Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation (EcoGov 2 Eval) FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 15 March 2011 15 March 2011 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Chemonics International Inc. The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States government. ECOGOV2 EVAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE PHASE 2 PROJECT EVALUATION (ECOGOV2 EVAL) FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 15 MARCH 2011 (Contract No. AID-EPP-I-00-06-00013, Order No. AID-492-TO-11-00001) CONTENTS ACRONYMS..................................................................................................................................................... II 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 4 2.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 18 3.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 22 4.0 KEY OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS ............................................................................................................ 24 5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF METRICS AND INDICATORS USED ...................................................................... 39 6.0 THE RIDGE TO REEF APPROACH ........................................................................................................... 44 7.0 IMPACTS OF GOVERNANCE APPROACHES ON THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY AND IMPROVEMENT TO BIOPHYSICAL CONDITIONS .................................................................................. 49 8.0 LESSONS LEARNED AND BEST PRACTICES .......................................................................................... 62 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 74 10.0 RESOURCES CONSULTED .................................................................................................................... 81 ANNEX A: STATEMENT OF WORK ............................................................................................................. 85 ANNEX B: EVALUATION TEAM ITINERARY ............................................................................................... 92 ANNEX C: PERSONS CONTACTED, FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVIEWS BY REGION AND SITE ........................................................................................................................................................ 95 ANNEX D: EVALUATION TEAM ................................................................................................................. 102 Final Evaluation Report | i ACRONYMS ADB Asian Development Bank AO Administrative Order ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources CBFMA Community-Based Forest Management Agreement CCEF Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc CDA Choices, Decisions, Actions CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan CMMO Coastal and Marine Management Office CRM Coastal Resources Management CRMP Coastal Resources Management Plan CWTS Civic Welfare Training Services DA/BFAR Department of Agriculture/Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources DAI Development Alternatives, Inc. DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government EcoGov USAID-Philippine Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project EMB Environmental Management Bureau ENRO Environment and Natural Resources Office FASPO Foreign-Assisted and Special Projects Office FFM Forests and Forest Lands Management FLUP Forest Land Use Plan FMB Forest Management Bureau FTAP Functionality, Transparency, Accountability and Participation GIS Geographic Information System GIZ German Technical Assistance (new acronym) GoAd Governance and Advocacy Sector GRP Government of the Republic of the Philippines GSA Guided Self-Assessment GTZ German Technical Assistance (former acronym) Ha Hectare IDRC International Development Research Centre ICRMP Integrated Coastal Resources Management Plan IEC Information, Education and Communication INREM Integrated Natural Resources and Environmental Management IPR Individual Property Right IRR Implementing Rules and Regulations ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management ISWMP Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan KBA Key Biodiversity Area JBIC Japan Bank for International Cooperation LCP League of Cities of the Philippines ii | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation Final Evaluation Report | iii LGU Local Government Unit LMP League of Municipalities of the Philippines LPP League of Provinces of the Philippines M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MANP Mount Apo Natural Park MENRO Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office MOA Memorandum of Agreement MPA Marine Protected Area MRF Materials Recovery Facility MSU Mindanao State University NCIP National Commission for Indigenous Peoples NGO Non-Government Organization NIPAS National Integrated Protected Area System NRC National Capital Region NRM Natural Resources Management NSWMC National Solid Waste Management Commission PAWB Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau PES Payment for Environmental Services PLGU Provincial Local Government Unit PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PO People’s Organization PPP Public-Private Partnership P/S Personnel and Services R2R Ridge to Reef SLF Sanitary Landfill Facility SO Strategic Objective SOW Scope of Work STF Septage Treatment Facility SWM Solid Waste Management TA Technical Assistance TWG Technical Working Group UEM Urban Environmental Management USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar WACS Waste Assessment and Characterization Study WWM Wastewater Management WWMP Wastewater Management Plan WWF World Wildlife Fund WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facilities 1.0 Executive Summary The Philippines Environmental Governance Project Phase 2 Project (EcoGov) is an initiative of the Government of the Philippines, implemented in partnership with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of the Interior and Local Government, local government and other stakeholders, funded by the United States Agency for International Development and managed by Development Alternatives, Inc (DAI). At the national level, the principal counterparts of the EcoGov project are the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and several of its bureaus. The project also works with the Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA/BFAR), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and the Leagues of Municipalities, Cities, and Provinces (LMP, LCP, and LPP, respectively). At the local level, the project works directly with local governments (LGUs), as well as the local offices of national government agencies. At all levels, the project works with civil society organizations, academic institutions, local service providers and private sector entities, which are stakeholders, or partners. EcoGov supports the overall goal of enhanced security, governance, and capacity for sustainable and equitable economic growth. The long-term vision for EcoGov is to conserve biological diversity by addressing problems of open access, pollution of coastal waters and water bodies in urban areas, and mitigating natural resource-based conflicts in key biodiversity areas (KBAs). The intermediate objective of EcoGov is to promote improved governance of forest and coastal resources and management of urban environment. “Governance” and “improved management” are measured by quantitative indicators (i.e., number of hectares under improved management). These are supplemented by qualitative indicators expressed as sets of minimum conditions or minimum requirements that would render an area “under improved management,” or a local government unit as “well performing.” Technical outcomes are defined in terms of biodiversity threat reduction, such as reduced levels of illegal logging and conversion of forestlands, reduced overfishing and destructive fishing, and reduced wastes that contaminate soil, and enter various waterways, streams, rivers and seas. These metrics are elaborated throughout the report. An integrated ecosystem management approach, Ridge to Reef (R2R) has been advanced by EcoGov in selected KBAs. Ecosystems inextricably linked, are responsible for life supporting environmental services - the hydrological, nitrogen and carbon cycles that are essential for long term human survival. Sustaining these cycles addresses three major concerns; water security, health security, and food security. The R2R approach is scalable, in that it allows for a wide range of interventions, from small, discreet, single sub-sector initiatives to complex, long term, multi-sector, multi-partner interventions in environmental management. R2R provides for system-wide analysis in the sense that communities can have a better understanding of the root causes of threats to biodiversity, and formulate appropriate 4 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation actions and responses. EcoGov provides technical assistance in four technical areas that represent important sectors within a watershed or contiguous bio-geographic areas for natural resource management. These include Forest and Forestlands Management (FFM), Solid Waste Management (SWM), Waste Water Management (WWM), and Coastal Resources Management (CRM). A fifth, cross-cutting technical component deals with Governance and Advocacy (GoAd). The R2R framework has been adopted by multilateral donors such as the World Bank (Global Environment Facility), Asian Development Bank (ADB), bilateral donors, such as the GTZ1 and International Development Research Centre (IDRC), international NGOs such as the WWF, and private sector corporations such as Smart Communications, as part of their programming in environment and natural resources management and related subsectors. The geographic focus of the project, true to the R2R approach, includes diverse areas of the country that traverse coastal and marine sites, agriculturally rich landscapes, and steep, high mountain areas. In Northern Luzon, the project has worked in four provinces that include the Northern Sierra Madre Mountains, Quirino Protected Landscape, Casecnan Protected Landscape and Aurora Memorial Park, where the country’s remaining largest blocks of rainforests can still be found. In the Central Visayas, EcoGov has provided technical assistance in coastal areas that include KBAs such as Tañon Strait and other important watershed and forest areas. In Western and South/Central Mindanao, EcoGov has been working with 78 LGUs that are both landlocked and coastal – many of which are in provinces encompassed by the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The landscape of the island includes important watersheds and protected areas like the world￾famous Mt. Apo National Park, and significant seascapes and marine areas as well as important wetlands and upland forest areas. The map on the next page shows the Philippines KBAs and the provinces where EcoGov has provided technical assistance. Final Evaluation Report | 5 6 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation The Final Evaluation of the Environmental Governance Project (EcoGov) was conducted in January/February 2011 by four sector specialists assisted by an administrative assistant. The evaluation process involved document reviews, interviews with key partners at the national, regional and LGU levels, and field site visits to provinces and municipalities that had received EcoGov technical assistance. The Scope of Work requested that the evaluation focus on responses/comments/analyses to five key questions. These were: • What have been the key outcomes and impacts of EcoGov? • How effective have EcoGov metrics and indicators been? What performance indicators have been effective and useful in measuring impacts? • How effective is the “Ridge to Reef” approach? • How have EcoGov governance approaches impacted threats to biodiversity and improved biophysical conditions? • What are the primary lessons learned and best practices from EcoGov? This report is also framed in the context of these five focus questions. Additional observations and answers to other queries by DENR round out the report. The remainder of this section highlights the major findings associated with each of the key questions. 1.1 OUTCOMES/IMPACTS The overall performance of the EcoGov project is substantially positive. The seven-year project time frame provided a gestation period that allowed many of activities to take hold, for partners to see the relevance, utility, economic and other benefits of environmental governance derived with the approaches and tools used by EcoGov. As of the end of its sixth year of implementation, EcoGov reported its technical assistance had reached 169 municipal and city local governments in 21 provinces with a combined population of almost 11 million residents. The biophysical targets of the eight key indicators established for the project all have success rates of more than 85 percent and in many instances the goal figures had been exceeded by the end of the last reporting quarter. Some of the key outcomes and impacts are noted below. There is economic opportunity in good environmental governance. In coastal areas, LGUs are improving their management of marine protected areas. They are expanding their influence and enforcement through the adoption of formal management planning processes and also creating networks with other LGUs, recognizing that economies of scale can bring greater benefits. They are attracting fishery and tourism investments that are directly related to their good environmental governance commitments. EcoGov has helped all levels of government recognize that by reducing threats to biodiversity and the environment through improved management practices, economic opportunities are more likely to follow. There are numerous LGUs out of the 169 EcoGov-linked city and municipal governments that are testimony to this. The Sixth Annual Report of the project shows an overall increase of 65 percent in investments in natural resources management (NRM) over the three project sectors during the five-year period ending in 2010. Final Evaluation Report | 7 EcoGov leveraged opportunities for improving livelihoods and socioeconomic development. The development of coastal resources management plans in the Camotes Islands (Central Visayas) provides a more solid footing for sustainable tourism to flourish there. In Kiamba, the forest land use plan (FLUP) and its complementary individual property right (IPR) process has given rights to upland Peoples’ Organizations (PO) to make choices on lands ideal for growing coffee. An independent investor is working with these IPR-holders to grow coffee for specialty markets. In nearby Maasim, open-access lands are now under a planned development with IPR-holders to grow pineapples, and in Wao, in the ARMM region of Central Mindanao, rubber trees have been planted on lands that were previously open-access and with no income opportunities in sight. Next year these trees will be tapped for rubber. In each of the IPR examples cited, other fruits and vegetables are also being intercropped as the primary crop matures, leading to greater food and water security, immediate improvements to local livelihoods, a conserved and more highly valued stock of natural resource capital, and contributing to the improvement of the overall socioeconomic status of the LGUs. Improvement to NRM and reduced threats to biodiversity. These improvements are small when compared in the context of the complex interactions of terrestrial, coastal and marine flora and fauna and the broad geographic variability of the entire Philippine archipelago. But in the context of the resources of an LGU it is having a visible and growing impact. EcoGov￾assisted tenure holders contribute to improved management on more than 280,000 ha of natural forests. This is more than 70 percent of natural forests in tenured areas, the areas for which EcoGov-assisted LGUs are responsible. EcoGov opened lines of communication and professional respect among LGUs. LGUs that were successful with their FLUPs, WWMPs, and CRMPs under EcoGov often were instrumental in establishing productive partnerships with DENR (at the local and regional levels). Once the partnerships were solidified, other activities, including training and mutual capacity building, usually occurred in positive progressive steps. The evaluation team observed strong partnerships in focus group discussions about the EcoGov assisted LGUs and during LGU site visits in several provinces (Neuva Vizcaya, Sarangani and Bohol LGUs, for example). It was obvious in these instances that the technicians, politicians and citizenry had trust and respect in one another. DENR and LGUs forge stronger partnerships. DENR is recognizing that LGUs have the financial wherewithal to pay for much of the technical assistance needed to design and implement municipality land use management plans. DENR regional staff noted that the management responsibility for an LGU’s environmental resources rests with them and that they are also better financially prepared than the DENR to do so. LGU payment to DENR for specific services/outputs with functionality, transparency, accountability, and participation (FTAP) grounded agreements could certainly be devised. This type of formal relationship is also apt to benefit DENR’s professional reputation and help to mitigate its more negative historical role as a controller and enforcer. FLUPs have resulted in sustainable investment activities. These investment activities have been for the municipality, not only with its own resources, but also by outside private 8 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation investors. DENR’s Forest Management Bureau includes a FLUP in the process of developing its Forest Investment Management Approach to encourage private investments in the development of forest lands. DENR identified 131 critical watersheds in which to utilize EcoGov approaches and tools, including Ridge to Reef. The World Bank’s Integrated Coastal Resources Management Project and the Asian Development Bank’s Integrated Natural Resources and Environmental Management (INREM) Project have both been directed by DENR to capitalize on the R2R approach and to use it as a model in their loan projects. EcoGov approaches have multiple benefits. LGUs that have prepared the solid waste management plans, coastal resources management plans and forest land use plans have often realized more than just improved environmental benefits. These municipalities developed a solid appreciation for (a) what resources they have, (b) where they are located, and (c) how robust/healthy they are. EcoGov-assisted plans allow them to see comprehensively the interconnectedness of their resources and the population of the LGU. Priorities of use over time can be established which in turn can be used to attract investments and plan for economic growth. The private sector and other donors operating the Philippines have seen this and have approached these municipalities to work on other planned activities. EcoGov’s assistance has also helped to mitigate conflicts. By providing clear steps and guidance to opening communication, as well as the establishment of transparent rules and responsibilities associated with IPR and enforcement procedures for both forestlands and marine protected areas, conflicts in open access areas have been mitigated. Development of Learning Destination Areas. These areas promote peer-to-peer learning as an effective adult learning mechanism, best practices in SWM, WWM, CRM, and FFM are quickly shared among LGUs. To date, there are twelve learning destination areas located at key biodiversity areas in Central Visayas and Mindanao. 1.2 METRICS & INDICATORS The Performance Monitoring System is responsive to two of the three intermediate results under USAID’s Strategic Objective 4 -- improved environmental governance particularly in Mindanao and other conflict-affected areas; and improved urban environmental governance. And, the project has two levels of outcomes: at one level the outcomes have to do with improved resource management, and at a higher level, the outcome is improved environmental governance. Benchmarks include: 1) the number of government institutions meeting good environmental governance; 2) hectares of natural forests under improved management; 3) coastal areas under improved management; 4) number and hectares of new marine sanctuaries established; 5) number of LGUs diverting 25% of waste from disposal to recycling and composting; and, 6) number of households with access to or benefited by sanitation facilities. Final Evaluation Report | 9 Like all USAID projects, EcoGov has well defined biophysical and governance indicators with verifiable milestones flexible enough to be used by either the project staff or the stakeholders in the community. While “improved resource management” is relatively straightforward, “improved environmental governance” is more difficult to measure. The governance principles—FTAP—have thus been defined adequately and succinctly as they manifest at various points in the governance functions (e.g., policy formulation, planning, budgeting, resource mobilization) and across the different resource management sectors from ridge to reef. Proxy indicators were also used in the CRM sector for establishing and strengthening marine protected areas. When proxy indicators – such as a management plan, a local ordinance, an annual budget, protection activities and physical indicators such as the construction of a guard house or installation of buoys – are met, it is believed that improved management, resulting in biodiversity conservation has taken place. Proxy indicators for improved management of natural forests include a FLUP with a budget for implementation, a functional organization, IPR policies, livelihood assistance, and forest protection activities. Proxy indicators for solid waste management include an integrated solid waste management plan, an ordinance enacted, an approved annual budget, the conduct of waste segregation activities and the establishment of sanitary landfills. Other measures used by EcoGov have included the Waste Assessment and Characterization Study (WACS), the Guided Self-Assessment (GSA) which allows for comparisons at all EcoGov sites – within the same local governments and across time, and community validation surveys administered during the FLUP process and many other types of data collected with monitoring exercises linked to solid waste, forest field information, MPAs and the like, most associated with individual, one time studies requested by DENR, the provinces and LGUs. Indicators of reduction of threats to biodiversity include: natural habitats (forests and marine ecosystems) conserved; reduced occurrence of illegal activities that threaten biodiversity; and application of management instruments and implementation of zoning within specific sites in key biodiversity areas. As a result of the mid-term evaluation (2008) more direct indicators of biodiversity conservation were instituted. These were important in the context of linking the results of improved sanitation and waste management with improved biodiversity. 