Terminal Evaluation Partnership for Biodiversity Conservation: Mainstreaming in Local Agricultural Landscapes

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2018, Philippines
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
07/2017
Completion Date:
07/2017
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
15,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document 00074945 BPP Terminal Evaluation - Final Report.pdf report English 1735.59 KB Posted 1077
Download document 00074945 TOR TE_Biodiversity Mainstreaming Terminal Evaluation.pdf tor English 876.59 KB Posted 354
Title Terminal Evaluation Partnership for Biodiversity Conservation: Mainstreaming in Local Agricultural Landscapes
Atlas Project Number: 00059793
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2018, Philippines
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 07/2017
Planned End Date: 07/2017
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Poverty and MDG
  • 2. Environment & Sustainable Development
  • 3. Cross-cutting Development Issue
  • 4. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 2.5. Legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions enabled to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and access and benefit sharing of natural resources, biodiversity and ecosystems, in line with international conventions and national
SDG Goal
  • Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
SDG Target
  • 15.5 Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species
Evaluation Budget(US $): 15,000
Source of Funding: Project funds
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 15,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Ronaldo Gutierrez Lead Evaluator ron.ulan@gmail.com
Elpidio Peria Evaluation Team Member pingperia16@gmail.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title:
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
GEF Project ID: 3859
PIMS Number: 2904
Key Stakeholders: DENR-PAWB, DA, DTI, LGUs
Countries: PHILIPPINES
Lessons
1.

Best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success

Best Practices

  • Recognition of the role of erstwhile unrelated other government agencies in conservation (e.g., Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, Department of Tourism, Department of Trade and Industry)
  • Integration of biodiversity with Local Government Units via land-use plans

Worst Practices

  • Bureaucratic protocols

Findings
1.

Project Design/Formulation

The overall project design to build partnerships and capacitate LGUs to more effectively manage their natural resources is a much-needed intervention in environmental management. Oftentimes, LGUs take a backseat to national agencies and other conservation groups in resource management even if their role is equally significant owing to their jurisdiction over territories comprising KBAs. The project tried to address the shortfall among LGUs in terms of capacity, and the effort to underscore the biodiversity aspect behind the seemingly unrelated thematic sectors (i.e., agriculture, enterprise, etc.) was very laudable, if not groundbreaking.
However, the Evaluation Team also finds the project to be overly ambitious in terms of desired policy outcomes and geographic coverage given the existing policy environment at the DENR and the national government. The project managed to prove that this inertia, which had long plagued the NIPAS Act, remains strong and has proven to be quite daunting. The project strategy then to come up with new policies that depended on the cooperation of the DENR leadership, and to anchor the subsequent LGU interventions thereupon, proved stifling and
prevented the project from achieving its full potential.


Tag: Natural Resouce management National Local Governance Programme/Project Design

2.

Analysis of LFA/Results Framework (Project logic/strategy; Indicators)

In terms of the results framework, the Evaluation Team finds the same as generally appropriate and provided adequate basis for determining results. Two considerations however need to be taken into account. First are the earlier comments on the overall problems of the project
design as discussed above.

Second is with regard to some of the main indicators and targets of the project. One of these pertains to the population of at least 3 critically endangered species in 3 demonstration sites, and its corresponding target of no decline in said populations. This indicator and target do not have any direct connection with the interventions considering that the project is more focused on policy enactments and harmonization at the national and LGU levels. Any change in these indicators would require further explanation in terms of attribution to the project. For instance, during the term of the BPP, a Philippine eagle released in the wild in one of the sites was shot dead and this happened notwithstanding the stringent conservation policies already in place at the said site (i.e., MHRWS). Similarly, the interventions in Mt. Siburan were not as intensive to say that the project directly contributed to the increase or decrease of the population of the tamaraw (the target species).
Similarly, with regard to forest fragmentation, this indicator is tricky. Forests can be fragmented naturally (e.g., separated by a ridge) or as a result of policy instruments adverse to the environment (e.g., declaring a portion of a forest as mineral lands or reclassifying the same as agricultural lands). There is no baseline data on how much of the sites are fragmented and the reasons for such. Neither is there a tool available to analyze such fragmentation. As a result, whatever data/maps are generated by the project is not very helpful in understanding whether or not the project helped in arresting the fragmentation. The Evaluation Team is not in a position to identify what would be a better metric for this indicator but certainly, the
current indicator and targets are too vague.


Tag: National Local Governance Monitoring and Evaluation Programme/Project Design

3.

Assumptions and Risks

The project was able to correctly identify the risk from a policy environment that leaned more heavily in favor of resource extractive activities over biodiversity conservation. Despite this, it still found itself handcuffed by DENR inaction over policy initiatives developed under the project, proving the inadequacy of the stated mitigation strategy. The suggested policy on impact assessment on biodiversity in fact was one of the major casualties. In this type of risks, the better strategy is to generate a body of experience and case studies that will substantiate that taking a certain policy direction is more beneficial than the alternative of not taking any.
An actual risk that the ProDoc did not identify although preexisting was the DENR rationalization program which ensued during the course of the project term. As will be discussed later, this played a significant role in the failure of the project to deliver certain target outcomes in some sites especially where the local implementing partner was a local DENR office. It needs to be stated though that in some sites, the rationalization program was anticipated. Nonetheless, the contingency measures to deal with this risk (e.g., catch-up plan, updating of rationalized personnel) were not enough to stem the diminution of interest and
redirection of efforts at the DENR field level.

Lastly, despite similar experience in the past, the risk of currency fluctuation resulting in lower budget in pesos was still not accounted for and the implementing partners did not have an established criteria or standard operating response for this contingency. The PMU and local partners raised the issue of significant budget cuts owing to the peso appreciation at the start and middle part of the project. A reassessment of project targets would have been desirable under this circumstance. While it may be argued that the project is currently benefiting from a peso depreciation (i.e., budget windfall) at the tail-end of the project, this is something that could not have been easily foreseen then. It is suggested that the UNDP develop a financial criteria based on currency fluctuation that would trigger a reassessment of targets every time a
certain percentage of currency exchange is breached.


Tag: Policy Advisory Biodiversity Natural Resouce management National Regional Local Governance Advocacy Capacity Building

4.

