are steps to develop a stronger monitoring system pleased with many of the conclusions of the report. and expects improvement in this area through the 110 implementation of a new results-based manage- and believes that the new streamlined project cycle ment framework (GEF 2007b). (GEF 2007a) will help improve these inefficiencies. Conclusion 2: GEF support to the Philippines has We are concerned that there is confusion about the been relevant to the objectives and mandate of implementation of the RAF and that the available the GEF. information is not considered clear. Over the past We are pleased that GEF support is in line with year, the Secretariat has established direct commu- the biodiversity, climate change, POPs, and inter- nications with countries to discuss their program- national waters focal areas. ming under the RAF. As this process continues through GEF-4, we hope that countries will receive Conclusion 3: GEF support to the Philippines better guidance regarding RAF implementation. has produced global environmental benefits but declining environmental trends, and lack of L.2 Evaluation Recommendations compliance endanger these achievements. Recommendation 1: The GEF should develop We are encouraged that the results of the evaluation country strategies for large recipients of GEF show many positive achievements have been pro- support such as the Philippines. duced through GEF support. Specifically, elements of two completed projects, the geothermal and We agree with the Evaluation Office's conclusion biodiversity conservation projects, have achieved that the RAF has led to improvement in this area better results than expected (and assessed) at com- since the resources allocated need to be prioritized pletion. It is particularly noteworthy that the Phil- and shared among different national institutions ippines is now considered one of the most impor- and GEF Agencies, compared to the past when tant global powers in geothermal energy with some allocations were made on a demand basis and best practices on environmental management and there was a perception that every eligible project that a few of the protected areas supported by the would be funded eventually by the GEF. As RAF biodiversity project are considered best practices in implementation progresses, we hope to work with biodiversity conservation within the country. recipients with large allocations to develop GEF programming strategies. We are troubled by the finding that while impressive results were achieved, these were overshadowed by Recommendation 2: Compliance with environ- many obstacles and declining national environmen- mental policies and regulations requires urgent tal indicators. We appreciate the Evaluation Office's attention. effort to highlight these negative environmental Recommendation 3: The Philippines could con- trends and believe that future GEF interventions sider including the globally unique small island should take the indicators outlined into account. regions, land degradation, and improvement of climate change resilience in future GEF support. Conclusion 4: There are several inefficiencies related to the GEF portfolio in the Philippines. Recommendation 4: Improve the efficiency of The findings related to the time-consuming project the GEF mechanisms in the Philippines. preparation and approval process and lack of trans- We note that recommendations 2, 3, and 4 are to parency and poor quality data on the project cycle the government of the Philippines, and we look are consistent with previous Evaluation Office find- forward to helping the government implement ings. The Secretariat considers this a serious issue these recommendations. Annex L. Management Response 111 Annex M. Country Response ANNEX 1. LETTER FROM THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 112 3 Annex M. Country Response 113 References The GEF Council documents cited here (indicated DENR (Department of Environment and Natural with the designation "GEF/C.xx") are available on the Resources). 1999. "The Philippines Initial National GEF Web site, www.thegef.org, under Documents/ Communication on Climate Change." Quezon Council Documents. GEF Evaluation Office docu- City, Philippines. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/ ments can be found on the GEF Evaluation Office Web natc/phinc1.pdf. site, www.gefeo.org, under Publications. DENR PAWB (Department of Environment and ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2004. Country Environ- Natural Resources Protected Areas and Wildlife mental Analysis for the Republic of the Philippines. Bureau). 2006. "The Third Philippine National www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/CEA/phi- Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity." jan-2005.pdf. www.cbd.int/doc/world/ph/ph-nr-03-en.pdf. ADB (Asian Development Bank), GEF (Global Envi- DENR (Department of Environment and Natural ronment Facility), and UNDP (United Nations Resources) and UNDP (United Nations Develop- Development Programme). 