1.3 RIDGE TO REEF APPROACH R2R is a landscape approach. LGUs are familiar with the concept even though it may vary in nomenclature. Using the R2R framework municipalities, coupled with EcoGov assisted planning, many LGUs noted during the evaluation team’s field visits that they better understand the interconnectedness of their own resources, which ones may be at risk, and how that affects priority planning for their use. 10 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation R2R also lends itself well to addressing climate change issues, to helping define strategies that an LGU can use to adapt to climate change as well as to mitigate some of the changes that will inevitably befall the community. For coastal communities this often means reversing the perspective and taking an R2Rapproach. Some communities have found it more useful than others as a framework to address environmental issues and problems. The City of Bayawan, and the municipalities of Kiamba, Wao and Talibon have noted that it does facilitate their planning and also illustrates to others that as a municipality they have a holistic and comprehensive view of their territory and the resources within it. They point specifically to the fact that they have solid plans borne out of the R2R approach and that this administrative know-how has encouraged outside, private sector investors to invest in their municipality; good governance has led to increased economic growth in these LGUs. In the Davao Gulf region, city government, the DENR regional office, the regional chamber of commerce, the Garden City of Samal, numerous private sector entities, and others are challenged to improve conservation efforts and reduce threats to biodiversity both in the Gulf and in the upland watersheds to increase economic growth as well as the environmental health of the region. R2R was also the approach used in Ilana Bay to bring together a diverse group of small and large LGUs and unite public and private interests. Implementing an R2R approach is not without its challenges. It requires a strong leadership that can also see and understand the interrelationships of the LGU and the interrelationships of the different natural systems found in the LGU. These must provide the overarching backdrop to the municipality’s planning and long-term priorities. R2R also will not tolerate weak institutions that lack a focal point for their work or do not understand how they connect with other institutions. The lack of long-running comprehensive models in the Philippines also makes it difficult to embrace. The LGUs mentioned above, plus a few others mentioned in this report, are using it successfully and customizing it as needed. 1.4 GOVERNANCE APPROACHES IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY To date, technical assistance provided by EcoGov Project has spread to 150 municipal and city LGUs. It is clear that increasing governance index scores are happening across most LGUs assisted by EcoGov. With improved environmental governance, the main question revolves around whether or not threats to biodiversity have been reduced and biophysical conditions have been improved as a result of threat reduction. For the FFM sector, the main outcome is reduced illegal logging and conversion of natural forests. These two outcomes refer to reduced threats to biodiversity using indicators, such as: (1) hectares of (natural) forest cover placed under improved management and (2) hectares of forest lands under productive develop. Final Evaluation Report | 11 Project results have been widespread. EcoGov technical assistance improved management of more than 386,000 hectares of biologically significant natural forests and forestlands lands across key biodiversity areas in the country and strengthened hundreds of local government units, national government agencies, community organizations and indigenous groups in the process. Project interventions focused on using a threats-based approach emphasizing adaptive management and scaling up of impacts on the ground, as well as continued learning among peers and partners. With co-management agreements, public and private investments have been generated. More specific examples include: • In two LGUs in the Province of Nueva Vizcaya, 10,000 hectares of open access areas were closed as a result of a co-management agreement between DENR and the Quezon Municipality. • In southern Mindanao, nearly 30,000 hectares of biologically significant forest is better managed following pilot Community-Based Forest Management Agreements (CBFMA) in which community conservation units protect and monitor buffer zone forest lands. • Kiamba, Sarangani, a key biodiversity area in Mindanao, strengthened three CBFMAs for POs. As a result, illegal logging has decreased and private sector investments in biodiversity-friendly coffee production also helped to achieve conservation targets. A memorandum of understanding with a private company that produces coffee products is expected to generate revenues for community partners. • In Wao, Lanao del Sur, 153 tenure holders have adopted an IPR scheme resulting in 240 hectares of previously bare forestland now supporting agro forestry production. This is a result of the co-management agreement covering 2,184 hectares. The municipality also reports that threats such as illegal logging that contributed to degradation of forest cover have been reduced by more than 75 percent over the past three years through the apprehension of illegal loggers as a result of active law enforcement activities. • Wao has also provided needed investments in infrastructure (e.g., access roads), and other support mechanisms (e.g., nursery operation). The LGU entered into an agreement with its water district to support rehabilitation/protection of forest and watershed areas as part of a Payment for Environmental Services (PES) scheme. For the CRM sector, the target of the project is reduced overfishing and destructive fishing. EcoGov aims to reduce biodiversity threats by improving management of artisanal fisheries and coastal ecosystems in collaboration with local fisheries authorities and fishing communities. Coastal and marine ecosystems are managed in ways that generates a diversity of long-term socioeconomic benefits for coastal communities while sustaining biodiversity. The three key indicators under this outcome relate to (1) hectares of coastal areas placed under improved management, (2) new marine sanctuaries established and hectares covered, and, (3) existing marine sanctuaries and the hectares covered that are placed under improved management. Key project results include: 12 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation • Island Garden City of Samal is located at the heart of Davao Gulf, a marine key biodiversity area. According to LGU respondents during the evaluation team’s field visit, its partnership with EcoGov facilitated their initiatives on marine protected areas. Three new marine sanctuaries were established, eight of the now 18 marine protected areas have Marine Protected Area Ordinances, and six have adopted management plans and are now placed under improved management. At present, they have 156 hectares of coastal areas (covering about 15% of their municipal waters) placed under improved management. • Improvements in biophysical conditions as well as management effectiveness of marine sanctuaries in marine KBAs have been reported. Although not an official measurement, fisherfolk in the municipality of Jagna have reported a leveling off of the decline in fish catch in the three years since the marine protected area (MPA) was instituted and that there are definite improvements to desired biophysical results such as increase in coral cover and fish biomass. • Mangrove regrowth is also an important component of the Samal CRMP and since EcoGov's assistance there is an improved forest cover in the island’s mangroves that is being measured, a perceived improvement of fish catch, and more sightings of cetaceans and sharks in the area. There are still ongoing concerns on cyanide and dynamite fishing activities within municipal waters and law enforcement capacities remain weak due to limited resources for seaborne patrol. For the Urban Environmental Management (UEM) sector, the main outcome is improved management of municipal waste. Three key indicators: (1) number of LGUs diverting at least 25% of solid waste from disposal to recycling and composting, (2) LGUs investing in sanitation facilities, and, (3) number of persons or households with access to or serviced by sanitation facilities. Examples of some of the results achieved under UEM include: • In Quezon, Nueva Vizcaya, the 10-year SWM Plan has enabled 70% segregation of wastes at source. It collects environmental fees from its public market that is deposited to a Trust Fund account. The Ecopark in Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya consists of a sanitary landfill facility (SLF) and materials recovery facility (MRF) with a composting area for biodegradable wastes. With its strict enforcement of the 'no segregation - no collection' policy, the LGU has reportedly minimized indiscriminate dumping of garbage. • In Davao City, the LGU adopted a 10-year SWM Plan and the enactment of a City Ordinance for Ecological Solid Waste Management. There is as yet no Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR), which can initiate the diversion of wastes (about 500 tons/day) generated in the city. Nevertheless, SWM committees are organized in its 30 barangays and its SLF is slated to receive only residual wastes starting July 2011. • In Alabel, Sarangani, EcoGov provided timely assistance to operationalize the sustainability system of the existing Septage Treatment Facility (STF). The STF now Final Evaluation Report | 13 serves 2,000 household septic tanks (about 21% of the area). Water quality monitoring of rivers and Sarangani Bay is regularly conducted through the ECPC established at the Provincial government. The STF contributed to the reduction of water-borne diseases in the LGU. 1.5 GOVERNANCE AND ADVOCACY Governance and advocacy is considered a technical component that cuts across the three technical sectors: forest and forestlands management, coastal resource management, and urban environmental management. EcoGov seeks to assist 80 target government institutions to achieve improved environmental governance to provide the impetus that will push actions that will result in improved biophysical and socio-economic conditions. Significant improvements cover "best practices" on four governance principles: functionality, transparency, accountability, and participation. Strengths and weaknesses of LGUs can also be assessed based on sectors: forests, coastal, or urban environment. The final set of indicators cover five environmental governance functions: 1) resource management and utilization planning; 2) budgeting; 3) contracting, bidding and procurement; 4) licensing, permitting, and issuance of tenure and allocation instruments; and, 5) enforcement of laws and regulations. The evaluation team observed that the FTAP principles were fully understood and practiced in successful EcoGov project-assisted LGUs. This is corroborated by the EcoGov Annual Report Number 6 (2010), which states that “of the estimated 67 LGUs located in KBAs that underwent the GSA, 94% are ‘well-performing.’” Other examples include: Forests and forest land management: Co-management agreements, as a result of the FLUP, encouraged partnership between LGU and DENR over co-management areas. The presence of functional steering committees or technical working groups, which are multi-agency and multi-sectoral, play a big role in making decisions and deliberating actions over FLUP priority areas. However, some issues like unstable peace and order conditions have resulted in the temporary suspension of FFM field activities in selected areas in Mindanao, for example. Urban environmental management: SWM Boards were fully organized and functional across province, municipal/city, and barangay at successful sites implementing SWM plans. Boards enable the full implementation of policies and social services related to SWM. Coastal resource management: Inter-LGU arrangements among adjacent municipalities sharing common resources in adjoining municipal waters are able to plan and implement programs, such as joint law enforcement. Communications among stakeholders have improved through partnerships and convergence. Wao LGU felt that their efforts to address illegal logging were historically fragmented but because of EcoGov project assistance, forest lands co-management implementation 14 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation agreements between DENR and local stakeholders enable NGOs, private sectors, academe, and communities to converge for forest management. In Nueva Vizcaya, EcoGov assisted in organizing the Nueva Vizcaya Consortium on Forests and Forestland Management Partnership composed of academe (Nueva Vizcaya State University), Provincial LGU, FRENDS (an NGO), National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), and DENR. In Bayawan (Negros Oriental) city officials are steadily reaping the benefits of their land use planning efforts. Their understanding of the R2R approach, its utility as a tool for understanding climate change impacts to their territory (and developing mitigation strategies), and their comprehensive land use plan developed with the FLUP and integrated solid waste management program (ISWMP) has served as a model for other regions. Donors are willing to invest in the city for their guidance and advice in assisting other municipalities. The evaluation team learned of more than 22 million pesos (about 0.5 million USD) of additional donor grants (2010-2015) for environmental activities that the city attributes directly to its progress achieved with EcoGov technical assistance. In Davao, EcoGov’s flexibility and its adherence to the FTAP principles has gained significant favor with the City’s Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Department. EcoGov worked with the Chamber, with the DENR regional office and with its own local networks to help carry out a “Biodiversity Summit” in the CBD’s 2010 Year of Biodiversity. This was a very successful awareness-building event that brought together companies from the private sector, city and regional governments, and thousands of private citizens. It was not only good for biodiversity awareness, but also stimulated the region’s industry. Another event is planned for 2011, the Year of the Forest. EcoGov activities had a strong focus on building/improving the capacity of local government units and their personnel. In response, many LGUs have allotted funds, reorganized and appointed permanent or designated personnel to sustain the Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office (MENRO) operations. The MENRO is the implementing arm for the institutionalized programs, especially FFM and SWM of the LGUs. 1.6 LESSONS LEARNED AND BEST PRACTICES EcoGov technical assistance focused mainly on improving the capacity of local government units (municipal and provincial), and their technical personnel. There are numerous, independent results of this assistance that are worth highlighting including the importance of partnerships, the demand-driven approach of technical assistance, community pride, the value of MENROs, scaling up activities, and the GSA tool. Listed separately, most of these are inter-related. EcoGov approaches provided tools and techniques for working together and communicating effectively. LGUs learned about establishing working groups to accomplish tasks, drawing up formal agreements that spelled out what was expected by whom and for what reason and what the agreement was expected to accomplish. Each of these helped to establish accountability in a visible, transparent manner. Public participation in these processes also Final Evaluation Report | 15 showed how working together could lead to a more acceptable result for everyone and that conflicts could be resolved in this manner. Trust in those with whom the LGUs worked grew as did the fact that there was also an expected level of responsibility for actions planned and undertaken. Partnerships became a valued way of conducting business, and importantly, it was also realized that an LGU’s business cannot be achieved successfully unless there were institutional partnerships. The evaluation team observed that the presence of a dedicated and knowledgeable MENRO is a helpful factor for LGUs when it comes to successful environmental governance. It was noted that the project has institutionalized and mainstreamed programs through MENRO. In response, LGUs have allotted funds, reorganized, and appointed permanent or designated personnel to sustain the MENRO operations. The GSA tool is an important legacy of the project. It provides a real time snapshot of how a municipality is doing relative to a variety of factors, and shows where a community is weak and strong in terms of managing its environmental assets. The GSA can also be applied at regular intervals and a LGU can see directly how it is improving itself and where additional work is still needed. For service providers, NGOs, and donors the application of the GSA helps to target where an LGU can most effectively use technical assistance. EcoGov’s scaling up process has capitalized on its technical assistance to individual LGUs to focus more attention on organizing and strengthening clusters of LGUs. In consort with establishing learning destinations and bringing together other institutional assets to solve common management problems, EcoGov has helped to create partnerships with provincial LGUs and local offices of the DENR. As part of this process, the project has worked to strengthen the capacity of field offices and provincial governments to extend lessons learned to an even wider audience of LGUs. The scaling up process has helped to reveal, particularly with DENR, where the weakness are in providing assistance to first-time LGUs, and also what gaps exist in DENR’s own capacity for proving an acceptable product. . The R2R model provides a holistic approach for bringing together partnerships, resource management planning and scaling-up activities beneath a science-based umbrella. The targets used in the performance monitoring plan to indicate progress toward objectives do appear to be the correct ones given the geographic spread of the project and the number of individual LGUs to be engaged. The target figures linked to wastewater treatment were probably too ambitious given the budget resources required by the LGU for infrastructure construction and the political readiness needed to engage and win-over a truly participatory constituency. The biophysical targets, again given the geographic range, diversity of sites and the processes involved appear to be of the correct magnitude for the environmental governance objectives. They were not adequate indicators of reducing threats to biodiversity. The focus of the project in its design was improved environmental governance at the LGU level, and then with this success, improvements to the environmental situation would follow. For a more explicit focus on reducing threats to biodiversity and improving forest conservation a different set of indicators would have been needed and a baseline inventory of information (most likely related to specific sites) would need to be collected. 16 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation More investment in landscape approaches is practical and worthwhile. Landscape approaches such as R2R, lend themselves well to an easily definable geographic entity: a watershed, a group of watersheds, a bay, and an island. These sites are plentiful in the Philippines. DENR has identified 131 critical watersheds where EcoGov approaches, including the R2R model, could be applied. But it takes a significant effort and time to organize, coordinate and implement R2R activities. There also needs to be a full-time dedicated leader to ensure that the necessary partners are on board, that opportunities are both leveraged, and leveraged at the proper moment, that information, education, and communication (IEC) materials are timely and that there are open and effective communication channels. EcoGov and DENR have experienced some of these lessons. Assistance to LGUs cannot happen all at one time. There are many other activities that the LGUs have as priorities and these need to be respected. In some cases during its technical assistance implementation EcoGov laid down a formidable gauntlet of activities for an LGU’s participation. Alternative scheduling, annual refreshers, and carefully planned scaling up activities can make these more palatable to LGU staff and increase their likelihood for participation and use. Final Evaluation Report | 17 2.0 INTRODUCTION Building and expanding on the experiences achieved under the Environmental Governance Phase 1 (December 1, 2001 to September 30, 2004), USAID awarded DAI the Environmental Governance Phase 2 (EcoGov) implementation contract on October 1, 2004. The Project had a five-year base contract through September 30, 2009, with a two-year option period, exercised by the Mission, which will end on September 30, 2011. The objective of this $23.5 million second phase is to strengthen the capacities of the DENR, LGUs and other local institutions to improve the management of forests, coastal-marine and water resources, and promote integrated solid waste management by LGUs through effective environmental governance. At a higher level, the EcoGov Project is also designed to conserve biological diversity by addressing open access and mitigating natural resource￾based conflicts in priority eco-regions in the Philippines. 2.1 GOALS AND INTERMEDIATE RESULTS EcoGov2 Project Results Framework contributes to achieving USAID/Philippines’ Strategic Objective 4 through two levels of outcomes or intermediate results. The first level outcomes relate to resource management, which translates to technical outcomes like reduced illegal logging and forest conversion, reduction of threats by illegal fishing, and reduction of the threat posed by unmanaged waste. The second, and higher, level outcome is improved environmental governance. This outcome is to be achieved through capacity building and implementation of activities which measure results through a governance index. EcoGov’s long-term goal is to conserve biological diversity by addressing problems of open access, pollution of coastal waters and water bodies in urban areas, and mitigating natural resource-based conflicts in key biodiversity areas (KBAs). The project strategies were ultimately aimed at producing positive impacts on biodiversity and biophysical conditions. 