Lessons from other relevant projects (e.g., same focal area) incorporated into project design The ProDoc indicates that the BPP will build upon the lessons learned from completed projects supported by GEF and other donors, namely:  

  • The WB/GEF-supported Conservation of Priority Protected Areas in the Philippines (CPPAP) which was completed in 2002; which underscored the importance of incorporating the concerns of communities along the edges of KBAs to the success of conserving biodiversity;
  • The EU-supported National Integrated Protected Areas Project (NIPAP) which was completed in 2003, gave attention to the role played by LGUs in protected area planning and management;
  • The ongoing UNDP-GEF Samar Island Biodiversity Project continues to provide valuable lessons on the significance of mainstreaming biodiversity considerations in local development planning. The local policies adopted through the local legislative councils effectively provided the mantle of protection to the entire PA and its surrounding landscape against incompatible economic activities such as logging and mining; and
  •  The Strengthening Coordination for Effective Environmental Management (STREEM) and Expanding and diversifying the national system of terrestrial Protected Areas projects
  • implemented by UNDP.

Tag: Biodiversity Environmental impact assessment Natural Resouce management Global Environment Facility fund

5.

Planned Stakeholder participation 
A broad-based stakeholder participation was inherent in the design of the BPP. Unlike similar projects however, there were differences/innovations. First, BPP planned to tap agencies that were not traditionally associated with biodiversity conservation. For this, forging partnerships was key. Second, LGUs played a bigger role not just in terms of participation but also in the means to do so, relying mostly on local planning processes and policy instruments related to land-use such as CLUPs, to achieve project ends. However, community participation in this project is noted to be passive and indirect at best when it comes to the major outcomes of the project. For instance, it is simply assumed that communities were properly consulted when the CLUPs were passed by the local legislative councils by way of ordinances, which theoretically, must undergo public consultations. The Evaluation Team did not encounter informants or documentation on the level or quality of public consultations in the approval process of the CLUPs, or on how certain objections to the proposed zonings were addressed. With regard to IPs, the only documented involvement is in the ADSDPP preparation for the Bugkalot and Agta communities in QPL even if there are reported IP communities in the other sites (e.g., NECKBA, MHRWS).


Tag: Civic Engagement Local Governance Programme/Project Design

6.

Replication approach

Replication is built-in and is an inherent feature of the project with the overt effort to adopt national policies that will allow LGUs to manage their natural resources, technical assistance given for pilot-testing by LGUs, development and production of manuals, and actual mainstreaming. The results of these mainstreaming efforts were designed to be the basis for expanding similar efforts. There is also a knowledge management system that was supposed to be developed for the project that can be helpful not just for reporting purposes but also for replication. Theoretically, therefore, the experience generated by BPP would pave the way for future sites
to follow without having to undergo a similar steep learning curve.

The Evaluation Team notes however that the intensive involvement in the provision of technical assistance for the land-use planning activities of some LGUs by the PMU may make it harder for other LGUs to replicate, and may even discourage some since such technical assistance will no
longer be available after BPP.


Tag: Natural Resouce management Local Governance Knowledge management Technical Support

7.

UNDP comparative advantage

BPP takes advantage of UNDP’s wealth of experience in implementing conservation projects, strong relationship with various agencies in the Philippines and other non-State actors both at the national and local levels, its keen understanding of how institutions work and the reforms needed to address environmental problems, its current portfolio of environment-related projects, and cross-sectoral grasp of national development priorities. UNDP has likewise developed a template for management, monitoring, financial and project reporting culled from both its national and international activities that the Philippine agencies are already familiar
with.


Tag: National Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management

8.

Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector

As previously mentioned, BPP has an overlap with the NewCAPP, with the latter developing new modalities to expand KBAs in the country, and the former theoretically providing the local policy environment that will support its successful conservation. On top of this, the ProDoc identifies other interventions within the sector such as the following:

  • ENRMP – a WB-GEF-supported project which seeks to develop key priority watershed sites in the Philippines using the ecosystem-based management approach. This has a potential link with the Sierra Madre corridor of the BPP in QPL.
  • Mindanao Rural Development Project – another WB-GEF-supported project which has related activities in biodiversity conservation in the 225 municipalities in all of the 26 provinces in Mindanao. It aims to institutionalize a decentralized system for agriculture and fisheries delivery that will promote participation, transparency, and accountability. This has a potential link with the LMKBA and MHRWS sites of the BPP. Philippine Climate Change Adaptation Project (PHILCCAP) - another WB-GEF-supported project which aims to demonstrate approaches that would enable targeted communities to adapt to the potential impacts of climate variability and change. This would be achieved by strengthening existing institutional frameworks for climate change adaptation, and by demonstrating cost-effective adaptation strategies in agriculture and natural resources management. Per ProDoc, the BPP stood to benefit from the results of the PHILCCAP pilot sites so that cost-effective approaches can be adapted to ensure appropriate mitigating measures are available to reduce the impacts of climate change on biodiversity.
  • Integrated Natural Resources and Environmental Management Sector Development Program (INREM) – an ADB-funded project, it can work together with the BPP in supporting the harmonization of national level policies in support of LGU-driven conservation, development of tools and capacities and formulation of LGU policies and local investment programs in support of biodiversity.
  •  KFW Project on Community Based Forestry and Mangrove Management in Central Panay – a local-level project aimed at providing a mix of loans and grants to LGUs to support their local natural resources management initiatives.

Tag: Agriculture Forestry Climate Change Adaptation Natural Resouce management Rural Rule of law Trade and Development

9.

Management arrangements

The project followed the typical UNDP management template spelled out in the ProDoc.
Because of the significant role that the LGUs would play as envisioned for the project, the BPP identified the establishment of local project site committees (LPSCs) for site-level coordination, comprised of representatives from LGUs, regional offices of national agencies, local communities, IPs, NGOs, the academe, and other relevant stakeholders. In sites where there is an existing PAMB, it served as the LPSC for the project. In addition, implementation at the field level was at the hands of local responsible partners consisting of LGUs, NGOs, DENR field offices or combinations thereof.
However, other than during the inception phase, documentation of any further activity on the part of the newly-constituted LPSCs in some of the sites is sparse, at best. The coordination that was envisioned by the project especially on policies did not materialize. It was important for biodiversity partnerships to be fostered not just at the national level but at the local level as well, and this is where the importance of LPSCs lies. Despite the attendance of locally-based representatives in annual meetings and other activities, it bears stating that this is not the same as when these individuals sit in a collective capacity and act as one. Such participation can be counted though as part of partnership-building exercises.
Lastly, despite the usual management arrangement from the UNDP, the project had, for one reason or another, difficulty in starting up allegedly on account of lack of personnel. As a result, instead of DENR-BMB, it was UNDP which engaged in the direct hiring of the staff so that the project could finally take-off. The Evaluation Team no longer went into the details of this
problem as it was not relevant for this evaluation.