1998. Asia Least-Cost ment Programme). 2002. "Framework Plan for Gas Abatement Strategy (ALGAS) Philippines. Environment and Natural Resources Manage- Manila: ADB. ment." Quezon City, Philippines. Butler, Rhett A. 2006. "Tropical Rainforests: Philippines." --. 2005. "Report on the Proceedings of the Write http://rainforests.mongabay.com/20philippines. shop for the GEF Strategy for the Philippines July htm. 2005." Quezon City, Philippines. CI (Conservation International), DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), and Hari- Esty, Daniel C., Marc Levy, Tanja Srebotnjak, and bon Foundation for the Conservation of Nature. Alexander de Sherbinin. 2005. 2005 Environmen- 2006. "Priority Sites for Conservation in the Phil- tal Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National ippines: Key Biodiversity Areas." Quezon City, Environmental Stewardship. New Haven, CT: Yale Philippines. Center for Environmental Law & Policy. Danielsen, Finn, Marlynn M. Mendoza, Anson Tagtag, GEF (Global Environment Facility). 2007a. "GEF Proj- Phillip A. Alviola, Danilo S. Balete, Arne E. Jensen, ect Cycle." GEF/C.31/7. Martin Enghoff, and Michael K. Poulsen. 2007. "Increasing Conservation Management Action by --. 2007b. "Results-Based Management Frame- Involving Local People in Natural Resource Moni- work." GEF/C.31/11. toring." Ambio 36(5). GEF EO (Global Environment Facility Evaluation DCD-DAC (Development Co-operation Director- Office). 2006. GEF Annual Performance Report ate Development Assistance Committee). 2007. 2005. Evaluation Report No. 31. Washington, DC. "Development Aid from OECD Countries Fell 5.1% in 2006." www.oecd.org/document/17/0,2340 IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of ,en_2649_33721_38341265_1_1_1_1,00.html. Nature and Natural Resources). 2006. "Red List of Threatened Species." 114 Luna, I., and others. 2006. "Samar Island Biodiversity Rapid Assessment Program Bulletin 17. Washing- Project Final Report of the Terminal Evaluation ton, DC: Conservation International. Mission 2006." White, A.T. and A. Cruz-Trinidad. 1998. "The Values OECD.Stat Extracts. Creditor Reporting System. http:// of Philippine Coastal Resources: Why Protection stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Default.aspx?DatasetCode and Management Are Critical." Coastal Resource =CRSNEW. Management Project. Cebu City, Philippines. Posa, M.R.C., A.C. Diesmos, N.S. Sodhi, and T.M. World Bank. 2004. Governance of Natural Resources in Brooks. 2007. "Hope for Threatened Tropical Bio- the Philippines: Lessons from the Past, Directions diversity: Lessons from the Philippines." BioSci- for the Future. Part I. Manila: World Bank, Rural ence. Accepted. Development and Natural Resources Sector Unit, Transparency International. 2006. Transparency Inter- East Asia and Pacific Region. national Annual Report 2006. www.transparency. --. 2005. "Governance of Natural Resources in the org/publications/annual_report. Philippines: NRM Way Forward Action Plan for the UNDP GEF (United Nations Development Programme Philippines. Part II." Draft final report. Manila: World Global Environment Facility). "Small Grants Pro- Bank, Rural Development and Natural Resources gram Philippines: Country Programme Strategy Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region. 2005-08." --. 2006. "Philippine Environment Monitor 2005: United Nations Statistical Databases. http://unstats. Coastal and Marine Resources." Manila. un.org/unsd/default.htm. WRI (World Resources Institute). 1999. Table 16.2, Werner, Timothy B., and Gerald R. Allen, eds. 2000. A Inventories of National Greenhouse Gas Emis- Rapid Marine Biodiversity Assessment of the Cala- sions, 1989­94. In World Resources 1998-1999. mianes Islands, Palawan Province, Philippines. Washington, DC. References 115 GEF Evaluation Office Publications Number Title Year Evaluation Reports 39 Joint Evaluation of the GEF Small Grants Programme 2008 38 GEF Annual Performance Report 2006 2008 37 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) 2008 36 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) 2008 35 Evaluation of the Experience of Executing Agencies under Expanded Opportunities in the GEF 2007 34 Evaluation of Incremental Cost Assessment 2007 33 Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities 2007 32 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Costa Rica (1992­2005) 2007 31 Annual Performance Report 2005 2006 30 The Role of Local Benefits in Global Environmental Programs 2006 29 Annual Performance Report 2004 2005 28 Evaluation of GEF Support for Biosafety 2006 Third Overall Performance Study 2005 GEF Integrated Ecosystem Management Program Study 2005 Biodiversity Program Study 2004 Climate Change Program Study 2004 International Waters Program Study 2004 Evaluation Documents ED-1 The GEF Evaluation and Monitoring Policy 2006 ED-2 GEF Evaluation Office Ethical Guidelines 2008 Evaluation Office G LOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA www.gefeo.org