2.2 GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS EcoGov2's technical assistance has been focused in three geographically diverse areas of the country that traverse coastal and marine sites, agriculturally rich landscapes, and steep, high mountain areas. Although the majority of the project-assisted LGUs are rural in nature there are also significant populations (e.g., Davao and General Santos City) where EcoGov has worked. Many of the sites are remote and routinely require project staff to carefully budget time and resources as well as prepare logistical plans well in advance if they want to be effective in implementing tasks. The main areas of EcoGov’s work are shown on the map in the Executive Summary and are summarized briefly below. Northern Luzon: The project has worked in four provinces (Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, Aurora and Isabela) that cover portions of the Philippine Regions II and III. This area is also home to 18 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation the Northern Sierra Madre Mountains, Quirino Protected Landscape, Casecnan Protected Landscape and Aurora Memorial Park, where the country’s remaining largest blocks of rainforests can still be found. Thirty LGUs have received technical assistance in these four provinces. Visayas: EcoGov has worked with 59 LGUs in the provinces of Cebu, Bohol, Siquijor and Negros Oriental and Negros Occidental in Regions VI and VII. The majority of the LGUs working with EcoGov technical assistance are in coastal areas that include KBAs like Tañon Strait, but also have important watershed and forest areas. Western and South/Central Mindanao: EcoGov has been working with 78 LGUs that are both landlocked and coastal. In Western Mindanao the project has worked in the Region IX provinces of Zamboanga del Sur and Zamoboanga Sibuay. In South and Central Mindano assistance has been focused in Regions XI and XII and the provinces of Sarangani, South Cotabato, North Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, and Davao Oriental. Several of the project-assisted LGUs within these provinces are encompassed by the ARMM, including Lanao del Sur, Basilan and Maguindanao. The landscape of the island includes important watersheds and protected areas like the world-famous Mt. Apo National Park, and significant seascapes and marine areas (Illana Bay, Sarangani Bay and the Davao Gulf) as well as important wetlands and upland forest areas. The geographic spread, accessibility, and peace and order issues have also posed implementation challenges for project staff. As of the end of its sixth year of implementation EcoGov reported its technical assistance had reached 169 municipal and city local governments in 21 provinces with a combined population of almost 11 million residents. 2.3 A RIDGE TO REEF APPROACH WITH SECTOR ASSISTANCE EcoGov’s overarching strategy has evolved to promote integrated ecosystem management through an R2R approach to environmental governance, which provides a management framework within which actions can be designed and implemented to reduce threats to biodiversity conservation. This strategy aims to help local governments to understand the interconnectivity between various elements and systems within a watershed, or defined bio￾geographic area. EcoGov has developed a comprehensive suite of capacity building tools, instruments, lessons, and best practices that are applied mainly through three (technical) management sectors summarized briefly below. To help ensure ownership and to establish clear and transparent relationships, technical assistance provided by the EcoGov project has been demand-driven. LGUs (municipalities, cities, provinces) only received EcoGov’s assistance by first making a request in a letter of interest, and then establishing a working relationship defined in a formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Forests and Forestland Management is concerned with a LGU’s terrestrial resources, their inventory, plans for their development, income from their use and the enforcement of rules that ensure the sustainability of their function. EcoGov has worked with DENR and individual LGUs, usually through the formation of technical working groups (TWG) to plan Final Evaluation Report | 19 and undertake activities. These include the development of formal co-management agreements between DENR and the LGU, formulating FLUPs, helping to define IPR agreements between the LGUs and farmers, assisting the LGU to network with private enterprises, NGOs and academe to help them realize the most efficient use of their terrestrial resources and to add value to the municipality. Coastal Resources Management technical assistance under EcoGov has focused on shoreline resources and marine areas and has included mapping and inventory of coral reefs, the extent of sea grasses, fish densities and catch, the establishment of marine protected areas and the planning for their management. LGUs, under Philippine law, have jurisdiction to a 15- kilometer (km) limit, but practical limitations of enforcement have meant three to five kms is usually the extent of activities. Similar to the FFM activities just described, EcoGov staff worked mainly through the technical working groups comprised of municipal officials, environmental officers, private interests, fisher folk, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) staff, academe, NGOs and other interested parties. A common and popular output from the CRM sector MOAs has been a CRMP for the LGU. Urban Environmental Management assisted activities under the project have been the most extensive and, according to project records, were the most common entry point for EcoGov technical assistance (TA) in the initial years of the project. The demand was driven by LGUs’ need for assistance in adopting environmental management functions mandated by existing national laws such as the Local Environmental Code (RA 7160), Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (RA 9003), Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550), and the Clean Water Act of 2004 (RA 9275). MOAs in the UEM sector functioned with technical working groups that included elected municipal officials, barangay captains, engineers, private waste haulers, DENR regional staff and others. The majority of technical assistance in this sector was aimed at developing ISWMP and WWMP. These helped define priorities and budgets for waste characterizations studies, designing and construction approved SLFs, septage facilities, materials recovery activities and public awareness campaigns for the LGU’s citizenry. A fourth, cross-cutting sector, Governance and Advocacy, is concerned with principles of environmental governance that are necessary for the viability of the other three. Through this sector, EcoGov has sought to assist government institutions achieve improved levels of environmental governance. Table 2.1 Environmental Governance EcoGov defines environmental governance as: … the process by which power and authority are exercised by mandated government institutions, together with non-government stakeholders, in the management of environment and natural resources in order to achieve shared social, economic, ecological and institutional objectives. These improvements cover best practices on four governance principles: functionality, transparency, accountability, and participation. Transparency, accountability and participation are principles in use worldwide. The functionality principle is EcoGov’s unique 20 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation contribution that complements the other three. It indicates the efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness and ability to sustain environment and natural resources services. Functionality reflects how well, how capable and how committed environmental institutions are in exercising their mandate to serve the people. 2.4 A ROADMAP FOR THE ECOGOV EVALUATION The overall task of this final evaluation of EcoGov has been to examine the effectiveness and impact to date of the technical assistance rendered through the implementation contract, to examine the validity of the strategies and approaches that have been applied and to assess if they have helped address key environmental challenges faced by the country. Key findings have also been summarized along with analyses of the different EcoGov components. Lessons learned through the course of the project are also documented in this report and recommendations for USAID and DENR are provided by the evaluation team. A brief Methodology section (Section 3) follows this chapter and describes the approach and activities taken by the evaluators in gathering information about the seven-year project. Findings are presented according to key focal questions established in the Statement of Work (Annex A) and appear in Sections 4 through 8. Section 9 captures important conclusions and also lists recommendations that USAID and DENR might consider in planning follow-on actions to the EcoGov project. A final section (Section 10) lists the main print and website resources that were consulted in the course of the evaluation. Annexes at the end of the report list the Statement of Work, document the evaluation team’s itinerary during the evaluation, provide a list of the persons contacted by region and site, and also give brief sketches of the team members. Final Evaluation Report | 21 3.0 METHODOLOGY The Final Evaluation of the Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project (EcoGov) was conducted in January/February 2011 by four sector specialists assisted by an administrative assistant. For purposes of this evaluation, the project evaluation team conducted an in-depth desk review of available secondary information. All available information were acquired, evaluated and used in combination with the field research methodology described below. The secondary information analyzed included reports, background materials, and other relevant documents from the EcoGov project, the Philippines DENR and USAID. The evaluation process involved document reviews, interviews with key partners at the national, regional and LGU levels, and field site visits to provinces and municipalities that had received EcoGov technical assistance. The SoW, found in Annex A, requested that the evaluation focus on responses/comments/analyses to five key questions. These were: • What have been the key outcomes and impacts of EcoGov? • How effective have EcoGov metrics and indicators been? What performance indicators have been effective and useful in measuring impacts? • How effective is the “Ridge to Reef” approach? • How have EcoGov governance approaches impacted threats to biodiversity and improved biophysical conditions? • What are the primary lessons learned and best practices from EcoGov? A purposeful, representative sampling procedure was used to select at least two representative sites (LGUs) from each island region where EcoGov has provided technical assistance. Equally important was the selection of field sites that covered at least two of the technical sectors and where access to provincial environmental staff critical to scaling up actions could be interviewed. Access was also was also sought to non-government organizations and grant recipients who had worked with EcoGov. The sample also endeavored to include field sites in each island region where the evaluation team would have access to indigenous peoples’ organizations and individual property rights holders, and preferably also interview women beneficiaries within these two groups. Time, modes of transportation and accessibility were logistic factors that also had to be considered with choice decisions being minimized wherever possible. Preliminary meetings, focus group discussions, and face-to-face interviews were also conducted with EcoGov project staff, DENR, and USAID to help identify the representative sites or cluster of sites prior to traveling to the field. Annex B presents the field site visit itinerary undertaken by the evaluation team. A work plan was discussed with DENR and provided in written form to USAID as part of the outputs stipulated in the SoW. This plan was also discussed with EcoGov staff specifically to determine if it was logistically possible given the field time constraints and the practical limits of transportation and lodging at the sites proposed for visits. 22 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation In the field, the evaluation team conducted focus group discussions with primary respondents including, but not limited to, local chief executives, environment and natural resource officers (ENRO), NGOs, POs, municipal engineers and planning officers, regional DENR personnel, and project beneficiaries. The interviews encouraged respondents to share information, provide inputs, and ask questions to enable the evaluation team to capture lessons and key project outcomes and impacts. Annex C lists the persons contacted during the course of the evaluation by region, site and gender. It is important to note that the limited time spent in each site constrained a formal process of verifying information acquired by interview. But in most cases, the evaluation team (see Annex D) endeavored to make observations that were used to validate certain types of information. The information derived with interviews with several informants, combined with on-the-ground observations (where feasible), helped to present a reasonable snapshot of practices in the sampled communities. The findings presented in this report are formed from evidence provided in reports and technical documents, site visits and additionally verified through interviews with key partnership personnel. At the end of the two-week field visits the evaluation team completed interviews with National Capitol Region (NCR) partners and stakeholders, and crafted the draft report and two PowerPoint presentations, one each to USAID and DENR. Reporting focused primarily on responses to the five focus questions (above) in the evaluation SoW. Comments from the oral presentations, and from USAID’s review of the draft report, were incorporated into the revised Final Report for USAID approval. Final Evaluation Report | 23 4.0 KEY OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS 4.1 THE OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF THE ECOGOV PROJECT IS SUBSTANTIALLY POSITIVE The project outcomes, or intermediate results, specified in the contract, tracked and measured according to the project’s Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) have been achieved (or can logically be expected to be achieved in the seven months remaining in the contract). Project activities are on track to meet the targets established. Reviews of annual work plans, the gender action plan and the goals of the USAID/Philippines environment program weighed against quarterly and annual reports, interviews with EcoGov project and USAID staffs show that the outcomes and impacts of the project follow what was initially planned. The biophysical targets of the eight key indicators established for the project all have success rates of more than 85 percent, and in many instances the goal figures had been exceeded by the end of the last quarter reported (December 2010). Table 4.1 summarizes these accomplishments.      Table 4.1 Summary of EcoGov indicator targets and accomplishments as of 31 December 2010 Indicator LoP target Accomplished as of 31 Dec 2010 Percent of LoP target Number of government institutions meeting good environmental governance index (cumulative) 100 LGUs 87 LGUs 87% Hectares of natural forest land under improved management 280,000 ha 282,775 ha 101% Hectares of forestland under productive development 64,000 ha 64,313 ha 100% Coastal areas under improved management 117,000 ha 128,719 ha 110% Number & hectares of new marine sanctuaries established 29 sanct. 762 ha 28 MPAs 1,666.7 ha 96% 218% Number & hectares of existing marine sanctuaries under improved management 60 sanct. 2,700 ha 56 MPAs 2,958 ha 93% 110% Number of LGUs diverting at least 25% of waste from disposal to recycling & composting 100 LGUs 90 LGUs 90% Number of LGUs investing in wastewater facilities 26 LGUs 23 LGUs 88% It was noted in Section 2 (Introduction) that technical assistance connected to these targets was spread over a wide area that encompassed three island regions (Luzon, Viscaya, Mindanao), and, that as of the end of the project’s sixth year, project staff had worked with 169 LGUs in 21 provinces (with a population approaching 11 million people) to obtain the accomplishments noted in the table above. In broad terms the targets were reasonable with the exception of the number of LGUs investing in wastewater treatment facilities; these were probably too high given the investment costs involved. And, as indicators for impacts on biodiversity, these targets came up short. These points are elaborated below in the sections on metrics (Section 5) and impacts of governance approaches on biodiversity (Section 7). There is also a brief discussion on their magnitude in the Conclusions chapter (Section 9). 24 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation Major outputs to be generated and monitored with technical assistance from the project fell into four main types: • More effective, functional, strengthened local institutions and organizations supporting implementation and in enacting/enforcing supporting policies and ordinances; • Responsive support networks at the national levels and theme networks for advocating good environmental governance, strengthening and monitoring law enforcement and supporting up scaling of doable good environmental governance practices; • Policy studies and legal instruments prepared in consultation with key partners to strengthen law enforcement, improve resource allocation and implement strategic plans; and • Innovative approaches that demonstrate models of functional and replicable environmental governance. • Within EcoGov’s three main sectors of operation, FFM, CRM, and UEM, the PMP outlined actions and studies to be undertaken, networks to collaborate with and identified models and approaches to develop during the life of the project. Project partners encountered in field site visits during the course of the evaluation also not only indicated an awareness of many of these outputs, but that these were valued at the national, regional/provincial, municipal and community level. Table 4.2 illustrates the geographic spread of EcoGov’s technical assistance to LGUs by sector and provides a specific figure for management planning assistance. Table 4.2 EcoGov technical assistance by island region and sector Island Region FFM CRM ISWM WWM ‐‐ Number of LGUs assisted ‐‐ Western Mindanao 11 15 11 1 South/Central Mindanao 23 6 41 20 Visayas 12 29 38 14 Northern Luzon 14 4 30 ‐‐  Totals 60 54 120 35 FLUP assistance 38 CRMP assistance 23 ISWMP assistance 108 As mentioned again later, many of the technical assistance outputs were not realized, or measureable, until the final two option years of the project. The evaluation team also suspects from its discussions with partners and focus groups that the value of these outputs will continue to grow after the project completes its activities. There has been a momentum of sorts as LGUs gained trust, experience, and appreciation for the problem solving tools, techniques and approaches that EcoGov introduced and assisted them with. As this experience base grows, as scaling up through the help of the provinces moves forward, and as the “learning destinations” and other investment projects spread these ideas there will be Final Evaluation Report | 25 more traction in environmental governance. In some areas it will happen faster, and in other more slowly. 4.2 ECOGOV IS HELPING NRM OBJECTIVES TO BE MET By and large, the EcoGov project has contributed to USAID’s intermediate objective of improved forest, coastal resources and management of urban environment as outlined in the PMP. The project’s benchmarks (as measured by the good environmental governance index) are very close to being achieved and as mentioned above, the target indicators measured show a high level of accomplishment in areas where EcoGov has been engaged. In almost every field site visited, the evaluation team heard from project partners and saw evidence that good environmental governance was valued across all sectors and at all levels of government. The team learned that the EcoGov project not only facilitated that process, but also helped leverage other opportunities for improving livelihoods and the socioeconomic development of the LGUs concerned. These facts contribute in turn to the greater understanding that strengthening the management of productive, life-sustaining natural resources (the strategic objective) will increase the likelihood of continued improvements and benefits to the LGU. The devolution of natural resources management to local governments is a national mandate. RA 96003 of the Local Government Code states that LGUs are responsible for their own solid and waste water management and disposal. Technical assistance that has been provided by EcoGov contributes solidly to these objectives. The demand-driven approach for EcoGov assistance has figured positively in ensuring that management ownership also rests securely with the LGUs and that training for DENR as a service provider also has contributed to helping the GRP meet these mandated objectives. Lessons learned from these activities (see Section 8) also illustrate that more can definitely be done. Section 9 discusses how the roles of key players in the devolution process vary and might be improved. 4.3 EVIDENCE THAT PROJECT ACTIVITIES HAVE HELPED TO INSTITUTIONALIZE GOOD GOVERNANCE APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGIES Table 4.3 Principles of Good Governance Principles of Good Governance Functionality: the extent to which LGU management systems (structure/personnel, budget, plan, rules, standard operating procedure, etc. ) are in place and are achieving desired results and products/services. Transparency: the extent to which the public has access to relevant, timely, accurate and complete information about LGU operations, and actions and decisions. Accountability: the extent to which officials are able to demonstrate and take responsibility for their decisions and actions and the performance of their offices vis-à-vis targets and standards. Participatory decision-making: the extent to which the general public is effectively and meaningfully able to take part in governance process Source: Philippines Environmental Governance Project. 