Tag: Multilateral Partners Project and Programme management Coordination

10.

Project Implementation

Adaptive management (changes to the project design and project outputs during implementation)

The project encountered major challenges in its implementation at the outset beginning with a delayed start-up losing almost a year, the peso appreciation vis-à-vis the dollar resulting in a significant budget cuts, and the DENR rationalization process that affected the staffing pattern of the agency and its local structuring, program prioritization and implementation.
After UNDP intervened to address the staffing problem, the project found itself playing catchup and continuously reeled from these challenges, never really being able to hit full stride. Although a decision was made early on by the Project Board to limit the interventions per site in order to maximize limited resources and showcase innovations per site based on strengths and potential for demonstration,5 the actual interventions taken that were supposedly based on “felt need” and LGU “demand” did not fully respond to the drivers of biodiversity loss per site and ultimately did not generate the desired lessons from the interplay of various policy instruments which affect biodiversity, where all other factors underlying the reality of field conditions are present, within or outside the KBA. Missed potentials include thematic interventions to address the problem of GMO farming in QPL, mining in LMKBA, or land conversion in NNNP, among others.
These problems were felt even more acutely at the different sites with the delayed release of funds being a common gripe among local responsible partners. This then affected the roll-out of activities and worse, dampened the morale of the local project staff, making them susceptible to jumping ship at the earliest opportunity that was afforded by the DENR rationalization program.
By the time the MTE was finished, several cross-cutting recommendations were made and are enumerated herein for facility:

  • Provide a major focus on BD-friendly agriculture and BD-friendly business for the remaining project period
  •  Further prepare DENR to sustain the facilitation process for mainstreaming BD in other sectors
  •  Strengthen the verification process for Objective level indicators

During the evaluation, the team found minimal focus on BDFAPs and BDFEs. Instead, the focus remained on finishing the remaining maps for land-use plans for some LGUs and transboundary plans. The draft policies on BDFAP and BDSEA remained pending with the policy reviewing
body of the DENR.


Tag: Biodiversity Natural Resouce management Local Governance Change Management Implementation Modality Monitoring and Evaluation Partnership Project and Programme management

11.

Project Finance

The BPP had a planned overall budget of US$17,022,061, which included GEF-financing (at endorsement) of US$4.5 million and co-financing of US$12,522,061. As of end of 2016, total project cost stood at US$16,159,398 (94.9% of original budget), consisting of US$4,339,689 (26.9%) as GEF-financing and US$11,819,709 (73.1%) as co-financing. The table below provides a comparative breakdown of the actual and planned financing of the project. It bears stating that the BPP had to endure significant foreign exchange fluctuations both at the start and by the tail end of the project term7 so a more intensive financial analysis may be required to determine how management adapted to the financial shortfall and windfall that occurred within the same project term.

As regards co-financing, this slightly fell short by 5.6%. The PMU explained that a number of field level activities aimed at demonstrating the application of practices and tools (eg. BDFAPs, BDSEA, harmonized ADSDPP) were not carried out due to the delay in the issuance of the enabling policies. Similarly, NGO partners did not deploy the number of staff and equipment originally committed since some of their activities were taken on by the DENR and LGUs (e.g., NECKBA and QPL). Lastly, according to the PMU, not all of the personnel and equipment costs were fully taken into account in these estimates.

There has been a general sentiment that the BPP budget is “small” and not enough for the scope of the project although another UNDP-GEF supported project that was implemented almost simultaneously to BPP (i.e., NewCAPP8) had a smaller budget ($11.037M), had more sites and suffered more or less from the same financial impact owing to the appreciation of the peso during its project term. The results between the two projects are very different9 and it may be worthwhile to do a comparative study on the difference in management approaches to address the same problems caused by the peso appreciation and DENR rationalization program which afflicted both projects, in achieving their respective ends.


Tag: Efficiency Business Model Human and Financial resources Operational Efficiency

12.

Monitoring and evaluation
Design at entry. UNDP followed its standard template for M&E, including for GEF-funded projects. This would include the conduct of an inception workshop and its pertinent report, quarterly progress reports, annual project review/project implementation reports (APR/PIR),
site visits, preparation of MTE and this terminal evaluation. These are all provided in the signed ProDoc and evidenced by actual reports.10 Nothing in the BPP design indicated that a different M&E approach was called for. For this reason, the activity is rated as SATISFACTORY.


Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation

13.

Implementation.

This aspect of the M&E is rated MODERATELY SATISFACTORY. While the M&E was sufficiently budgeted11 and the standard UNDP template has been effective for most, if not all, of its projects, BPP presented a unique challenge given the obstacles it faced at the very outset and the inherent difficulty in pursuing policy reforms especially since one of the major risks identified did materialize and translated to inaction over the proposed policies for Outcome 1. When this happened, the question then was whether the proposed mitigation strategy sufficiently kicked in to address this risk and if the M&E indicators were promptly revised to reflect the change in strategy.
Secondly, there were issues that were readily apparent. As earlier discussed, the cross-cutting recommendations of the MTE to focus on BDFAP and BDFE appears not to have been followed. The Evaluation Team found continued focus on the preparation of more maps for land-use plans even if per MTE, the output has achieved more than double what was targeted.12
This would have been alright had the other thematic areas fared just as well but that is not the case. It was obvious from the field visits that the results per thematic area and per site were uneven. For instance, in general, QPL and MHRWS are faring much better than CPM and LMKBA. Even within a site, the unevenness of the results are evident. For instance, within NNNP, Calatrava received the lion share of technical support over others and little or no
documentation in other sites such as Cadiz (one of the bigger LGUs in NNNP).


Tag: Implementation Modality

14.

Overall assessment.