2010a. 26 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation The FTAP principles of good governance are well-known and practiced by almost all partners encountered by the evaluation team. The GSA is also widely used in LGUs where EcoGov has worked. (Eighty-eight project-assisted LGUs have applied the tool three times during the project to view their progress and help them adjust their investment priorities.) Provincial environmental staff members are also trained in its use and are beginning to use it independent of EcoGov technical assistance. LGUs value the tool because it provides them not only with a baseline on their own environmental governance, but also because it shows them where they can improve and, based on training from EcoGov, they understand to whom they might turn for additional assistance. (Use of the GSA is also discussed in Section 7.) EcoGov’s assistance with an LGU’s ISWMP, the CRMP and the FLUP has received the widest accolades, especially the latter. (Numbers of LGUs receiving this planning assistance was listed earlier in Table 4.2. Actual areas covered and the characteristics of the attributes measured for the FLUPs and CRMPs were not researched by the evaluation team.) The LGUs, and the provinces as well, have embraced the results that come with a successful FLUP. They have noted that in spite of its cost and time consumption the results that it yields are more than worth effort and financial investment. The FLUP provides the LGU, and potential investors, detailed knowledge and a better understanding about the LGU’s natural resources and helps them plan wisely for future land use and investment. In several instances, LGU’s reported that the planning exercise also helped DENR and the LGU to understand one another better and helped to forge a stronger partnership. EcoGov annual and quarterly reports illustrate a number of instances where the presence of an FLUP within an LGU has resulted in wise, sustainable investment activities for the municipality. These results were confirmed by the evaluation team in field site visits. This is significant evidence that good environmental governance methodologies result in increased economic investment. DENR’s Forest Management Bureau (FMB) has recognized the value of the FLUP and is making its own investments in the model and has moved to institutionalize it within the department. They lack the comparative resources of an LGU, but have a long-term goal of having at least one complete FLUP per region, expanding their influence in provinces beyond those touched by EcoGov. These will serve as models and as practical hands-on training tools/events for DENR and LGU staff. Similarly, the evaluation team heard from some quarters that DENR also is planning to stipulate that LGUs conduct a GSA before they provide technical assistance, mainly because it helps the LGU gain a greater awareness of its natural environment. The DENR’s Foreign-Assisted and Special Projects Office (FASPO) has also endorsed the approach and several donors (GIZ, ex-GTZ, World Bank, WWF, and South Korean Aid) have integrated the FLUP into their natural resources projects (ICRMP and INREM). Municipalities that have both the ISWMP and the FLUP are amazed at how easy it is to tackle the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) stipulated in the Local Government Code. Final Evaluation Report | 27 They told the evaluation team that they now wish they had embraced the EcoGov-introduced approached earlier because of their utility in completing the CLUP. Each of these examples is leading to improved natural resources management on LGU territories. Usually this will also mean reduced threats on biodiversity as well, particularly in forested lands, and in aquatic environments where wastewater and solid waste management means less pollution and improved habitats for living organisms. Based on the reported results in the mid-term evaluation and those observed during this final evaluation of the EcoGov Phase 2 Project it also appears that the seven-year lifespan of the EcoGov project has contributed to the “institutionalization” of the approaches mentioned above. The “extra” two years allowed a gestation of sorts that helped to illustrate the value of these approaches to the LGUs, and perhaps more importantly to DENR, a critical partner in the promotion of the methodologies, especially when EcoGov assistance ends. Further evidence is in the financing levels of LGU allocations to FFM activities. In the five year period ending in 2010, the total allocation to FFM was about $6.5 million; more than half of this came in 2009 and 2010. There are other good governance approaches that show promise at a number of sites which have received EcoGov’s demand-driven assistance. These include ring fencing (used productively by several LGUs that the evaluation team visited, e.g., Wao, Bayawan, Jagna), payment for environmental services (Wao), economy-of-scale approaches (clustering and networking) for infrastructure investments linked to wastewater treatment and solid waste management (Alabel, Surallah), and enforcement of violators in protected areas (DuGJan and BATMan clusters). Most of these will require additional nurturing, but the models and approaches introduced by EcoGov have already shown their value in some individual cases. The Evaluation Team feels that these approaches warrant continued investment by the LGUs, the GRP, the private sector, and by donors. Table 4.4 Ring Fencing for Potential Revenue‐Generating ENR Programs Ring Fencing for Potential Revenue-Generating ENR Programs Cost recovery is a key component of the sustainable financing strategies that EcoGov is promoting in the ENR sector. It is in line with the polluters’ pay principle and the concept of payment for environmental services in ENR management. EcoGov also facilitates the recognition of ENR as a LGU investment area and a potential source of revenues. Ring fencing pertains to the insulation of a group of resources from inside and outside risk through the use of legal barriers. It is akin to building a fence or a wall around a property to protect it from both internal and external threats. Until the onset of environmental laws like the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, the Clean Water Act and the Fisheries Law, ENR programs were not given much emphasis or proper funding. The passage of several environmental laws including those mentioned above gave more impetus to providing budgetary allocations for ENR programs. However, these were rarely sufficient to cover operational requirements. 28 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation Investment needs were frequently out of the question. As a result, the services provided by these ENR programs were of sub-par quality and enforcement was inconsistent. When LGUs realized that ENR programs have good revenue generating potential which could eventually be used to finance their own operations, consideration was given to allow ENR programs their own discrete organization. ENR organizations soon found a need to have a separate accounting of their financial records. Incomes from all LGU initiatives are in many cases co-mingled under the General Fund. ENR programs had no budget of their own so their expenses were lodged in different units and departments. ENR organizations needed a mechanism that would allow them to develop and grow in order to provide the level of services that the public expected. This mechanism is Ring Fencing. EcoGov promotes other benefits of Ring Fencing including “enterprise” thinking within the LGU. Combined with good governance practices, the LGU will be more attractive for external/private sector support. Source: Philippines Environmental Governance Project. 2010. Ring Fencing Pamphlet Table 4.5 EcoGov Assists LGs in Ring‐Fencing ENR Programs EcoGov Assists LGUs in Ring-Fencing ENR Programs LGU Province ENR Sector Pilar, Camotes Islands Cebu CRM Talibon Bohol FFM San Miguel Bohol FFM Jagna Bohol UEM La Libertad Negros Oriental FFM Dauin Negros Oriental UEM Bayawan City Negros Oriental UEM Bais City Negros Oriental UEM Siaton Negros Oriental UEM Tungawan Zamboanga Sibugay CRM Surallah South Cotabato UEM Alabel Saragani UEM Kidapawan City North Cotabato UEM Wao Lanao del Sur FFM Source: Philippines Environmental Governance Project. 2010. Ring Fencing Pamphlet 4.4 TA IN GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE HAS RESULTED IN IMPORTANT SOCIOECONOMIC OUTCOMES Perhaps the awareness about the interconnectivity of environmental processes and human interaction with the environment existed in Nueva Viscaya before EcoGov’s technical assistance. But the working relationships, the trust, and the professional cooperation in evidence there today is attributed directly to the brokering, the training, and the example brought by the project’s assistance. Groups and individuals now work together when they Final Evaluation Report | 29 didn’t before. EcoGov helped to open lines of communication and professional respect that have also helped the province’s government units recognize the value of the R2R approach even though the province is landlocked. They take seriously their actions which impact the environment, especially since their province is a “water tower” for more than eight watersheds. Whatever they do, positive or negative, has impacts downstream. It is doubtful that their downstream neighbors appreciate the environmental sensitivity and the good FFM and UEM governance practiced by several municipalities in Nueva Vizcaya. The impacts are both social and economic, both in the province and downstream. Smaller municipalities like Quezon for example, that have worked on co-management agreements with DENR are seeing more investment by IPR holders (234 in Quezon) and also fewer reported violations by outsiders (a 75 percent drop in Wao over three years) as enforcement on forested lands is now stronger and farmers with a vested interest in good land stewardship are more present. LGUs are also providing alternative employment opportunities (Wao – eight forest guards and 11 nursery laborers) where none existed before and having them be more active in the forest and in areas immediately adjacent. The time and materials investment by IPR holders provide more direct returns to the LGU in terms of land conserved and protected (from forest loss and erosion of the steep mountain slopes in the province) and more products being produced locally. Equally important is the fact that these lands also now sustainably contribute to the food and water security as farmers plant both food and tree crops in an integrated farming system where none existed before. In Bayawan, Wao, Kiamba, Maasim and other municipalities, agro forestry plantings are providing multiple cover crops, riverbank and stream bank plantings have been undertaken to minimize land losses to erosion, and LGUs such as Wao have developed a community watershed program to protect its water sources under a payment for environmental services plan with the LGUs municipal water provider. In Sarangani Province in Mindanao, strong and positive environmental governance practices have helped private sector investment gain a solid foothold to produce coffee, pineapple, and hemp (and often integrated with food crops) on what was open access land before EcoGov assistance promoted co-management agreements between municipalities (Kiamba and Maasim) and worked with local peoples organizations to establish IPRs. These activities result in direct socioeconomic benefit in terms of local employment and ecotourism opportunities as well as food and water security and soil/water conservation on fragile land areas. A boutique coffee entrepreneur has agreement with a local indigenous peoples group (holders of IPRs worked out with the Kiamba LGU and DENR, including some women farmers) to invest an equivalent of USD 12.2 million over a 10-year period for plantations, infrastructure (nurseries) and local labor (apart from what the farmers will gain growing/selling the coffee). The coffee company estimates upwards of 300 to 400 new jobs created mainly from new farm enterprises. If each farm has 3,000 trees, the benefit accruing to each farm, once in full production (3-5 years hence) will be about $600 per month per farm. This would be a very significant increase to Kiamba’s economy; all from what was previously classed as unproductive forestland. 30 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation Unpriced values also accrue in terms of protective tree cop cover for soil conservation, storage of forest carbon, livelihood alternatives to cutting adjacent forests, and a more persistent presence of land stewards that help mitigate loss to adjacent forests from illegal tree cutting activity. In Davao City, EcoGov worked as an independent third party to assist the City Chamber of Commerce and the Tourism Department in bringing together DENR, private sector interests, and the health sector in a “biodiversity summit” to raise awareness about the city’s and the region’s biodiversity, its fragility, and how it is being threatened in 2010, the International Year of Biodiversity. The summit and its ancillary events raised awareness and also provided a stimulus for these actors to continue to work together to improve the socioeconomic situation in the region by focusing on environmental issues. In places like Bayawan and Jagna (Central Visayas) the evaluation team heard from LGU leaders and from citizens that they have learned that good environmental governance also brings additional investments and opportunities to better their communities. In both of these LGUs, private individuals have invested in tree planting and agro forestry (Baywan) and in small enterprises (dive shop in Jagna) because they have see the LGU organize itself and be accountable for its environmental activities. In Bayawan, other donor-assisted projects have provided funds for environment activities simply because the city has land use and solid waste plans that are workable, transparent and which help the city establish its priorities. These investors know that their own funds will be used wisely based on the EcoGov assisted mechanisms that are in place. In the first place, materials recovery and reduction at source policies mean there is less solid waste to collect (cutting down, in some instances, in labor and equipment costs) meaning those funds can go elsewhere in the LGU’s budget. The landfill also fills up at a slower rate, also reducing long run costs. And with source separation and materials recovery most of the waste that is collected can be composted. LGUs are bagging this compost and selling it at prices that are in the range of USD 4.00 to 5.00 per 50 kg bag. In some cases, this may be cost effective, but in any case it is material that is not going in the landfill, it is a valuable soil amendment, and it also represents chemical fertilizers forgone which have cash and environmental consequence costs. The table below represents the benefits of economic growth and showcases economic and leverages opportunities in four locations. Final Evaluation Report | 31 Table 4.6 Case Studies Demonstrating EcoGov USAID Investment Results in Additional Investments Case Studies Demonstrating EcoGov USAID Investment Results in Additional Investments: KIAMBA, SARANGANI; WAO, LANAO DEL SUR; JAGNA, BOHOL; BAYAWAN CITY, NEGROS ORIENTAL Benefits of Economic Growth Economic and Leveraged Opportunities Kiamba, Sarangani– Good Governance Attracts Investment: 1) Public policy framework and ecosystems service market = certified agricultural products; 2) location of advanced learning destination site = jobs creation; 3) PES and PPPs address limitations in funding. 70 IPR holders harvested abaca and coffee in 2010. Each IPR holder earned average of USD 79 & USD 175 per month for abaca and coffee. Agreement between the Rocky Mountain Arabica Coffee Company (RMACC) and T’boli of Falel Community Association (TFCAI) , a CBFM peoples’ organization to develop organic Arabica. RMACC will help TFCAI develop 100 hectares of the CBFM area into an Arabica coffee farm. Investment promises to create jobs for over 100 farmers, and has potential to catalyze additional investment and business opportunities for the community of Falel in processing facilities and ancillary services. Community members of Falel can generate as much as Php 5.6 million (USD 123,077) net annual income when the initial 25‐hectare coffee plantation becomes fully productive in year five.   With RMACC’s technology in coffee production which allows coffee cultivation underneath larger trees, natural forests in Kiamba will be better protected by the indigenous peoples.   The T'boli community has started a coffee nursery with 75,000 seedlings, good for 21 hectares of coffee plantation. They constructed a field office using traditional T’boli construction materials to fit with the local scenery and respect the community’s culture.   P10‐million investment to lead to P200‐million investment & benefit local farmers through investment opportunities in 100 satellite farms around main farm. Satellite farms benefits: income per farm of 300 trees; farmer job creation; tree subsidies; community development fund; subcontracts : weed control, seedlings production, bee keeping for pollination, compost production, transportation services, berry picking every crop season, baskets, vegetable production. Kiamba, Sarangani – Ecotourism is being promoted by the investment center, particularly for scuba diving in the Tuka marine sanctuary, skim‐boarding and zip‐lining in forest ridges.   Platinum Rubber Corporation provided 250 rubber seedlings as an expression of interest to invest in the area. Nestlé Philippines expressed interest in 2009 to plant 1,000 hectares of robusta coffee. Possible gold mine development being discussed.   Rocky Mountain Arabica Coffee Corporation (RMACC) has committed to invest almost Php 537 million (USD 12,204,545) between 2009‐ 2019. Investments, plantation infrastructure development (particularly nurseries, etc) are ongoing. This investment is in Kiamba and does not include the ancillary (e.g. weed control, composting, pollination etc) and downstream marketing (e.g. franchising, wholesale / retail) activities, as well as export earnings (for Philippines) and carbon credits that will accrue from the avoided deforestation and reforestation. 32 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation Benefits of Economic Growth Wao, Lanao Del Sur – Establishment of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme.  Watershed‐based payment for ecosystems services are leveraging investments from water districts. Special account established with Wao Water District ‐‐ commitments for Php 75,000 (USD 1705) annually for watershed conservation and agreement with Wao United Truckers’ Association for Php 10 (USD 0.23) /load for road rehabilitation (flood protection) projects. Wao PES to Sustain Forest Conservation Programs ‐‐LGU since 2005 committed Php 1 million (USD 22,727) annual investment in forest management.  41 hectares/year natural forests are protected preventing annual release of 8,487 tons carbon stock and sequestering 45 tons carbon every year.  Learning Destination Site. Unifrutti Philippines, Inc. employs 1500 farmers. Decision to invest in 2005 based on the absence of systemic illegal logging in the area.   LGU’s existing partnership arrangements with Unifrutti and others facilitate the resolution of forest protection issues. Eight new forest guards hired for law enforcement and 11 new laborers hired for nursery operations in 2010. Forest protection teams work with DENR in managing check points and conducting foot patrols which result in the confiscation of lumber and a ten‐wheeler truck. Development initiatives to rehabilitating watersheds to ensure sustainable water supply for domestic  and agricultural use.  Sixty‐five hectares of the 2,184 hectares Banga watershed are planted. Finance rehabilitation and protection activities in the Banga watershed undertaken by members of the watershed community whose claims to forest lands within the co‐managed area are recognized under an IPR agreement. Watershed co‐management agreement between DENR and LGU empowered to recognize individual property rights   and enter into agreement with investors for the management or development of portions of the co‐management area. Projected increase in household income of upland farmers: Corn  Php 42,000 (USD 955); Rubber Php 135,000 (@ Php 45/kl) (USD 3,068); Coffee Php 96,000 (@Php 80/kl) (USD 2,182). Economic and Leveraged Opportunities Wao, Lanao Del Sur – Consultations with private industries such as Wao Development Corporation are ongoing to participate in the PES scheme.   Plans in place for development of Mountain Spring Resort, 50% of proceeds will be allocated for the Community Watershed Program. Plans to have agricultural production shift away from corn to higher value added commercial crops such as banana, rubber and coffee.   Unifrutti Philippines, Inc (subsidiary of foreign corporation) is the only major investor in agro forestry in Wao with contract growing agreements for cayenne pineapples with 5 local, certified companies. Unifrutti’s Wao plantation was awarded ISO 14001 for environmentally friendly pineapple products.* *Mindanao Times (24 February 2011) http://www.mindanaotimes.net/?p=17763), Unifrutti to invest additional Php 300 million (USD 6,818182) and expand plantation area by 300 hectares (current 577 ha).  In addition to local employment, this will generate export earnings for the Philippines. Benefits of Economic Growth Jagna, Bohol – EcoGov & BEMO provided support to  complete design of improvements to the WWTF of its slaughterhouse. Funds allocated funds in 2010 and 2011 budgets for construction. Facility improvement expected to address the concerns of the community (odor and possible groundwater contamination) near the Economic and Leveraged Opportunities Jagna, Bohol – Public market infrastructure facilitated through LandBank loan of Php 12 million (USD 272,727). Php 372 million (USD 8,454,545) committed for Final Evaluation Report | 33 slaughterhouse and the outfall of its current treatment ponds. Will ensure that wastewater discharged to Bohol Sea meets effluent standards. Estimated that 490 persons consisting of workers in the slaughterhouse, the families within the immediate vicinity of the facility and near the outfall (coast) will benefit from this investment. Informal, micro and small enterprises established through support from migrant workers in Mindanao and OFWs (induced to remit and invest due to confidence in governance mechanisms and visible environmental gains from solid waste management facilities). Composting has given rise to organic fertilizer business growth. Pangdan Marine Sanctuary (15.20 ha), managed by Pangdan Fishermen Association & BLGU, support from MLGU MPAMA under MAO. Marker buoys deployed. BLGU officials and association members carry out regular guarding and patrolling; permanent monitoring stations established; IEC activities ongoing. Jagna allocates regular funding support, with counterpart allocation from BLGU. Local M&E team trained on annual participatory reef monitoring.   Increased fish stocks flowing through markets for consumption and distribution province‐wide. Eco‐Savers Program. Every school has a MRF co‐managed by the barangay and school. Schools have a regular redemption schedule.   Learning Destination Site = job creation. road works, fast craft, port development and “roro” transport infrastructure. Development Bank of Philippines identified a number of supply chain projects to finance (food/grains, vessel acquisitions, etc). 22 sites identified to develop as sustainable tourism ‘destinations’. DuGJan prepared and adopted a five‐year Strategic Action Plan based on the 2010 action plan of networks and operational plans of individual MPAs. The common fund consists of Php 50,000 (USD 1,163) annual contribution of member LGUs. The budgeting, disbursement and reporting on the use of the common fund are guided by the financial management guidelines approved by member LGUs. Jagna serves as the trustee LGU for DuGJan. Benefits of Economic Growth Bayawan, Negros Oriental – USAID EcoGov investment leveraged for USD 1,283,721 (Php 55.2 million) in GTZ financing for Central Visayas. Bayawan received grants for Php 20.0 million (USD 465,116). Funds support reforestation, assisted natural regeneration, and agro forestry to support development of IPR areas. Funds supplement LGU allocations in FFM and provide employment and livelihood thereby reducing threats to forests and biodiversity.   