Overall, UNDP followed the ProDoc and implemented all the M&E activities as prescribed therein. Reports were regularly generated. Unfortunately, these snapshots of project performance were not able to fully capture the picture. It took a different M&E tool, i.e., the MTE with its longer timeframe, to see the problems and indeed, it was only then that the red flags were raised.
As an international organization, UNDP is constrained on how deeply it can get involved in the implementation of projects undertaken jointly with the Philippine Government. In this situation, it becomes incumbent upon other partners—i.e., national agencies—as members of the Project Board, to take an equally active role in evaluating the reported outcomes of the project, not just the UNDP. There was an instance encountered by the Evaluation Team when one of the national agencies was complaining about the lack of consultations by the PMU on the preparation of one of the major outputs of the project. However, the same agency sits in the Project Board and this could have been addressed early on during its meetings. Given the compliance with the requirements of M&E and the problems cited, the activity is rated SATISFACTORY.


Tag: Human and Financial resources Monitoring and Evaluation

15.

Implementing Agency (UNDP)

Execution Overall, UNDP provided its standard support to the BPP as in other UNDP projects. While it does not undertake direct implementation, UNDP offers a management template that follows a rights- and results-based approach, is logically designed to achieve targets and is grounded on monitoring and evaluation. It also offers several tools and systems to identify problems and address them in a timely manner.
During the MTE, these problems were identified and under ordinary circumstances, more attention should have been focused on the delivery of actual results achieved and activities undertaken. This role belonged to the Project Board as a whole, not just the UNDP alone. However, this project has shown the limitations of UNDP’s current M&E system and the need for more frequent field visits and evidenced-based monitoring. The UNDP has numerous projects that it is administering and it is possible that compliance with reportorial requirements became the norm, instead of a more qualitative assessment. For this reason, it is rated MODERATELY SATISFACTORY.
Executing Agency Execution
Based largely on the disparity between intended outcomes and actual results, the Executing Agency is rated as MODERATELY UNSATISFACTORY. Not only did the project start late, the policy bottlenecks which the PMU identified as the reason for failing to mainstream the same, were found within the agency itself. Among the sites, those with the least accomplishments
were in areas where the DENR was the local responsible partner (i.e., CPM and NECKBA).


Tag: Implementation Modality UN Agencies UNDP Management

16.

Overall Project Implementation/Execution, Coordination and Operational Issues

Overall, the project implementation/execution is rated as MODERATELY SATISFACTORY. As will be enumerated later, the results attained were a little less than what was targeted. On what was achieved with regard to land-use plans, the potential is high but there is an imbalance with the focus given, and to which LGUs. Doubling more than the expected output, the focus on CLUPs came at the expense of other outcomes, particularly, those which the MTE had already identified as the proper outputs.
It bears stating that the technical assistance given in the preparation of the CLUPs in the form of maps, GIS, and the like were intensive and of high quality. However, based on a review of the CLUPs presented, the quality of the integration of biodiversity in these plans are still at the incipient stage. It remains to be seen how much of the biodiversity values has actually been internalized by the partner LGUs vis-à-vis other competing interests. By the end of its term, the project offers little in terms of how the other stakeholders see the relevance of biodiversity in
their respective sectors.


Tag: Biodiversity Local Governance Implementation Modality Partnership Coordination Technical Support

17.

Project Results Overall results (attainment of objectives) 
Overall, the project achieved a solid gain in the integration of biodiversity in local planning and is considered as the main achievement of the project. Used properly, the inclusion of biodiversity in the CLUPs will have far-reaching positive consequences for the environment within the LGUs benefitted by the project. In this respect, at least three of the sites (i.e., MHRWS, QPL and NNNP) have shown momentum that will carry the project even beyond its term.
The BPP was also able to achieve some headway with regard to BDFAP most concretely manifested, among others, by a draft joint administrative order already signed by the DA but still awaiting DENR concurrence. While not yet a full-pledged policy instrument sans the DENR Secretary’s signature, it clearly indicated agency buy-in for DA, one of the target agencies.
Notwithstanding the gains on land-use, the other thematic outcomes have not fared as well. BDFAP, as just stated, is a glass half-empty or half-full. BDFE remains in the initial stage while
BDSEA has not taken hold and remains amorphous. In terms of ground-based experience, the project offers little to draw upon for mainstreaming (a key component of the project) and more so, for policy adoption.


Tag: Agriculture Natural Resouce management Effectiveness National Transborder Local Governance Rule of law Human and Financial resources Project and Programme management Institutional Strengthening Policy Advisory Technical Support

18.

Relevance

The project is rated as RELEVANT. Based on the interviews with key informants in the course of the evaluation mission, all of them are aware or were made aware of the importance of biodiversity and the role of other developmental aims, particularly sustainable development goals.
However, there was not much familiarity with the GEF except the mention that it is the source of funds for the project and the interview respondents are aware of such fact.
Locally, as pointed out by in the MTE, LGUs embraced the technical assistance offered by the project to help them comply with the mandated land-use planning process. Beyond this, most of those interviewed expressed earnest appreciation in understanding the concept and value of biodiversity, which can have potential economic benefits. More readily, knowledge of important species within their locality became an immediate source of local pride. Both nationally and internationally, there has been no change in the biodiversity strategies of the country and the project remained on point. At present, the project’s relevance was made more pressing in the light of political developments where even climate agreements seem to fall apart. Considering the importance of protecting biodiversity to a climate-vulnerable nation like the Philippines, the project has definitely retained its relevance.


Tag: Biodiversity Relevance National Transborder

19.

Effectiveness 
This is rated as MODERATELY SATISFACTORY.
As stated, the mainstreaming of biodiversity in land-use planning is the project’s most dominant achievement. Despite being only one of six thematic areas, biodiversity-integration in CLUPs has far-reaching consequences and can affect the other thematic areas as well.
Land-use planning is the spatial framework by which LGUs manage and conserve their resources. It is the language spoken and understood by LGUs. Various legal threats to biodiversity in the form of conversion, agricultural practices, mining, etc. are circumscribed by land-use plans and can be used by ardent biodiversity advocates to oppose or mitigate their impacts. Even BDSEA, if ever it is approved, will still depend on land-use plans to be effective so its importance cannot be underestimated.
It bears noting though that conversely, a bad or “incomplete” land-use plan can wreak major havoc to a KBA. This may be the reason why mining was able to enter an area adjacent to Mt. Hamiguitan and has actually fragmented a much larger biodiversity landscape within the province.
The other footnote to this major accomplishment is that as mentioned earlier, the Evaluation Team observed that the intervention was uneven among the sites, and even within component LGUs of the same KBA. Hence, when it comes to transboundary plans, it’s only as strong as its weakest link.