LGU engaged in protection, development , rehabilitation of FFL in accordance with FLUP. IPRs of claimants in forests lands are recognized through the Steering Committees to provide incentives for developing individual claims. LGUs provide planting materials, IPR holders develop hectares of agro forestry plantations.  Initiatives directed at rehabilitating watersheds to ensure sustainable water supply for domestic and agricultural use. Ninety‐nine hectares rehabilitated in 19 barangay water production areas including the Danapa watershed. Economic and Leveraged Opportunities Bayawan, Negros Oriental – Computerization of City LGU Financial Management System  (LGU investment of 5.244 million USD). Coastal Road Construction Project ( 50 million USD ‐‐ LGU, GFI loan). Urban Sewerage/Waste Water Treatment with constructed wetlands (146.5 million USD ‐ LGU, national government grant, intl donor). GIS‐Based Project Monitoring and Reporting System (1.6 million – LGU). Rubber Tree Agro forestry in Bayawan River Watershed (nursery and plantation) (11.4 34 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation LGU enacts ordinances for creation of special accounts and  co‐ management financial guidelines to ensure that collections from forest lands use are spent on forest development. LGU ordinance banning the burning of biodegradable agricultural wastes. LGUs maintain bantay gubat teams.  Forest guards (198) re‐hired by EcoGov‐assisted LGUs in Central Visayas to assist DENR in forest law enforcement to reduce illegal cutting and forest conversion. Value of confiscated wood products is Php 336,000.00 (USD 7,800). 100 sacks of charcoal worth Php 6,000.00 (USD 140) were confiscated.   Climate Change vulnerability assessment. EcoGov is testing existing methodologies for assessing vulnerabilities of communities to climate change as basis in formulating adaptation action plans by LGUs. Initial findings indicate that Bayawan City is vulnerable to flooding, drought, typhoons and landslide, damaging crops, forests, properties, infrastructures, and endangering lives of local communities.   Forest fires endanger habitats of spotted deer in barangays Kalamtukan, Minaba, Tayawan. Impacts on upland agriculture as a result of droughts worsen the poverty situation and lead to more illegal cutting and forest conversion, endangering water sources in several barangays. Typhoons are also impacting on Bayawan City. million USD – LGU). Urban Potable Water System and Sanitation (130 million USD ‐ LGU, GFI loan, international donor). Integrated Bus Terminal and Farmers’ Market (50 million – LGU, GFI loan). Fisherman Gawad Kalinga Village with constructed wetland and waste water treatment facility (80 million USD ‐ LGU, private sector, GFI loan, international donor). City Road Diversion with lined canal and slope protection (30 million USD – LGU, FGI loan). Concreting Road Segment Highway to Kabankalan with bridge, lined canal and slope protection (307.6 million USD ‐ LGU, national government grant, GFI loan, intl donor). Source: EcoGov. 2011. Briefer on EcoGov and Leveraged Economic Opportunities in Selected Sites; DAI. 2010 Annual Report No. 6 The practices these municipalities have learned from EcoGov’s technical assistance have shown that there is economic opportunity in good environmental governance. And at the same moment their own investment in governance has helped to reinforce the sustainability of their landscapes, (their natural resource capital) for improved livelihoods in their barangays. 4.5 SECTOR AND GOVERNANCE LEVEL OUTCOMES Key outcomes, many of them discussed above, have been similar across the three sectors of EcoGov’s involvement. The technical assistance afforded by the project had its most immediate impact in helping the LGUs address their solid waste management issues and helping address the details demanded by the Local Government Code related to UEM. The guidelines, the trainings, the advice and timely assistance allowed LGUs to address these problems much faster than if they were to do it themselves. EcoGov’s assistance was always demand-driven by the LGU and each MOA presented unique challenges. Much of the technical assistance was helping to sort through the problems, prioritize them and then set out the tasks to be done. Most focused on the main governance functions that LGUs are mandated to perform: • Planning, plan implementation and monitoring • Budgeting, disbursements, financial management Final Evaluation Report | 35 • Contracting, bidding, procurement • Licensing and permitting • Law enforcement Across all three sectors, EcoGov technical assistance and the manner in which it was brought to the LGUs, the NGOs, academe, and DENR set a professional tone and an example that each partner could appreciate. The evaluation team consistently heard comments about how EcoGov helped to establish a professional attitude and approach to addressing critical issues faced by the LGUs that the tools and methodologies used helped to encourage partnerships between the LGU and DENR and to build trust among each of the partners involved independent of the operational sector. EcoGov “helped to lighten the load” of responsibility of some and certainly raised awareness of environmental governance and an appreciation for the elements of good governance in many LGUs, provinces and also at the national level. Certainly the planning tools and approaches facilitated by EcoGov have contributed to substantial good governance impacts across the three sectors. At the LGU level, the ISWMP and the FLUP are recognized as high value. The same can be said of CRMP assistance for LGUs with coastal resources As already mentioned, DENR has undertaken the task of institutionalizing the FLUP at the national level and hopefully this will mean greater attention to planning in the regions and for more proactive assistance to the LGUs (if/when capacity to provide the necessary TA is improved). In areas where EcoGov has been involved, most LGUs are willing to commit to the investment that the FLUP entails (a minimum of six months of time and significant manpower and financial resources, 250 to 300 thousand pesos are average estimates) and they are willing to work with DENR to make the plan a reality. As already mentioned it has created some good partnerships. In most instances, DENR today does not have the capacity (outside a small cadre of EcoGov-trained teams in Regions 7, 9, 11 and 12) or financial resources to undertake an aggressive commitment to the FLUP process. In the near-term, without changes to DENR budgeting priorities, scaling up FLUP activities will be dependent on outside assistance. In addition to the planning approaches, training and tools, the GSA tool is probably the most widely embraced output from the project. In addition to its value at the municipal level, it is increasing valued at provincial level and province-level ENROs see it as a way for municipalities to begin improving their lot. The DENR, nationally, is also considering it as a required exercise if DENR’s assistance is requested as it helps the LGU have a more comprehensive understanding of its own environmental resources. Finally, also cutting across each of the sectors and for the most part levels of government as well, has been a wider acceptance of the FTAP principles of good governance and the improved communication and professional trust that embracing them usually brings to the table. EcoGov, often playing the role of an independent third party, has helped to open these lines of communication and has shown by example how professional interaction and trust can help things move faster and more efficiently. As the evaluation team heard on numerous occasions during the field site interviews is that EcoGov has shown that “ … we [whether that be LGU, PO, and DENR] have many things to do, and we cannot do them alone; we 36 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation need each other’s help to succeed.” That is a powerful outcome of governance technical assistance. 4.6 IMPROVEMENT IN THE OPEN ACCESS OF FOREST AND COASTAL RESOURCES The indicators in the PMP linked to improved management of forestlands and coastal areas were designed to address the open access issue of forest and marine resources. In sites where EcoGov assistance has worked to develop co-management agreements for open access forestlands between LGUs and the DENR, and IPRs with local people and POs developed, yes, there has been improvement. In Nueva Vizcaya Province, the Municipality of Quezon more than 50 percent of the open access lands (5,000 ha) have been closed and the municipality has seen a dramatic drop in timber poaching and other illegal forest activities. The evaluation team learned in the ARRM area municipality of Wao (Lanao del Sur) that similar statistics are found with more than 153 IPR holders (and still adding more) helping to reverse the trends of illegal forest activities on open access lands. A co-management agreement in Kiamba (Sarangani Province) has also allowed 45 IPR holders to use and manage open access lands. Where there has been sufficient time for the co-management process to gestate and for FLUPs to be implemented, IPRs and their benefits of closing open access use appears to be working. Coastal areas where EcoGov has been working have also shown improvement in the open access situation. The development of MPAs and their formal management bring with it enforcement and policing by the LGU. In PMP documents, in site visits, and in conversations with partners the evaluation team learned of better enforcement, improvements in underwater habitats, and perceptions of improved fisheries. These were noted in Samal City (Davao del Norte, Mindanao), the Camotes Islands (Cebu Province, Central Visayas), and also the networking municipalities under the BATman and DuGJan networks (encompassing three municipalities each) in Negro Oriental and Bohol Provinces (Central Visayas) respectively. 4.7 MITIGATION OF CONFLICTS The establishment of valuable good governance working environments avoided the types of conflicts and disagreements that had been common in the past. It was confirmed in site after site during the evaluation team’s field visits that the EcoGov staff’s professionalism and approaches were models of how to get things done and to interact with one another. EcoGov’s technical assistance certainly helped to avoid conflict and it also brought together parties in a trusting partnership where none had existed, or even been thought of before. EcoGov’s assistance has also helped to mitigate conflicts in open access areas by providing clear steps and guidance to opening communication and the establishment of transparent rules and responsibilities associated with IPR and enforcement procedures for both forestlands and marine protected areas. The formation of TWGs has also played a role by bringing together people who had not thought of working together before and who are (often) representative of a cross section of an LGU’s population. In cases where it would be Final Evaluation Report | 37 beneficial for municipalities to work together conflicts were often mitigated or avoided with EcoGov’s interventions. The networked MPAs mentioned in the previous subsection, or the municipal clustering efforts to construct improved economies of scale with high-cost infrastructure investments like a sanitary landfill (in South Cotabato) or a wastewater treatment facility (such as in Alabel) are some of the most obvious examples. Conflicts due to differing ordinances among the cooperating municipalities were smoothed over or avoided with EcoGov facilitating transparent and common language and goals in the ordinances affected. There were also hints of continued conflict in some areas. The evaluation team heard in several instances from LGUs of the reticence of DENR to become involved in co￾management agreements, the FLUP process and a lack of confidence in the IPR process. These left a sense of friction between the LGUs and their desire to work with the DENR. In the City of Samal, ironically, there is now a renewed interest in an indigenous peoples claim to a significant portion of the island city’s resources due to the FLUP and the CLUP established with EcoGov assistance. Hopefully, this conflict will be resolved to everyone’s mutual interest in the land court’s decision. 38 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation 5.0 EFFECTIVENESS OF METRICS AND INDICATORS USED 5.1 PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM The tool that the EcoGov Phase 2 Project has used in monitoring project performance is the PMP, the preparation of which was guided by the EcoGov SoW and the life-of-project work plan that was submitted to the USAID in December 2004. Two of the three intermediate results under USAID’s Strategic Objective 4 relate directly to EcoGov 2—improved environmental governance, particularly in Mindanao and other conflict-affected areas; and improved urban environmental governance. The second EcoGov 2 results framework revised in 2006 is essentially the same framework that guided the first half of the project. The project has two levels of outcomes: at one level the outcomes have to do with improved resource management, and at a higher level, the outcome is improved environmental governance. There are seven core indicators in the results framework and these are: Improved environmental governance 1. No. of government institutions meeting good environmental governance index benchmarks Improved resource management 2. Hectares of natural forests under improved management 3. Hectares of forest land under productive development 4. Coastal areas under improved management 5. Number and hectares of new marine sanctuaries established 6. Number of LGUs diverting 25% of waste from disposal to recycling and composting 7. Number of households with access to or benefited by sanitation facilities. The performance indicators listed above fulfill the criteria of good performance indicators. That is, they are: • Clear – precise and unambiguous • Relevant – appropriate to the resource management sectors • Economic – data collection cost is reasonable • Adequate - provide a sufficient basis to assess performance, and • Monitorable – amenable to independent validation. 5.2 EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES Final Evaluation Report | 39 The project has defined biophysical and governance indicators with verifiable milestones. It has been useful and helpful that the indicators are so configured that they could be measured at any time (ensuring that what is being measured at one time is also the one measured at a later time, and that what is measured is actually what is intended) .The indicators are also flexible enough to be used by either the project staff or the stakeholders in the community. The community stakeholders, for their part, are the ones most interested in actual outcomes and can hold project management accountable for progress toward achieving outcomes. For both quantifiable and qualitative indicators, the project defined minimum conditions and threshold actions (or practices) agreed upon and are the conditions used to track the progress of performance. An example is: Result: Reduced over-fishing and destructive fishing Indicator: Coastal area under improved management Minimum conditions:1) Legitimized coastal and/or fisheries management plan or coastal zonation plan 2) Approved annual budget 3) Functional LGU-based resource management organization 4) At least two good practices Threshold actions/practices: At least one implementation action on enforcement. While “improved resource management” is relatively straightforward, “improved environmental governance,” however, is more difficult to measure. The governance principles—functionality, transparency, accountability and “participatory-ness”—have thus been defined adequately and succinctly as they manifest at various points in the governance functions (e.g., policy formulation, planning, budgeting, resource mobilization) and across the different resource management sectors from ridge to reef. The four governance principles are defined as follows: • Functionality – governance systems (resource management plans, organizational mechanisms, budgets) are in place to produce the expected results; • Transparency – citizens have access to information on local government operations; • Accountability – officials can be held accountable for their performance; and • Participation – citizens take part in governance processes. The use of these indicators helped both staff and stakeholders understand the workings of an otherwise complex, dynamic and multi-dimensional realm of environmental governance. The numerical environmental governance indices, moreover, have reflected ground-level realities and have helped describe in quantitative and qualitative terms the good management practices of working models of good governance. 5.3 INDICATORS AS MEASURES OF ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS 40 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation Biophysical milestones and environmental governance measures have served to reflect actual progress and accomplishments. These have aided project management as well as the local leadership in making more well-informed decisions, managing resources and aligning budgets. Some EcoGov indicators deal with concepts that are complex and pose difficulty to precisely define, for instance, “improved management” and “good practices.” Because it was not easy to use direct measures, the project has instead used proxy indicators. Proxy indicators are usually resorted to when data for direct indicators are not available, data collection would be too costly, or it is not feasible to collect data at regular intervals. The project’s use of proxy indicators has been helpful in capturing the multi-dimensional nature of environmental governance and provides a better description of the results. In the CRM sector, for establishing and strengthening marine protected areas, the proxy indicators are a management plan, a local ordinance, an annual budget, protection activities and physical indicators such as the construction of a guard house or installation of buoys. When all these conditions are met, it is believed that improved management, resulting in biodiversity conservation has taken place. Some science-based monitoring (e.g., checking on the increase of fish biomass) has taken place, albeit in a limited number of local governments as this entails greater resources, personnel and time. Similarly, for improved management of natural forests, proxy indicators have been in use—a FLUP with a budget for implementation, a functional organization, IPR policies, livelihood assistance, and forest protection activities. The issuance of IPRs to forest dwellers and ensuring their partnership in conservation efforts as they earn a living from the forestland that has been awarded for them to manage have worked to ensure forest protection. In the case of Wao, Lanao del Sur, the municipal government provides additional budgetary support to IPR holders. These are from the proceeds of payment for environmental services coming from the water district. For SWM, proxy indicators include an integrated solid waste management plan, an ordinance enacted, an approved annual budget, the conduct of waste segregation activities and the establishment of sanitary landfills. All these indicate that proper waste management is being undertaken, resulting in biodiversity conservation in the key biodiversity areas where the project operates (Davao Gulf, Sarangani Bay, and Illana Bay, to name a few). These milestones and conditions ensure that uniform standards are applied across sites and, therefore, allow for comparison among sites. The measures contained in the GSA for the state of environmental governance also allow for comparisons within the same local government across time. They then capture the effects of changing policies and institutional dynamics resulting from changes in political leadership and relationships. In the course of implementing the PMP, however, there have been concerns among project staff about certain milestones over which they have no control, but which they have to meet Final Evaluation Report | 41 before they are able to report that a particular local government or a particular sector has accomplished them. Specific examples have to do with how much time it takes for a local council to enact an ordinance, how fast a local government can create a TWG or allocate the budget required, or how slow a local chief executive convenes the members of its local SWM Board. There are also some tools that can be costly to use, such as the WACS. In its review of the PMP, EcoGov initiated a study of 19 local governments among the first batch engaged in ISWM, comparing the seven-day WACS and the three-day version, and found no significant difference between the results of the two. Subsequent WACS then utilized the three-day, less costly method. Provincial SWM Coordinators that assist municipalities that are non-EcoGov sites have also used the three-day WACS module. Likewise, coral and fish biomass monitoring visits have been expensive for the project to conduct in all project sites. To address this need, the project has undertaken training sessions on monitoring and evaluation to enable local governments to conduct these visits on their own. In the DuGJan network (the municipalities of Duero, Guindulman and Jagna) cluster in Bohol province, monitoring dives not only served to check on coral cover and fish biomass, but also identified potential dive sites for tourism development purposes. 