Tag: Agriculture land resouces Biodiversity Natural Resouce management Effectiveness

20.

Efficiency

This is rated MODERATELY UNSATISFACTORY.
A common complaint among practically all local partners was the delay in the release of funds which in turn resulted in the delay in the implementation of activities, which then affected the ability to meet project outcomes. While the partners did their best to catch up, this problem should have been addressed early on.
Another issue was the problem with the DENR rationalization which could have been addressed outright, instead of being cited now as the reason for some of the failings in some of the project sites. This was not a problem that was not unanticipated. Neither was it without any solution,
as some of the sites were able to capably demonstrate.


Tag: Efficiency

21.

Country ownership

The very prominent role of the LGUs in the implementation of project outcomes as rooted in mainstream LGU functions as provided under the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) is the best evidence of country ownership for the BPP. This is bolstered further by the prominent roles played by national government agencies (e.g., DENR, DA, DILG, etc.) in the capacity enhancement and mainstreaming components of the Project.
It was also clear from the sites and the partners that while this may be a foreign-funded initiative, this was a project developed and implemented by Filipinos. Even UNDP noted the high degree of country involvement from the beginning of the project even at the conceptualization stage.


Tag: Local Governance Country Government

22.

Mainstreaming Framework.

The framework used to assess the breadth and extent of the mainstreaming of
project interventions was inspired by gender mainstreaming,23 which sets out the following stages:
a. Foundation formation24 – this is the stage where the agency’s awareness of biodiversity conservation25 is heightened and it sets the tone for appreciating the value-added in committing to biodiversity conservation as one of the priority thrusts of the agency.
b. Installation of strategic mechanisms26 – this marks the transition of the organization towards mainstreaming biodiversity conservation.
c. Application27 - this is where biodiversity conservation activities are consolidated for more impact. Once they are consolidated, they cease to become sporadic and
uncoordinated.

d. Commitment enhancement and institutionalization28 - this is the full realization of the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation in the agency. It also challenges the agency to continuously evaluate and improve their efforts.
From these stages in mainstreaming, there is STRONG mainstreaming when the various actions and initiatives are present in all the four stages of mainstreaming (foundation formation, installation of strategic mechanisms, application and commitment enhancement/ institutionalization); MODERATE mainstreaming when some actions are done in some of the four stages; and WEAK mainstreaming when there are only one or no action or initiatives at all in some of the stages.
Based on the above criteria, the project is rated to have achieved MODERATE MAINSTREAMING of its over-all efforts in achieving biodiversity conservation though it has not undertaken fully all the stages of mainstreaming in all of the thematic areas.


Tag: Biodiversity Gender Mainstreaming Coordination

23.

Sustainability

Financial resources.

This is rated MODERATELY LIKELY. One of the benefits of the inclusion of biodiversity in land-use planning is that it will likely translate in other short-term plans of the LGUs dependent on the CLUP such as the comprehensive development plans (CDP), LIICs, etc. Recognizing the biodiversity values can justify the creation of a local environmental office, the appropriation of budget and the like. Several of the LGUs within the sites have actually started this process so the sustainability in these areas is very likely. In some like QPL and MHRWS, the funding stream has actually grown because these LGUs have managed to integrate and focus their priorities to include biodiversity. Similarly, some of the partner NGOs of BPP have likewise secured funding for subsequent work in these areas (e.g., CI in QPL, PBCFI in NNNP) so their interventions will likely continue. One drawback, as stated, is the relative unevenness of this outcome and some sites of BPP (e.g., CPM and NECKBA) are likely to be left behind because there is no strong biodiversity
policy/social infrastructure that was left behind by the BPP after its term ends.


Tag: Biodiversity Sustainability Business Model Human and Financial resources

24.

Sustainability

Financial resources.

This is rated MODERATELY LIKELY. One of the benefits of the inclusion of biodiversity in land-use planning is that it will likely translate in other short-term plans of the LGUs dependent on the CLUP such as the comprehensive development plans (CDP), LIICs, etc. Recognizing the biodiversity values can justify the creation of a local environmental office, the appropriation of budget and the like. Several of the LGUs within the sites have actually started this process so the sustainability in these areas is very likely. In some like QPL and MHRWS, the funding stream has actually grown because these LGUs have managed to integrate and focus their priorities to include biodiversity. Similarly, some of the partner NGOs of BPP have likewise secured funding for subsequent work in these areas (e.g., CI in QPL, PBCFI in NNNP) so their interventions will likely continue. One drawback, as stated, is the relative unevenness of this outcome and some sites of BPP (e.g., CPM and NECKBA) are likely to be left behind because there is no strong biodiversity
policy/social infrastructure that was left behind by the BPP after its term ends.


Tag: Biodiversity Environment Policy Sustainability Resource mobilization Local Governance Rule of law Business Model Human and Financial resources Sustainability

25.

Impact

Policy interventions take a while to bear fruit and may take years before they can be reaped. This is the case with BPP and while funding for the project may have already ceased by then, it would be worthwhile to see using some of the project’s metrics, if these have yielded results five or ten years down the line, for instance, on how much budget allocations for biodiversity
have actually increased.


Tag: Biodiversity Impact

26.

The BDSEA is a concept without legal anchor in the Philippine jurisdiction and even if the proposed policy instrument was signed by the DENR, it would be vulnerable to constant legal questioning. BPP pilot-tested it using the DENR’s National Greening Program14 and the National Tourism Development Plan of the DOT. The latter yielded good insights. The tool was also used to assess the CLUPs of three municipalities in QPL, which was a redundant exercise considering that land-use planning and BDSEA are both forms of planning. Additionally, despite the specific reference to DA as a target agency, there was no evidence of BDSEA being applied to any agricultural activity within the sites which pose serious threats to biodiversity such as use of GMOs in QPL, sugarcane plantations in NNNP and agricultural run-off in MSPLS.
Rather than propose a novel concept like BDSEA, the project should have simply focused on strengthening the biodiversity aspects of the Philippine EIA system, as the ProDoc actually seems to suggest. Not only does this have an already subsisting legal framework, the impact is far-reaching because of the cross-cutting nature of the EIA system as a mandatory requirement to any activity that has a significant impact on the environment.


Tag: Agriculture Biodiversity Wildlife Conservation Effectiveness Project and Programme management

27.

Memorandum Circular 2015-01 mentions biodiversity-friendly businesses in the preambular paragraphs of the Investments Priorities Plan (IPP) of the DTI-BOI. However, it does not translate to anything specific in the over-all implementation of the instrument and cannot be immediately taken as a paradigm shift. When asked, the DTI was not able to identify BDfriendly businesses that should enjoy the fiscal and non-fiscal incentives associated therewith. When the Evaluation Team further sought a current listing of these so-called BD-friendly businesses, the DTI gave a list comprised mainly of piggeries and other agricultural activities, admitting that the term “biodiversity-friendly” will likely take a while to take hold in the agency.
In other words, while the benefits to businesses in claiming they are BD-friendly are readily apparent, establishing the opposite (i.e., these business are actually BD-friendly) is not so and further documentation is needed. This situation is repeated at the LGU level where the investment template is replicated in new or revised LIICs that were passed under the project.
It is in this instance where the interplay among thematic areas would have been beneficial. As earlier stated, rather than operate on vague and general principles, these fiscal incentives could have been directly targeted towards biodiversity issues such as weaning farmers in adjacent agricultural lands from chemical use, or giving tax breaks to companies that directly contribute to wildlife law enforcement. Actually, several of the local partners like the Philippine Eagle Foundation and Haribon Foundation, serve as models given the number of major companies that contribute to these NGOs in their conservation efforts.

The website is already in place but many of its pages are still under construction. Information about the sites are still incomplete. Moreover, other than a few database, the system that will feed the website in order to come up with a national biodiversity information system does not seem to be in place.


Tag: Agriculture land resouces Biodiversity Wildlife Conservation Effectiveness Project and Programme management

28.

The documentation on these targets are sparse. The Evaluation Team heard of transboundary plans mentioned by interviewees from NECKBA and CPM but these are still very much in the pipeline. As for the objective of LGUs harmonizing their development plans in their jointly managed landscapes, because of their geographic characteristics and political history, CPM, NECKBA, MSPLS and NNNP are the primary sites.21 Lastly, as regards the adoption of the PES involving the setting-up of a drinking water system for residents of Bgy. Sto. Niño, Maddela in QPL, the activity is too miniscule, generating only roughly PHP4,500 per month, half of which needs to be retained for repair purposes, while the remaining half is not even sufficient to pay the monthly minimum wage of a single employee. There might also be some reservations on the concept of linking PES with access to safe drinking water, which other funding organizations might actually provide for free as a Millennium/Sustainable Development Goal, especially in this remote village.

This is another solid accomplishment of the project with San Isidro enacting an ordinance22 to expand MHRWS by virtue of the locally conserved area (LCA) modality. There was a positive interaction here between the BPP and NewCAPP, both UNDP-GEF funded projects. Meantime, the documentation for critical habitat establishments in Sebaste, Antique in CPM (and additionally, Alegria, Surigao del Norte in LMKBA) are just drafts. There was no documentation for Lambunao, Iloilo although the Evaluation Team was able to speak to its municipal environment officer who mentioned the biodiversity assessment undertaken for the site.


Tag: Agriculture land resouces Biodiversity Effectiveness Project and Programme management Jobs and Livelihoods

Recommendations
1

Formulation of projects should be more realistic and less overly ambitious especially when the target outcome is in the nature of policy change at the national level. Alternative course of action should also be incorporated so as not to be tied down by the same forces that have caused the policy inaction in the first place. 

2

There should be a healthy balance between innovation and scale on the one hand, and learning from experience and consolidating gains, on the other. Innovation requires time and resources to manifest gains while consolidation builds on social capital developed by previous projects. 

3

Means of cross-learning should be included as key component in projects consisting of sites at varying stages of development so as to allow regular sharing of experiences and ideas. 

4

Identify solutions beforehand to complications that can arise with working with the government as local responsible party (e.g., budgetary considerations, protocol, staffing, etc.). For instance, include UNDP-work in the IPCR of project staff who are eventually absorbed by the agency, and institute fund management seminars to the finance staff of the local field offices to familiarize them with the different accounting processes [Government Agencies & UNDP] 

5

Document the role of women in conservation and how the project empowers women. 

6

Augment the MTE & TE with regular monitoring to elicit more evidence and information in the project areas especially in difficult projects [UNDP] 

7

Project Board members should also have a bigger role in M&E [Project Board] 

8

Explore commonalities with organic agriculture to move BDFAP forward [DA, DENR, NGOs] 

9

Study how the present EIA system can be tweaked to be more biodiversity-focused, instead of pursuing BDSEA [DENR] 

10

Work with DILG on how biodiversity integration can be included in the LGU recognition system of the DILG (i.e., Performance Challenge Fund) in order to improve further the quality of these land-use plans [DENR, DILG] 

11

Mandate DENR technical assistance to LGUs on CLUPs, not just FLUPs [DENR, DILG, HLURB, LGUs] 

12

In KBAs that overlap with ancestral domains, document the process of integrating ADSDPPs with CLUPs [DENR, NCIP] 

13

Instead of bigger transboundary plans, go back to basics by initiating biodiversity-integration in the land-use plans of KBAs that did not fully benefit from the project (i.e., Antique and Cagayan PLGUs) [DENR] 

14

Link BDFE with BDFAP by studying the possibility of giving fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to agricultural activities that do not use pesticides, GMOs, among others. Pilot-test in QPL. [Quirino PLGU, DA] 

15

Continue the process of mainstreaming through constant application and strengthening of the foundations of the project thematic areas, including increasing budgetary commitments by LGUs [Government Agencies, LGUs, NGOs, NDP] 

16

Instead of the usual enumeration of endangered species, identify the relevance of biodiversity to the other agencies and include these in the KMs to be produced [DENR] 

17

Translate in more easily understandable terms the process of BD-integration in CLUPs for future KMs so other LGUs can adopt the same [DENR, HLURB] 

18

Community involvement by way of consultations in CLUP formulation should be strengthened [LGUs, NGOs] 

19

Sensitivity training needed for some agencies working with local communities and IPs [Government Agencies, NGOs] 

20

Instead of BDFEs, explore the possibility of formulating fiscal incentives that can generate funds directed towards forest protection, tree planting, etc. and can serve as much-needed capital for biodiversity-friendly livelihoods which can benefit IPs and POs alike and tied directly with conservation (e.g. financing of ICCAs by IPs) [DTI, DENR, NEDA] 

1. Recommendation:

Formulation of projects should be more realistic and less overly ambitious especially when the target outcome is in the nature of policy change at the national level. Alternative course of action should also be incorporated so as not to be tied down by the same forces that have caused the policy inaction in the first place. 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/15]

This is noted. The UNDP and the BMB will invest in conducting thorough consultations with stakeholders during project conceptualization especially when the intended outputs are policies at the national level. It will also strengthen its adaptive management approach in project implementation to ensure that alternative courses of action will be identified in cases where the original targets are unlikely to be met. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Conduct of intensive and extensive consultations during project conceptualization
[Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2018/09/16]
BMB and UNDP 2018/05 Completed History
2. Recommendation:

There should be a healthy balance between innovation and scale on the one hand, and learning from experience and consolidating gains, on the other. Innovation requires time and resources to manifest gains while consolidation builds on social capital developed by previous projects. 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/15]

This is noted and will be considered in future project formulation endeavors. 