5.4 SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS MOST EFFECTIVE IN ACCURATELY MONITORING IMPACTS Environmental Governance: The most effective tools have been the GSA on the state of environmental governance that is facilitated by project staff every other year, and the progress milestones that the staff sends in on a quarterly basis Biophysical Indicators: These methods include: • Community validation surveys administered during the FLUP process; • Regular report presentations organized by the DENR with the LGUs during which data from the field are discussed, validated and acted upon; • Regular monitoring and evaluation of MPAs; • Focus group discussions with the MPA managers and community perception surveys; • Waste assessment and characterization studies; and • Joint M&E by the provincial government and the DENR-EMB. 5.5 EFFECTIVE INDICATORS OF REDUCTION OF THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY While EcoGov was designed to enhance environmental governance to support biodiversity conservation, initial project indicators were not sufficient to capture impact beyond hectares measured. The indicators provided a picture of how threats to biodiversity have been effectively reduced. These included: 42 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation • Natural habitats (forests and marine ecosystems) conserved • Reduced occurrence of illegal activities that threaten biodiversity • Application of management instruments and implementation of zoning within specific sites in the KBAs including core zones, buffer zones, etc. • Adoption/legitimization of plans, programs and budgets and specific actions, e.g., adoption of phased reduction of burning of sugar cane thrash along KBAs; SWM plans implemented and wastewater treatment facilities established that address pollution in bodies of water draining into KBAs. As a result of the mid-term evaluation (2008) more direct indicators of biodiversity conservation were instituted. These were particularly important in the context of linking the results of improved sanitation and waste management with improved biodiversity. Final Evaluation Report | 43 6.0 THE RIDGE TO REEF APPROACH In the Philippines (and globally) R2R and other landscape approaches (watershed, integrated ecosystem management, etc.) are increasingly adopted and recognized as an effective way to address natural resources management and threats to their conservation. The approach allows for a more holistic perspective that helps to illustrate and understand the effect actions occurring in upland (or upstream) areas and the impacts of those actions on areas downstream or at the coastal outfall of the watershed. R2R provides a framework for examining environmental issues, conflicts among users of a watershed area, for mitigating those conflicts and also planning for better land and water use by communities sharing the same watershed. This section examines EcoGov’s use of the R2R approach in its implementation of project activities and the effectiveness of an R2R approach in addressing threats to terrestrial and marine ecosystems from human activities. The challenges of implementing such a landscape approach are discussed and EcoGov sites that might be considered as models for replication are also noted. Ridge to Reef, as defined by EcoGov, is a holistic, integrated resource management framework that recognizes the dynamic interrelationships and interconnectedness of ecosystems, from mountains to seas. 6.1 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF RIDGE TO REEF The effectiveness of a Ridge to Reef approach in addressing threats to terrestrial and marine ecosystems stemming from human activities that affect those ecosystems depends on the degree of understanding of the level of interconnected-ness of environmental elements by the municipalities within the defined area. The most unaffected environments are usually those at the ridgelines, on the tops of the mountains, mainly because human settlements are few. More impacts from human activities occur at greater frequency as one moves downstream. Gravity and water movement help to collect the effects of human actions in greater densities the further downstream one goes with the greatest impacts usually accumulating at the outflow of rivers in the marine areas on the coast. LGUs are familiar with the concept, even though it may vary in nomenclature. Ecosystem approaches to planning have been in the consciousness of planners since the early 1980s. But initially local planning systems treated environmental concerns as a “sector” (along with social and economic sectors), rather than as framework for taking action. It is also this framework that allows a number of technical and management interventions to be made. With an R2R perspective, LGUs see themselves in context with their neighboring LGUs and recognize that it helps better perceive which of their own resources may be at risk. EcoGov has used the approach to better frame activities within its sectors (FFM, UEM and CRM): from the upland impacts of illegal logging and indiscriminate land use conversion to the use of pesticides and fertilizer on croplands, to solid waste and wastewater management programs to protection of marine resources and managing land-based and coastal/marine sources of pollution. It has emphasized the interrelationships of these sectors to help LGUs 44 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation define what specific activities can be done to promote sustainable landscapes and seascapes. It has worked with other municipalities to look at clean water alternatives and clean energy solutions. R2R also lends itself well to addressing climate change issues, to helping define strategies that an LGU can use to adapt to climate change as well as to mitigate some of the changes that will inevitably befall the community. For coastal communities this often means reversing the perspective and taking a reef to ridge approach. The evaluation team noted that the effectiveness differed from site to site. There was no one set approach and LGUs understood that “customizing” was acceptable and usually necessary. In Neuva Vizcaya, a virtual water tower for Northern Luzon, the province and several of the LGUs had a definite understanding that what they did to the aquatic resources of their area had definite impacts downstream, whether that be allowing solid water and water-borne waste to reach the river systems or the mining of gravel in the stream beds and how this affected stream flows and erosion of riverbanks. In Wao, there was a vivid connection between land clearing and illegal logging in the municipality’s uplands and the reduction in water flow and water quality in the municipality’s water supply as well as impacts downstream on others who depended on water to irrigate their farmland. And in the LGUs surrounding Sarangani Bay there a very definite awareness of what happens in the uplands and the pollution accumulates in the LGUs allowed to flow into the Bay. Alabel now collects residential septage and treats in its wastewater treatment facility. It is also working with LGUs (including General Santos City) to collect more of their wastes for treatment in order to prevent those water-borne pollutants from reaching the Bay. In Bayawan, one of those rare communities with an entire ridge to reef within their borders, there is a solid appreciation for the holistic approach of the ridge to reef model. A co￾management agreement with DENR has allowed a growing number of IPR holders to gain more and more land stewardship control and use of previously open access land for establishing agro forestry intercropping techniques which provide soil cover and help prevent erosion. Cash crops such as rubber trees and fruit trees are also being planted. These not only help to improve livelihoods but also add value to the municipality’s landscape. FLUP planning is strong and growing. Riverbank protection plantings are financed through the city which recognizes that this is an investment that protects farmland downstream and also reduces erosion and helps conserve water sources, too. EcoGov also worked with Bayawan to improve its wastewater treatment facility and to design and implement an ISWMP as part of its comprehensive approach to environmental management. In the Davao Gulf area EcoGov has worked closely with DENR Region 11 staff, Davao City, the Regional Chamber of Commerce, and the Department of Tourism to initiate R2R awareness and to bring together these institutions with several private sector enterprises to formulate an action plan that would raise awareness about the threats to biodiversity, both terrestrial and marine in the Davao Gulf area. R2R was the framework that is bringing together the social, private sector, businesses, NGOs, city and LGU governments, and the DENR. The initial activities are seen as a definite success by the private enterprises, the Final Evaluation Report | 45 Chamber and DENR. They also recognize that the R2R approach is an effective one to use because of its scope and cross-cutting attributes. EcoGov’s successes with the R2R have also encouraged DENR’s FASPO to encourage other foreign donor projects to use it in their work and activities. 6.2 CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTING AN R2R APPROACH The environment, and the issues affecting it, really do need to be viewed holistically. Many of the LGUs encountered by the evaluation team do consider all the ecosystems within the jurisdiction of the local government (and even beyond where watersheds, bays, and forest lands cross political boundaries) and EcoGov and others have helped raise people’s awareness about the issues as well. But the big gap remains between awareness and action. EcoGov has succeeded in opening, or reopening, local chief executives’ eyes to the R2R approach and also influenced them and their staff to act in a manner that comprehends a holistic view of the environment. Getting this inculcated remains a difficult task and it also has to be believed and understood by the rank and file environment and natural resources office staff. Otherwise the chances for it to drift away at the next election are fairly strong. Weak technical institutions also prevent it from becoming a mainstreamed approach. It requires a constant reminder in terms of perspective. DENR and other institutions are easily pulled off track by other priorities and demands for their attention. A holistic approach demands a fortitude that keeps the R2R lens front and center all the time, there has to be a constant reference to where details fit into a bigger picture and how an Activity A impacts on an Element B and vice versa. This takes training, but it also takes persistence and a commitment to the perspective. Similarly, undertaking a successful R2R exercise demands strong coordination and an even stronger leader to implement it. Ideally the leader also needs to be full-time and dedicated to ensure that the necessary partners are on board, that opportunities are both leveraged, and leveraged at the proper moment, that IEC materials are timely, and that there are open and effective communication channels. Finally, working models of successful R2R undertakings in the Philippines are rare. This also makes implementation difficult when the examples that have worked, or are working are few. There is little chance to learn from those who have gained experience. Having stated that, the next subsection briefly discusses sites where ridge to reef, or similar landscape approaches have been successfully used as approaches to addressing environmental issues that others can learn from. 6.3 SUCCESSFUL RIDGE TO REEF EXPERIENCES Municipalities that have successfully used the ridge to reef approach and continue to build their activities around its framework are few. LGUs that have the opportunity to truly see the extent of their activities from ridgeline to the sea are even more rare. Bayawan (Negros Oriental) has worked with EcoGov in UEM and FFM activities and its coastal territory is 46 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation also important and has been receiving investments from other sources. Planning today in the city is very holistic in its approach. Upland areas with their co-management agreement with DENR and the increasing number of IPR holders are all seen in the perspective of what happens downstream via the two major watersheds in the municipality. UEM activities, especially the planning and development of its new ecological park with materials recovery, segregation facility, composting and sanitary landfill, have been implemented under an R2R approach. Its wastewater treatment facility, a constructed wetland services one baranguay, and provides irrigation water for nearby farmers. The city also used its understanding of the R2R framework to request technical assistance from EcoGov to develop a climate change strategy and to begin mitigation activities for some baranguays. Its climate change planning is built on the R2R framework that it uses in other planning within the city’s borders. R2R also figures prominently in the CLUP that was under development at the time of the evaluation team’s visit. The city MENRO stated that the R2R approach coupled with its experience with the FLUP and the ISWMP has made developing the CLUP much, much easier. Talibon (Bohol) has also used the R2R approach to its advantage. Receiving FLUP and ISWMP assistance from the EcoGov staff municipal officials noted that the holistic approach helped them to put their LGU’s environmental assets in better perspective. It has been especially useful in helping to define the priority actions needed in their upland forest and in their mangrove areas. Kiamba in Sarangani Province is a more recent convert to the R2R approach. It has received EcoGov assistance in the FFM and UEM sectors and has developed its FLUP and ISWMP. The recent private sector investment with IPR holders has also helped it to refocus on all of its environmental attributes and the R2R approach has provided the LGU with a much greater appreciation of how activities within each of the sectors interact. Planning is also underway to develop its coastal and marine resources as a destination for divers and ecotourism. How these fit together with the municipalities other environmental resources is facilitated by the R2R umbrella. Two other LGUs, one landlocked and the other a coastal municipality also appreciate the value of the R2R approach and see that using it makes planning in their LGUs more effective. It has also illustrated to others that comprehensive planning makes them more effective in terms of administering their local governments and this in turn is more attractive to outside private investors. Wao (Lanao del Sur) has taken charge of developing its open access lands. It has an ISWMP and a FLUP. With a watershed co-management agreement with DENR in place, IPR holders investing in cash crops, agro forestry and good land steward practices, and a formal agreement with a local water company for payment for environmental services (transport/delivery of water to LGU citizenry), the municipality with its good farmland has attracted substantial investment from a multinational fruit company seeking to grow pineapples for the export market. The company feels that with the stable, transparent and technically savvy MENRO, Wao is an excellent place to invest. Final Evaluation Report | 47 Likewise is Jagna, on the coast in Bohol. It received assistance for the development of its ISWMP and with planning in its marine protected areas. It used the R2R framework in developing its plans and involved others in a transparent and participatory process. Twenty￾two sites have also been identified for development as sustainable tourism destinations. Each of these LGUs described above are also part of the of the Visayan/Mindanao learning and investment destinations identified as part of the scaling up activities mentioned elsewhere in this report. Their success with planning is also at least partially attributed to their use of the R2R framework. In a greater regional effort, the Save Davao Gulf campaign made a conscious effort to use the R2R approach to help bring together municipalities, NGOs, academe, the private sector, DENR regional offices, the Department of Tourism and the cities in the Davao Gulf area. Each were pieces of the whole and also understood that to address the threats to biodiversity in the region, both the terrestrial and the marine, that working together would be the most effective and efficient. Each had a role to play within the framework, but the framework’s strength was at its greatest when they learned how to interact with each other and provide an awareness that was much greater than the sum of their individual parts. 6.4 CONDITIONS THAT FOSTER/ENHANCE SUCCESS OF THE R2R APPROACH There are a number of conditions observed by the evaluation team that contribute to the successful use of a R2R framework. One was EcoGov’s scaling up activities with the provincial LGUs. They became confident in their assistance with LGUs and were especially instrumental in the formation of several clustered LGU. The R2R approach provided more perspective and depth to the actions along with achieving greater economies of scale, better enforcement of the MPAs in one case and an overall reduction in costs. The phased approach, providing one sector at a time with assistance was probably also beneficial to gaining a more comprehensive understanding what the framework was and how it fit together worked well in most LGUs. As capacity was increased in one sector was achieved another one was brought in with additional activities. Marketing the R2R was also effective. Activities undertaken with EcoGov were explained in relation to one another. This dovetailed effectively with what was going on during training and information sessions with what was actually integrated by nature on the landscape. The GSA tool was also a part of this process and helped to show where resources were integrated within the LGU. Partnerships developed in the course of technical assistance provided by EcoGov were also important parts of the R2R framework. This was seen above in the Save Davao Gulf campaign. For the approach to work coordination and information sharing are important elements, The interconnectedness is not just within the ecosystem it is also in the organic framework used as the operational tool. 48 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation 7.0 IMPACTS OF GOVERNANCE APPROACHES ON THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY AND IMPROVEMENT TO BIOPHYSICAL CONDITIONS The EcoGov's long-term goal is to conserve biological diversity by addressing problems of open access, pollution of coastal waters and water bodies in urban areas, and mitigating natural resource-based conflicts in KBAs. The project strategies were ultimately aimed at producing positive impacts on biodiversity and biophysical conditions. To achieve this, EcoGov Project Results Framework presents two levels of outcomes or intermediate results. The first level outcomes relate to resource management, which translates to technical outcomes like reduced illegal logging and forest conversion, reduction of threats by illegal fishing, and reduction of the threat posed by unmanaged waste. This outcome will be measured using performance indicators. The second, and higher, level outcome is improved environmental governance. This outcome will be achieved through capacity building and implementation activities, the results of which are measured through a governance index. The precise definition of this governance indicator is "number of government institutions (LGUs and national government agencies such as DENR and DILG) meeting good environmental governance index benchmark" with a unit of measure that ranges from 0 to 1. To date, technical assistance provided by EcoGov has spread to 150 municipal and city LGUs. Of these, a total of 110 LGUs have undergone the self-assessment in 2009. It is clear that increasing governance index scores are happening across most LGUs assisted by EcoGov. With the improved environmental governance, the main question revolves around whether or not threats to biodiversity have been reduced and biophysical conditions have been improved as a result of threat reduction. 7.1 FORESTS AND FORESTLAND MANAGEMENT For the FFM sector, the main outcome is reduced illegal logging and conversion of natural forests. These two outcomes refer to reduced threats to biodiversity using indicators, such as: (1) hectares of (natural) forest cover placed under improved management, and (2) hectares of forest lands under productive development. For core indicators that are complex and not easily retrievable, such as hectares of forest cover under improved management, EcoGov endeavored to collect complementary data and trends. These were undoubtedly the 'improvements' detected, understood, and elaborated by the EcoGov target communities. EcoGov improved management of more than 386,000 hectares of biologically significant natural forests and forestlands lands across key biodiversity areas in the country, and Final Evaluation Report | 49 strengthened hundreds of LGUs, national government agencies, community organizations and indigenous groups in the process. Project interventions were focused on using a threats￾based approach emphasizing adaptive management and scaling up of impacts on the ground, as well as continued learning among peers and partners. It was clear that in at least two LGUs in the province of Nueva Vizcaya, about 10,000 hectares of open access areas were closed as a result of the co-management agreement between the DENR and the Municipality of Quezon. Co-management agreements were used by EcoGov as an approach to conserve biodiversity and reduce the rate of forest degradation with emphasis on establishing use-rights through multi-stakeholder large-scale land use plans. This appears to be an effective approach for reducing biodiversity threats, mitigating conflict and protecting biodiversity. In southern Mindanao, nearly 30,000 hectares of biologically significant forest is better managed following pilot CBFMAs in which community conservation units protect and monitor buffer zone forest lands. Kiamba, Sarangani, which is considered a key biodiversity area in Mindanao with its forests hosting important flora (i.e., dipterocarps, almaciga, orchids, ferns, and vines) and fauna (i.e., wild pigs, deer, bats, varied birds and the Philippine Eagle), completed its FLUP for the entire forest and forestland with the assistance of EcoGov and DENR. Thru the FLUP process, it has helped strengthen three CBFMAs for people's organizations. As a result, illegal logging has decreased and private sector investments in biodiversity-friendly coffee production also helped to achieve conservation targets. A memorandum of understanding with a private company that produces coffee products is expected to generate revenues for local community partners. Also, the assistance has also helped the areas adopt agro forestry technology and other soil and water conservation techniques to convert bare forestlands into productive sites. For example, in Wao, Lanao del Sur, 153 tenure holders have adopted the IPR scheme resulting in 240 hectares of previously bare forestland now supporting agro forestry production. This is a result of the co-management agreement signed between Wao and DENR-ARMM in October 2004 covering 2,184 hectares. With the co-management agreements, public and private investments have been generated. For instance, Wao has provided needed investments in infrastructure (e.g., access roads), and other support mechanisms (e.g., nursery operation). It has also entered into an agreement with its water district to support rehabilitation/protection of forest and watershed areas as part of the PES scheme and help augment its meager resources. Furthermore, public investments from provincial/city LGUs have been committed to support conservation efforts at the Mt. Apo National Park (MANP) through EcoGov's technical assistance in forest land use planning. In spite of being incomplete, EcoGov has been instrumental in getting the otherwise tricky consultative land-use planning process started. Common resource threats like illegal logging and kaingin that contributed to degradation of forest cover have been reduced through apprehensions of illegal loggers as a result of active law enforcement activities by forest guards employed by the LGU. As a result, 41 hectares of 50 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation natural forests are now strictly protected and 100 hectares are utilized as natural plantation in Wao, Lanao del Sur. Project outcomes like hectares of open access areas closed, hectares developed into agro￾forestry land, and increased public and private investments are evident. This means that natural habitats are protected and managed productively. While reduction of common resource threats to biodiversity is clear, however, biophysical impacts of these outcomes cannot be strictly accounted for due to limited baseline information and monitoring data. The project was not designed to gather data at the beginning and during the life of the project of actual forest cover as target. The project targets were merely hectares of natural forests closed to open-access, hectares developed into agro-forestry land, and reduced threats to biodiversity, which do not necessarily result to increase in forest cover that may be considered as proximate measures of biophysical impacts. 