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation:

Means of cross-learning should be included as key component in projects consisting of sites at varying stages of development so as to allow regular sharing of experiences and ideas. 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/15]

This is noted and will consider in future project formulation endeavors.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation:

Identify solutions beforehand to complications that can arise with working with the government as local responsible party (e.g., budgetary considerations, protocol, staffing, etc.). For instance, include UNDP-work in the IPCR of project staff who are eventually absorbed by the agency, and institute fund management seminars to the finance staff of the local field offices to familiarize them with the different accounting processes [Government Agencies & UNDP] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/15]

This recommendation is noted. Identifying solutions beforehand to possible concerns/complications could facilitate the project implementation. Moreover, the incorporation of UNDP work in the IPCR of contractual project staff absorbed by the DENR is worth considering and should be explored. 

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation:

Document the role of women in conservation and how the project empowers women. 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/15]

The management agree on this recommendation. The documentation of the role of women in conservation and how the project empowers them could encourage involvement of more women into conservation endeavors. 

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation:

Augment the MTE & TE with regular monitoring to elicit more evidence and information in the project areas especially in difficult projects [UNDP] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/15]

This is noted. UNDP will strictly implement its M&E plan and BMB will strengthen its existing M&E mechanism for its on-going and future projects. 

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation:

Project Board members should also have a bigger role in M&E [Project Board] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/15]

This recommendation is noted. The role and responsibilities of the Project Board and its members are specified in the Project Document and under DENR Special Order 2012-920. 

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation:

Explore commonalities with organic agriculture to move BDFAP forward [DA, DENR, NGOs] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/15]

The management already explored the commonalities of BDFAP with organic agriculture, but in order to move the BDFAP after the project, a discussion with DA on this matter is a must, hence, we agree on this recommendation. The BDFAP at the moment is only recommended for application within the multiple use zones of protected areas and sustainable use zones of key biodiversity areas. DA has still to promote this in the wider agricultural landscape so as not to compromise the agency’s main mandate of food security for the country. 

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation:

Study how the present EIA system can be tweaked to be more biodiversity-focused, instead of pursuing BDSEA [DENR] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/15]

The management would still like to pursue the BDSEA. The BDSEA seeks to complement and reinforce the national Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) initiatives by providing guidance for a proactive approach and undertake feed-backing to integrate biodiversity considerations into the higher levels of planning and decision-making. This considers the overall view of promoting sustainable development during the planning, implementation and monitoring stages. With the current national EIA framework and policy focusing on the environmental impacts of projects, the proposed BDSEA-DMC will strengthen the environmental assessment initiatives by focusing on DENR’s plans, programs and policies. 

The need to integrate biodiversity in environmental impact assessment has already been addressed by BMB through a signed DENR circular for the integration of biodiversity in the tenurial instruments issued by the DENR. This proved beneficial in mining audit of Hamiguitan which used a dedicated biodiversity checklist. The BMB staff and their counterparts at the DENR field offices are now part of EIA review team to ensure that biodiversity concerns are addressed in the review of EIAs. Amended EIA checklists were already submitted to EMB for their consideration and adoption. 

 

 

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation:

Work with DILG on how biodiversity integration can be included in the LGU recognition system of the DILG (i.e., Performance Challenge Fund) in order to improve further the quality of these land-use plans [DENR, DILG] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/15]

The management agree on this recommendation. The Procedural Guidelines (PG) developed by the project provides simplified detailed instructions for incorporating biodiversity concerns in the land use planning process, thus, the quality of the CLUPs could be enhanced to make it biodiversity-responsive. While DILG has supervision over LGUs, it is HLURB that has the mandate to ensure the qualities of the CLUPs of LGUs. However, integrating biodiversity in the LGU recognition system of the DILG could encourage more LGUs to make their land-use plans biodiversity-responsive because of the recognition. The DILG, HLURB and BMB can explore ways to develop for a recognition system for LGUs that can further biodiversity integration. 

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation:

Mandate DENR technical assistance to LGUs on CLUPs, not just FLUPs [DENR, DILG, HLURB, LGUs] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/15]

The management agree on this recommendation. The approval of the JAO on the adoption and use of the Procedural Guidelines on Biodiversity Conservation Mainstreaming in the CLUPs of LGUs will give mandate and facilitate the provision of technical assistance by the DENR to LGU in mainstreaming BD in the CLUP. In the interim, the HLURB already can adopt, approve, and disseminate to the LGUs the Procedural Guidelines to jump start the mainstreaming work. In parallel, the BMB can issue a Technical Bulletin for the use by the DENR field level units as reference in working with LGUs in the preparation of the CLUPs. It must be noted that the DENR is part of the Provincial Land Use Committees that are mandated to provide assistance to LGUs and at the same time review compliance to land use planning guidelines. The PG therefore will be very useful for DENR field units for carrying out their tasks. 

Of particular significance would be the role of DENR Field Offices in providing technical assistance, data, maps and other information relevant to the mainstreaming of biodiversity in 7 the planning and plan implementation processes of LGUs. As exemplified by the BPP experience, the DENR (CENRO at the local level) has been an active participant in the BD Mainstreaming of CLUPs particularly in the updating of the ecological profile, provision and integration of forest land use plans, cadastral maps and harmonization of policies with zoning ordinances. The DENR representative (PENRO or CENRO) also sit as a PLUC member that examines the CLUP. 