7.2 COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT For the CRM sector, the major target of the project is reduced overfishing and destructive fishing. This project aims to reduce biodiversity threats by improving management of artisanal fisheries and coastal ecosystems in collaboration with local fisheries authorities and local fishing communities. Coastal and marine ecosystems are managed in a way that generates a diversity of long-term socioeconomic benefits for coastal communities while sustaining biodiversity. The three key indicators under this outcome relate to (1) hectares of coastal areas placed under improved management, (2) new marine sanctuaries established and hectares covered, and (3) existing marine sanctuaries and the hectares covered that are placed under improved management. Two of the indicators used under this outcome refer to 'improved management' which, by itself, cannot be measured easily and directly. For this reason, the project has employed a set of minimum conditions or thresholds that indicate compliance. These include formal adoption of coastal and/or fisheries management plan or coastal zonation plan, approved annual budget, functional LGU-based resource management organization, and at least two good practices (i.e., deputation of enforcers, regular patrolling, community IEC, apprehensions, reduction of destructive and illegal fishing, and over-all management of fishing effort). These are also the results that are evident and clearly understood by target coastal LGUs during our field visits. The use of indicators such as legitimized plans, allocated internal budgets of LGU, organized groups, coastal law enforcement activities, and reduced illegal fishing and overfishing activities are benchmarks of a functional coastal resource management program of LGUs. At the same time, these are used as proxy indicators to measure biodiversity impacts. With technical assistance provided by EcoGov, new marine sanctuaries were established, marine sanctuaries are now placed under improved management, and coastal areas are placed under improved management. These outcomes have notably reduced threats to biodiversity but produced biophysical impacts as well. Final Evaluation Report | 51 Ideally, the sum of the three key indicators, i.e., coastal areas under improved management, new marine sanctuaries established, and existing marine sanctuaries placed under improved management, will necessarily lead to the 'desired end' of improved biophysical conditions resulting from reduced biodiversity threats. MPAs typically take the form of 'no-take' areas with buffers or nearby zones in which extractive and non-extractive uses are regulated. The establishment and management of MPAs may lead to desired biophysical results such as increase in coral cover and fish biomass. The strict protection of coastal areas through MPAs is believed to eventually lead to increased fish yields in adjacent marine waters due to the 'spill-over' effect. EcoGov targeted at least two marine key biodiversity areas - Davao Gulf and Tañon Strait. These areas have been identified to possess key biodiversity assets such as sea turtle nesting beaches, major migratory routes of whale sharks and cetaceans, and marine habitats of particular significance. One pertinent example of this is the Island Garden City of Samal located right at the heart of Davao Gulf, a marine key biodiversity area. According to our LGU respondents during our field visit, its partnership with EcoGov was timely as the project assisted them in their initiatives on MPAs, also known as marine sanctuaries in the Philippines. With the technical assistance provided by EcoGov project in 2007, three new marine sanctuaries were established, eight of the now 18 MPAs have approved Marine Protected Area Ordinances, and six MPAs have adopted their management plans and now placed under improved management. At present, they have 156 hectares of coastal areas (covering about 15% of their municipal waters) placed under improved management. Improvements in biophysical conditions as well as management effectiveness of marine sanctuaries in marine KBAs have been reported. This has resulted to desired biophysical results, such as, increase in coral cover and fish biomass. Since EcoGov's assistance to Island Garden City of Samal LGU, there is now an improved forest cover in the island’s mangroves and perceived improvement of fish catch. More sightings of cetaceans and sharks are detected in the area. However, there are still ongoing concerns on cyanide and dynamite fishing activities within their municipal waters and law enforcement capacities remain weak due to limited resources for seaborne patrol. Improved management of existing marine sanctuaries has also been assessed annually using an assessment tool derived from the MPA Rating System. EcoGov refined the current MPA rating system by incorporating good governance parameters. The revised MPA Rating System helps track level of development or improvement in management of MPAs using various phases like established, enforced, sustained, and institutionalized. This system allows managers to establish criteria for tracking improved management effectiveness of MPAs. At the same time, this monitoring and evaluation performance indicators of governance are integrated with surveys of biophysical conditions inside no-take areas using coral reef monitoring methods and social impacts of these MPAs utilizing a perception survey method. 52 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation These monitoring activities are encouraged by EcoGov through localized "State of the Coasts" reports, which are now currently practiced in EcoGov project sites. 7.3 URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Under this sector, the main outcome is improved management of municipal waste. Three key indicators fall under this: (1) number of LGUs diverting at least 25% of solid waste from disposal to recycling and composting, (2) LGUs investing in sanitation facilities, and (3) number of persons or households with access to or serviced by sanitation facilities. Proxy indicators for 25% waste diversion were used by EcoGov to track compliance to its targets. These include an operational composting facility, 25% waste diversion from major waste generators (i.e., public markets and commercial district or selected population centers), ISWM plan with annual LGU budgets, enforced SWM ordinances, an ongoing IEC program, and strengthened and organized recycling sector. In most of the LGUs visited by the evaluation team, some or all of the above indicators were observed. Based on the waste characterization done in the LGUs, at least 13% of municipal solid wastes are biodegradable and recyclable with most coming from public markets. Composting operations in target residential areas and commercial centers as well as materials recovery through existing junkshops or MRFs will likewise contribute to the achievement of the 25% minimum waste diversion target. In Quezon, Nueva Vizcaya, the 10-year SWM Plan has enabled 70% segregation of wastes at source. It further collects environmental fees from its public market that is directly deposited to a separate ring-fenced Trust Fund account. The Ecopark in Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya consists of a PhP2.4M SLF and MRF with a composting area of biodegradable wastes. With its strict enforcement of the 'no segregation - no collection' policy, the LGU has reportedly minimized indiscriminate dumping of garbage. In the case of Davao City, EcoGov has assisted the LGU in the adoption of the 10-year SWM Plan and the enactment of the City Ordinance for Ecological Solid Waste Management in accordance with RA 9003. There is as yet no IRR, which can initiate the diversion of wastes (about 500 tons/day) generated in the city. Nevertheless, SWM committees are now organized in its 30 barangays and its SLF is slated to receive only residual wastes starting July 2011. In Alabel, Sarangani, EcoGov provided timely assistance to operationalize and establish the sustainability system of the existing PhP63.7-M STF built through a grant by JBIC. The STF now serves 2,000 household septic tanks (about 21% of the total number in the area). Water quality monitoring of rivers and Sarangani Bay is regularly conducted through the ECPC established at the provincial government. The STF is said to have contributed to the reduction of water-borne diseases in the LGU. But still, there is no solid baseline data that can help to substantiate such anecdotal information. With the presence of some or all these so-called proxy indicators, biodiversity threats due to municipal wastes pollution have been considerably reduced in target sites (e.g., Quezon and Final Evaluation Report | 53 Aritao in Nueva Vizcaya; Wao in Lanao del Sur; Alabel in Sarangani) while potential biodiversity impacts due to threat reduction cannot be strictly demonstrated due to limited baseline and monitoring information on impacts of waste pollution. 7.4 GOVERNANCE AND ADVOCACY The EcoGov, through its GoAd sector seeks to assist 80 target government institutions to achieve improved environmental governance. National and local government agencies, e.g., DENR, DILG, and LGUs needs to meet environmental good governance index benchmarks. Increasing governance index scores are evident across most LGUs assisted by EcoGov. But it cannot be overemphasized that improved LGU performance can help reduce of biodiversity threats and, in the long term, may result to improved biophysical conditions due to reduced threats. But for now, the GSA results can at least be used as a cross-reference with other project-oriented monitoring, i.e., biophysical, results. Significant improvements cover "best practices" on four governance principles: functionality, transparency, accountability, and participation. Strengths and weaknesses of LGUs can also be assessment based on sectors: forests, coastal, or urban environment. The final set of indicators cover five environmental governance functions: 1) resource management and utilization planning; 2) budgeting; 3) contracting, bidding and procurement; 4) licensing, permitting, and issuance of tenure and allocation instruments; and, 5) enforcement of laws and regulations. EcoGov developed the Guided LGU Self-Assessment on the State of Environmental Governance Practices or GSA – a simple management tool intended to help to objectively track, guide and assess the process by which LGUs and local communities – with support from concerned national agencies particularly DENR – acquire and adopt relevant best practices in environmental governance. The GSA tracks LGU adoption of five categories of environmental management functions as mandated by existing laws such as the Local Government Code (RA 7160), Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (RA 9003), Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550), and Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004 (RA 9275). Table 7.1 EcoGov’s Guided Self‐Assessment (GSA) Tool EcoGov’s Guided Self-Assessment (GSA)Tool Good governance includes processes that are “participatory, consensus-oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, and based on the rule of law” to ensure that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard. EcoGov has contributed to good governance by developing a tool and process to assess environmental governance. The Environmental Governance Guided Self-Assessment (GSA) was developed as an internal project performance assessment tool to measure the extent to which EcoGov-assisted LGUs adopt good practices in the sectors of forest/forestland, coastal resource, and urban environmental governance. Used in over 115 partner LGUs since 2005, the GSA has been widely appreciated for its comprehensiveness, participatory nature, ease of administration, and usefulness as a tool for promoting the adoption of good 54 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation practices in environmental governance. The GSA tool has been used by EcoGov to track improvements in LGU governance practices through time. It can be used by other projects and organizations (national government, provincial LGUs, nongovernment organizations) involved in the promotion and advocacy for environmental governance for the following purposes: • Assess the readiness of LGUs to assume increased ENR mandates and responsibilities in line with the national government’s devolution policy. • Provide an assessment of LGU performance particularly in environmental governance to supplement other tools currently being used (e.g., Local Governance Performance Management System or LGPMS, Performance Governance Management system or PGS, etc.). • Identify LGUs that are ready to receive technical assistance or be part of donor-funded projects. Subsequent assessments may be used to determine effects of interventions and continuing need for assistance. • Provide some basis for the award of incentives and selection of model sites. The GSA report contains a “summary table’ that shows LGU performance in all four types of indices. An illustrative example is provided below. Summary of Indices Computed for the Municipality of ______ Governance Function Special Indices Government Principles Special Indices Sectoral Indices Planning & Implementation .75 Functionality .81 Forest and Forestland Management .67 Law Enforcement .83 Transparency .90 Coastal Resources Management .71 Permitting, Licensing, Tenure Issuance .67 Accountability .80 Urban Environmental Management 1.00 Budgeting 1.00 Participatory-ness .70 LGU Internal Management .89 Procurement 1.00 Cross-Cutting .89 Over-all Index- 46/57 (0.81) In the above example, the results show that “the LGU is overspecializing in the urban sector and median/average performing in the forest and coastal sectors. It gives high attention to its budgeting and procurement functions and least attention to its licensing function. It exhibits strength in the application of the good governance principles of transparency, functionality, and accountability and showed average performance in applying public participation in the exercise of its governance functions.” Potential Users of the GSA Tool and Results include: Agency/Sector Application/Use of GSA Tool & Results Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) • Assessing readiness of LGUs for phased devolution • Gauging training needs/assistance needs of LGUs Donors and NGOs supporting LGU environment projects • Performance assessment tool for existing projects • Basis for identifying targeted assistance to LGUs • Basis for refining assistance strategies LGU leagues and Provincial Government Units • Basis for LGU awards and incentives • Identification of LGU projects and model LGU sites • Identifying needs for capacity building/training/logistical assistance Private sector with Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) • Basis for identifying LGU projects and sites that need assistance. • Basis for providing environment awards Individual cities and municipalities • Tool for improving local environmental governance Research and academic institutions • Adopt the tool in their studies • Input to policy studies Other key features of the GSA: Final Evaluation Report | 55 Examples of Expected/Desired ENR Decisions and Actions of LGUs Mandated LGU Governance Functions Desired Good Governance Principles in LGUs Sample Questions to Measure Adoption of Good Practice Indicators in the GSA Control illegal logging/cutting, illegal forest product gathering and other threats to forest resources and biodiversity Law enforcement including enactment of ordinances and regulations Transparency Is the general public, including women, upland dwellers & IPs being timely, consistently, effectively, & proactively informed by the LGU about: formulation & passage of FFM-related local ordinances, laws and regulations, & issues & statistics on progress of law enforcement? Improve the management of tenured areas, close open access and create incentives for more sustainable resource use Permitting, licensing and tenure issuance in close collaboration with DENR Functionality Is there at least one major activity being implemented in the municipality to close open access to forestlands, through the issuance of tenure rights or establishment of property/ access regime, and/or to improve management of tenured forestlands? Place bare forestlands under productive use Contracting, bidding, procurement in accordance with the Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184) Public Participation Consultations/discussions on FFM activities (planning & implementation; formulation of ordinances) enabled meaningful feedback by stakeholders, including women, IPs & youth? Good environmental governance is viewed in this framework as the conduct of governance functions (i.e., planning, budgeting, etc,) that are consistent with good governance principles (functionality, transparency, accountability and public participation or FTAP) to come up with environmentally desirable decisions and actions (e.g., address illegal fishing) across the different environment sectors (e.g., forest and forestland). The desirable decisions and actions, in turn, can lead to immediate and long-term environment and development results for the municipality or city and at various levels of governance hierarchy. The local context such as biophysical and socio-economic conditions influences environmental governance by providing inputs to LGU decisions and actions on the environment. For instance, a decision to prioritize mangrove rehabilitation may be a result of the need to protect the coastline against erosion and storm surges. Apart from internal influences, there are also external influences at the various hierarchies of environmental governance from the local to global levels that affect local environmental governance such as international environmental protocols and agreements. Source: Philippines Environmental Governance Project.2010. GSA Briefer With EcoGov focused on addressing actual or potential threats to biodiversity such as: (a) illegal logging and the conversion of forestlands into agricultural, industrial and urban uses; (b) over-fishing and use of destructive fishing practices; and (c) poorly managed solid and liquid wastes that endanger public health and safety, good environmental governance is expected to provide the impetus that will push actions that will result in improved biophysical and socio-economic conditions. Table 7.2 EcoGov working with the government EcoGov works mainly with governance in a national space. This involves two levels: national and local (municipalities and cities). For the national government agency level, it focuses on the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) along with its bureaus, namely: Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB), Coastal and Marine Management Office (CMMO), and Forest 56 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation Management Bureau (FMB). For the EUM sector, it also works with the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC) Secretariat. The project also works closely with DA-BFAR, DILG, and the various local leagues - League of Municipalities, Cities, Provinces (LMP, LCP, and LPP, respectively), and lately, with the League of Environment and Natural Resource Offices. Governance also involves others such as civil society organizations that play a role in decision-making process. Community governance (or governance in local space) includes activities at a local level to ensure the meaningful participation and involvement of stakeholders in environmental governance. EcoGov used the Guided LGU Self-Assessment on the State of Environmental Governance Practices (administered in early 2005, mid-2007, 2009) as an entry point. It helped determine levels or types of TA to the LGUs. This is also where EcoGov tried to influence choices, decisions and actions or the so-called "CDAs" of LGUs. The results of the GSA have been instrumental in pinpointing needed improvements in LGU practices, systems, and standards. The GSA is also a tool employed by EcoGov to recognize the R2R approach. The use of the GSA, therefore, promoted good practices across sectors that help address threats to biodiversity. By improving the process of undertaking LGU decisions and actions, making them responsive, timely, efficient, open, accountable and inclusive, good environmental governance has helped protect, conserve, and manage important biological resources. In 2009, performance indices from 86 LGUs show that, with very few exceptions, LGUs have excelled with scores ranging from 0.80 to 1.0. Anecdotes from EcoGov-assisted LGUs likewise show outcomes of good governance. These include perceptions of improved forest cover, biodiversity and revenue generation in their localities in the case of FFM, reduction of destructive and illegal fishing, recovery of fishery resource and cleaner coastal areas in CRM, and awards related to cleanliness of the environment for UEM. 7.5 BEST PRACTICES IN ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCY AND ADVOCACY The four good governance principles of functionality, transparency, accountability and participation has also been integrated into the Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc. (CCEF)-developed MPA Rating Tool that determines the management effectiveness of MPAs. Further, the Al Khalifa now outlines the basic principles of environmental governance based on teaching in the Qur'an. This has been adopted in Mindanao State University's (MSU-Marawi Campus) Civic Welfare Training Service (CWTS). The evaluation team observed that the FTAP good governance principles were fully understood and practiced in successful EcoGov project- assisted LGUs. This is corroborated by the EcoGov Annual Report Number 6 (2010), which states that of the estimated 67 LGUs located in KBAs that underwent the GSA, 63 or 94% are “well-performing,” translating to a cross-sector or over-all index of 0.75-1.00. A rise in LGU and stakeholders’ awareness of the value of good environmental governance is improving over-all quality of environmental Final Evaluation Report | 57 management that benefits not only the sector receiving direct assistance from EcoGov. It has helped that EcoGov took a system and a R2R perspective in providing various