 

 

Key Actions:

12. Recommendation:

In KBAs that overlap with ancestral domains, document the process of integrating ADSDPPs with CLUPs [DENR, NCIP] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/15]

The management agree on this recommendation. The manual of procedures (MoP) of Integrating BD into ADSDPP Processes and the BD Enhanced ADSDPP into the Mandated Plans of Host Local Governments developed by the project could be used as reference to document the process of integration of the ADSDPP with KBAs and PAs with management plans and then for these combined plans to be integrated into the land use and development plans of LGUs (CLUP and CDP). Moreover, the BPP’s current BD mainstreaming initiatives for CLUP together with HLURB consider the inclusion of PAs/KBAs and Ancestral Domains harmonized spatial and development concerns in the CLUP stages of: Step 4. Situation Analysis; Step 5. Setting the Goals and Objectives; Step 6: Establishment of development thrusts and definition of spatial strategies; Step 7. Preparation of the land use plan and Step. 8 Drafting of the Zoning ordinance. 

Key Actions:

13. Recommendation:

Instead of bigger transboundary plans, go back to basics by initiating biodiversity-integration in the land-use plans of KBAs that did not fully benefit from the project (i.e., Antique and Cagayan PLGUs) [DENR] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/15]

The management would still like to pursue transboundary planning. The biodiversity resources and values cut across administrative jurisdictions and boundaries of local government units. At the same time, KBAs already contain human communities and subject to varying types of land uses, the potential for conflict between development and the protection of natural resources thus becomes imminent. It is also evident that communities within the KBA are the good stewards of their own resources. That is why there is a need to demonstrate how a common management framework within a cluster of LGUs can help address, in a more holistic way, the threats to biodiversity. The proper assessment of environmental impacts of development plans, programs and projects of the cluster LGUs, as can be specified in the Transboundary Plans, will help in understanding interactions, and guide the actions and decisions of local executives of LGUs that together encompass key biodiversity areas. The Transboundary Plans can thus serve as guide for unified coordinated actions of these LGUs for the management of KBAs. 

 

Key Actions:

14. Recommendation:

Link BDFE with BDFAP by studying the possibility of giving fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to agricultural activities that do not use pesticides, GMOs, among others. Pilot-test in QPL. [Quirino PLGU, DA] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/16]

The management agree on this recommendation. In fact, the promotion of BD-friendly agricultural practices and BD-friendly enterprise has been included in the recently revised provincial and municipal local environment codes of Quirino Province. Moreover, the recommendation to provide fiscal and non-fiscal incentives is actively pursued in the BPP pilot BDFAP sites like Bgy. Eden, Cabarroguis in Quirino. 

Key Actions:

15. Recommendation:

Continue the process of mainstreaming through constant application and strengthening of the foundations of the project thematic areas, including increasing budgetary commitments by LGUs [Government Agencies, LGUs, NGOs, NDP] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/16]

The management agree on this recommendation. The adoption, approval, and dissemination by HLURB of the Procedural Guidelines for mainstreaming biodiversity in the in CLUPs will ensure the application of the tools and procedures developed under the BPP. Budgetary support for mainstreaming activities have been incorporated by the LGUs in their respective development plans and local investment programs. The BMB in its follow up engagement with LGUs will push for the provision of counterpart funds from the LGUs to support biodiversity conservation initiatives particularly in the preparation of spatial and development plans and the implementation of projects on BD-friendly agricultural practices and BD-friendly enterprises. The issuance of biodiversity inclusive local environment codes/ordinances of the LGUs provides the impetus for sustaining BD related projects which have been started and are already in place. 

Key Actions:

16. Recommendation:

Instead of the usual enumeration of endangered species, identify the relevance of biodiversity to the other agencies and include these in the KMs to be produced [DENR] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/16]

The recommendation is well noted. In fact, at present, the knowledge materials that were generated by the project across the thematic areas were already in the process of packaging (layout) into knowledge products and for subsequent dissemination to relevant agencies with mandates over these thematic areas. 

The BD mainstreaming process contained in a simplified procedural guidelines on mainstreaming BD in the CLUP has been finalized and packaged for adoption, approval, and dissemination of HLURB to LGUs, Leagues and DENR Field Offices. The procedural guidelines will serve as manual for LGU planners to integrate BD concerns in their CLUP following the HLURB 12-step process. 

Key Actions:

17. Recommendation:

Translate in more easily understandable terms the process of BD-integration in CLUPs for future KMs so other LGUs can adopt the same [DENR, HLURB] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/16]

This recommendation is noted. The Procedural Guidelines for Mainstreaming Biodiversity in the CLUP Process developed by the project is a good reference because it follows the HLURB- mandated CLUP process that makes it friendly and easy for LGU planners to use. 

Key Actions:

18. Recommendation:

Community involvement by way of consultations in CLUP formulation should be strengthened [LGUs, NGOs] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/16]

The management agree on this recommendation. The CLUP process specified by the HLURB provides for the engagement of various stakeholders in the entire CLUP preparation process. This stakeholder involvement have been adopted and expanded in the Procedural Guidelines for BD Mainstreaming in CLUP to ensure that communities, NGOs, the academe, national government agencies, and the private sector that have direct and indirect concerns on biodiversity conservation are fully engaged in the entire CLUP preparation and approval process. 

Key Actions:

19. Recommendation:

Sensitivity training needed for some agencies working with local communities and IPs [Government Agencies, NGOs] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/16]

The management agree on this recommendation. The conduct of sensitivity training prior the implementation of any project is relevant, this may foster understanding to the culture, belief and way of life of the local communities and IPs. Understanding the local communities and indigenous peoples will make it easier to work with and learn with them. 

Key Actions:

20. Recommendation:

Instead of BDFEs, explore the possibility of formulating fiscal incentives that can generate funds directed towards forest protection, tree planting, etc. and can serve as much-needed capital for biodiversity-friendly livelihoods which can benefit IPs and POs alike and tied directly with conservation (e.g. financing of ICCAs by IPs) [DTI, DENR, NEDA] 

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/26] [Last Updated: 2021/01/16]

The management would like to pursue the BDFE. The management views this recommendation as an immediate solution for the provision of alternative income sources for upland communities but does not address and does not provide the long term and sustainable solution to the twin issues of biodiversity loss and poverty. The BDFE intends to offer not just an immediate solution but a long-term option for the communities to lift themselves out from poverty while making them an ally to biodiversity conservation. 

Key Actions:

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org