sectoral and cross-sectoral assistance. GoAd is considered a technical component that cuts across the three (3) technical sectors: FFM, UEM, and CRM. In terms of governance arrangements, the following are notable achievements that were witnessed by the evaluation team: • FFM: Co-management agreements as a result of the FLUP encouraged partnership between LGU and DENR over co-management areas. The presence of functional Steering Committees or TWGs, which is multi-agency and multi-sectoral, play a big role in making decisions and deliberating actions over FLUP priority areas. However, some issues like unstable peace and order conditions have resulted to the temporary suspension of FFM field activities in selected areas in Mindanao. FLUP community profiling, claims mapping, community mapping and validation could hardly be implemented by the LGUs for security reasons. • UEM: Boards were fully organized and functional across province, municipal/city, and barangay at successful sites implementing SWM Plans. These Boards enable the full implementation of policies and social services related to SWM. However, in certain conflict-affected areas in Mindanao, unstable peace and order affected the timely delivery of technical assistance. Despite this, EcoGov's regional team has conducted off-site activities such as training and mentoring sessions. • CRM: There were cluster or inter-LGU arrangements among adjacent municipalities sharing common resources in adjoining municipal waters. These organized cluster management councils are able to plan and implement programs, such as joint law enforcement. EcoGov essentially focused on capacitating the local government units and their technical personnel. It was noted that the project has been institutionalized and mainstreamed programs through the MENRO. In response, LGUs have allotted funds, reorganized, and appointed permanent or designated personnel to sustain the MENRO operations. MENRO is the implementing arm for the institutionalized environment programs, especially FFM and SWM of the LGUs. "We can now stand on our own after EcoGov has taught us what to do". However, one outstanding issue that was brought out by the LGUs in relation to the establishment of MENRO is the inability of some LGUs to appoint permanent personnel due to Personnel and Services (P/S) limitations. According to existing regulations, P/S should not exceed 80% of the internal revenue allotment as against 20% of which intended as development fund. Provincial government's role in improving environmental governance is critical. It provides important support for the programs implemented in the frontline LGUs - municipalities and component cities. The province is very crucial for the financial support, scaling-up of 58 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation initiatives, and sustainability of municipal/city programs. Provincial governments have, slowly, in a calibrated manner reinforced and strengthened current LGU efforts. For instance, funding from PLGU led to the construction of the cluster SLF in Surallah, South Cotabato. Drafting of a Provincial Environment Code is another mode for sustaining initiatives at the provincial level. Communications among stakeholders have improved through partnerships and convergence. Wao LGU noted that their efforts to address illegal logging were historically fragmented but felt strongly that EcoGov assistance that resulted in forest lands co-management implementation agreements between DENR and local stakeholders enable NGOs, private sectors, academe, and communities were able to converge for forest management. In Nueva Vizcaya, EcoGov assisted in organizing the Nueva Vizcaya Consortium on Forests and Forestland Management Partnership composed of academe (Nueva Vizcaya State University), Provincial LGU, FRENDS (an NGO), NCIP, and DENR. Communication is very strong between EcoGov and in areas where they work, i.e., DENR regions, province and LGU. However, the level of communication is not evident between EcoGov and the national level agencies, such as DENR, NSWMC, and the Leagues. At the local level, EcoGov's advocacy programs focused on IEC that gave more emphasis on disseminating simplified technical information, e.g., comics and recyclable wastes fair, as a strategy to increase support and participation of the public in SWM activities. It is notable that LGUs appreciates the 'technical assistance' provided by EcoGov through IEC materials development, production, and dissemination. But one LGU admitted that it cannot, by itself, "sustain" the IEC programs. To expand the constituency and explore investments for biodiversity conservation, EcoGov embarked on a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) advocacy strategy in some areas. The PPP assisted by EcoGov in Davao City broke new ground in city awareness and participation in environmental activities related to biodiversity. EcoGov “orchestrated with the baton” (according to one interviewee) in a partnership among the Davao City Chamber of Commerce, Regional Tourism Council, the DENR and numerous private groups, to implement the city’s first Biodiversity Summit that served as a platform to present the status and threats to biodiversity in the area. Strategies and actions have also been launched with businesses and entrepreneurs in Davao City to help address these threats. • Emphasis on social marketing strategies is also now used in the technical assistance programs of EcoGov. For instance, its knowledge management strategy uses the "Theory of Change" which is mostly applied in the social marketing discipline in order to highlight the linkages between knowledge application, threat reduction and conservation results. The social marketing approach is seen to complement its technical assistance strategy and, ultimately, influence local actions that can help address reduction of threats in key biodiversity areas. Final Evaluation Report | 59 • Responsive support networks at the national levels, particularly LGU Leagues are considered one of the direct results of EcoGov's technical assistance efforts. Working with the Leagues is an ideal mechanism for, among others, good environmental governance advocacy. With its focus on frontline municipalities and cities already bearing successes on the ground, it is but logical for EcoGov to enhance its partnership with the Leagues. • The LMP, in particular, is a strategic partner for catalyzing up scaling environmental governance practices. Opening up to this opportunity has proven to be quite challenging especially during the two-year option period of EcoGov. Lately, though, the relations have been re-energized when EcoGov reached out to LMP for the dissemination of knowledge products. • Another strategic relation that seems to be promising for EcoGov is the League of local ENROs. With the help of DILG, a good partnership has evolved between them with complementary advocacy on permanent appointments for ENROs and application of knowledge products on the field. Table 7.3 EcoGov’s Knowledge Products EcoGov's Knowledge Products showcase innovative and replicable best practices (e.g., sustainable financing through users fees), good environmental governance models (e.g., EcoGov Success Stories Folios 1 and 2), and a variety of tools, methods, and instruments (e.g., FishBE). In an effort to scale up, institutionalize and mainstream the best practices in environmental governance generated by the project, EcoGov has been quite successful in focusing on disseminating and transferring the Knowledge Products to appropriate users and beneficiaries within a watershed system, subsystem or protected area in accordance with ‘ridge to reef’ approach. Going further, through the DENR MIS, it is working on uploading these knowledge products in a new website (www.ecogov.org) which is currently under development. • It must also be pointed out that EcoGov realizes the value of peer-to-peer learning as an effective adult learning mechanism. With the development and promotion of Learning Destination Areas of selected EcoGov-assisted LGUs, best practices in SWM, WWM, CRM, and FFM are quickly shared among LGUs and other sectors. To date, there are now twelve learning destination areas located at key biodiversity areas in Central Visayas and Mindanao. • One of the major components of governance pertains to rules and procedures that improve resource allocation and plan implementation. The project has been committed to support policy studies and legal instruments together with concerned national government agencies in consultation with key stakeholders. One such representative initiative of EcoGov is the DENR Administrative Order on Phased Devolution (2010-07) which assesses present ENR devolved functions to LGUs and identifies relevant ENR functions for phased devolution LGUs within a period of ten years. Pursuant to this, the AO directs the issuance of the Joint Circular among DENR, DILG, and Leagues of Cities, Municipalities and Provinces to ensure the 60 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation active participation of the LGUs in the implementation of ENR functions for devolution. Positive outcomes from the GoAd sector are quite evident. Understandably, it is difficult to measure direct impacts on biodiversity of all combined governance and advocacy efforts of EcoGov. In the end, the increase in public support and participation for biodiversity conservation programs will likely produce the desired conservation results for the long-term. Final Evaluation Report | 61 8.0 LESSONS LEARNED AND BEST PRACTICES 8.1 LESSONS LEARNED FROM SUCCESSFUL APPROACHES INTRODUCED As pointed out in other sections of this report, successful EcoGov approaches were developed on the foundation of good governance principles, FTAP. The technical assistance, training and capacity building, and grants/subcontracts inputs of the project provided the model and contributed to the FTAP foundation that stakeholders and partners identified as synonymous with EcoGov. The seven-year time frame also provided a gestation period that also allowed many of the activity results to take hold, and for partners to see their relevance and utility to governance and the overarching R2R perspective used by EcoGov. When natural environmental processes are involved, a longer time period to perceive the changes is often required as well. The successful improvement to natural resources management and reduced threats to biodiversity is small when compared in the context of the complex interactions of terrestrial, coastal and marine flora and fauna and the broad geographic variability of the entire Philippine archipelago. But in the context of the resources of an LGU it is having a visible and growing impact. As reported in the target table (Table 4.1) in Section 4, EcoGov has assisted tenure holders in LGUs contributing to the improved management on more than 280,000 ha of natural forests. This figure is more than 70 percent of natural forests in tenured areas, the areas for which LGUs are responsible. Having budgetary and enforcement control and land use planning jurisdiction for this proportion of upland forests and biodiversity is substantial. And how it is being accomplished, via good environmental governance, makes it a more sustainable and expandable success. For EcoGov it has been a process that has consumed the entire life of project. It has involved gaining the trust of the LGUs and their technical cadres, working with political constituents as well to insure that there was a political will to invest resources and move forward, and to help illustrate that the LGUs themselves could respond to the local resources management mandates stipulated in the Local Government Code. EcoGov, using FTAP as a base, designed tools and approaches such as the GSA tool that allowed the LGU to view (often for the first time) and understand the value of their natural resources and their connectivity across the landscape. The GSA also provided a baseline that the municipality could refer to in the future as it monitored its management activities. Management and planning approaches introduced with the development of an LGUs ISWMP and a FLUP also showed government at the national, regional, provincial and municipal levels that with good environmental governance comes greater opportunity for private investment, improved livelihoods for their constituents and a conserved and more highly valued stock of natural resource capital. Municipalities that have invested in these approaches are realizing the benefits even after three to four years, a relatively short timeframe when forests, soils, water and natural habitats are involved. 62 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation As noted above, these successes are small relative to the total area of the country, but they are almost without exception, positive given the number of LGUs that EcoGov has worked with. Upland open access forests and forestlands now being co-managed by LGUs and DENR (due to EcoGov interventions) have fewer reported violations and illegal activities than before EcoGov assisted with the co-management agreements, FLUPs, IPRs and other partnership agreements. Enforcement is now more localized and immediate. The LGU and the IPR certificate-holding farmers have benefit privileges and incentives to be the best land stewards that they can be, on land that was before neglected and being destroyed. In municipalities like Quezon, Wao, and Kiamba there is now greater food and water security, improved local livelihoods and larger areas being stabilized through improved soil conservation practices. In coastal areas improved management of marine protected areas LGUs are expanding their influence and enforcement through the adoption of formal management planning processes and also creating networks with other LGUs recognizing that economies of scale can bring greater benefits. They are also attracting fishery and tourism investments that are directly related to their good environmental governance commitments. EcoGov has helped all levels of government recognize that by reducing threats to biodiversity and the environment through improved management practices that greater economic opportunities are more likely to follow. There are numerous LGUs out of the 169 EcoGov linked city and municipal governments that are testimony to this. The Sixth Annual Report of the project shows an overall increase in investments in NRM over the three project sectors of 65 percent in the five-year period ending in 2010. These successes have not come without problems and setbacks. Many of the challenges have been related to the revolving door of leadership changes at all levels of government. In DENR, the primary national-level partner has had eight different (secretary) leadership changes in the seven-year history of the project. Similarly, DENR Regional Executive and Technical Directors have changed for those regions where EcoGov has been working. The two election cycles during the course of the project also presented transition challenges. EcoGov staff, especially with the lessons learned in the first cycle, prepared for these changes and often assisted LGU environment staff in briefing new officers about environmental governance activities and worked with them to devise strategies to smooth the transition. These are all typical of governments and changes in government common throughout the world. Investing in project champions to facilitate decision making and for continuity of thinking and training has been an on-going task of EcoGov managers, because often one champion can make a difference. At the same time EcoGov has realized that targeting career track professionals at the various level of governance is also critical to maintaining institutional memory, critical thinking and improved training capacity. The seven-year timeframe also afforded greater flexibility. Many of the EcoGov-introduced approaches have been institutionalized and some are already being customized and complemented with tweaks in their second generations. Numerous LGUs and several provinces stated to the evaluation team that they are ready (and in some cases already implementing) to undertake the EcoGov-advised activities on their own, Final Evaluation Report | 63 ensuring their continuation and growth. A Special Order was issued in late 2010 by the Forest Management Bureau of DENR to institutionalize the FLUP, a significant nod to the importance and success of this EcoGov planning tool. Table 8.1 NRM Investment EcoGov-Assisted LGUs Investment in Natural Resources Management Natural Resources are Treated as Long-Term Assets when Linked to Economic and Community Health. Communities increasingly understand that the importance of managing biological diversity, productive and life￾sustaining resources, and how improved governance is the means to this end. The links between good sanitation infrastructure and better health (and reduced health care costs), between effective marine protected areas and better reef health and fish stocks, between well managed forestlands and reduced vulnerability to floods and landslides, are among the driving forces. Options for addressing threats to biodiversity conservation, using science-based evidence and institutional capability, can now be better considered. This is best illustrated by trends in LGU investments in NRM. Financing for NRM by local governments has increased systematically, and mechanisms are being internalized and dedicated to support specific sectors. The trending information, compiled through a system that monitors roughly 169 EcoGov-linked city and municipal local governments, covering a population of almost 11 million people, shows systematic increases over a five year period (58% for CRM, 64% for FFM, 66% in UEM, and about 65% overall, noting that UEM sector investments are more capital intensive with longer gestation periods.. Source: Philippines Environmental Governance Project. Annual Report No. 6 64 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation 8.2 LESSONS LEARNED WITH THE SCALING UP ACTIVITIES Scaling up would not have been possible without first being successful with the municipal LGUs. EcoGov established the trust with local government officials, identified and invested in champions, trained LGU technical staff, and mentored NGOs, sub grantees, barangay captains and provided a model for how the FTAP principles could work. This also took time and substantial flexibility on the part of EcoGov’s management staff. LGUs consistently reported to the evaluation team that EcoGov was a mentor and a friend available 24/7 and always ready to work to assist them with problems. To its credit, USAID/Philippines also supported this flexibility in project management. Table 8.2 Scaling Up Towards Sustainability: Scaling Up and Integration of New Opportunities As the number of LGUs involved with EcoGov has grown, the EcoGov team has shifted its emphasis from providing direct, hands‐on training and TA to individual LGUs to focus more attention on organizing and strengthening clusters of LGUs and community organizations to solve common management challenges in partnership with provincial LGUs and local offices of the DENR. This has led to province‐wide FLUPs, bay‐wide alliances of coastal LGUs, MPA networks within the same seascape, and LGU clusters with common disposal facility. EcoGov works to strengthen the capacity of DENR field offices and provincial governments to extend lessons learned and best practices to an even wider audience of LGUs.   In implementing this scaling‐up approach, EcoGov has helped to build the capacity of partner LGUs, community resource managers, TWGs, local service providers, and other ENR professionals to become major assets in collective efforts to promote and scale up and extend environmental management best practices to other LGUs through the provincial governments and DENR regional offices. Through this approach we see the accumulation of experience and lessons learned being incorporated into processes and activities of LGUs, DENR, and other counterparts. DENR and PLGUs are committed to supporting the scaling up process in their provinces and are willing to contribute to the process of developing the capacities of other PLGUs and regions. EcoGov and DENR are working directly with 13 provinces and 150 municipalities and cities in 7 regions. As part of its scaling‐up strategy, EcoGov is assisting the DENR and PLGU improve their capacities, through joint training, mentoring, study visits and access to knowledge products, to enable them assist other LGUs. Through this approach, the reach of the project will be expanded, potentially reaching 14% of total LGUs. Source: Philippines Environmental Governance Project Work Plan Y6Y7 Final Evaluation Report | 65 The groundwork for scaling up was also laid with the initial primary focus of technical assistance that EcoGov provided – addressing the immediate solid waste management issues and problems of the LGUs. The other sectors (FFM, CRM and WWM) also continued to provide technical assistance but it was the SWM activities that endeared EcoGov to the LGU the most. Over time and especially with the introduction of the GSA, LGUs recognized that EcoGov had other attributes that could be of value in addressing other resource management problems, especially those areas where the GSA scores showed that the LGU was weak. In LGUs that were successful with their FLUPs, ISWMP, and CRMPs, EcoGov often was instrumental in establishing a productive partnership with DENR (at the local and regional levels). Once the partnership was solidified other activities, training, and mutual capacity building usually occurred in positive progressive steps. This not captured in any progress reports, but the evaluation team observed strong partnerships in the focus group discussions about the EcoGov assisted activities they had participated in and during LGU site visits in several provinces (Neuva Vizcaya, Sarangani and Bohol LGUs, for example). It was obvious in these instances that the technicians, politicians and citizenry had trust and respect in one another. (These observations were later confirmed with EcoGov staff.) The technical assistance provided with the FTAP governance principles laid a firm foundation in many of the EcoGov-assisted municipalities and training sessions with DENR regional and FMB staff. Much of the scaling up also happened in the option years of the project, 2009 to 2011. Provinces became a logical focal point and were trained in the use of the main approaches and tools established with the project. Capacities to trainings themselves were also improved. This has allowed the province to serve as a network hub and focal point for other LGUs (and/or networks or clusters of LGUs) that wish to avail themselves of the approaches established by EcoGov. Provinces are also logical repositories of this information and the knowledge products produced by the project; but these concepts and practices remain to be fully tested. It is the LGUs that have the resources, so the onus will ultimately fall on them to provide the funds for the technical assistance and training. The Learning Destinations identified for a dozen sites in Mindanao and Visayas are also a part of the scaling up activities providing “real time evidence” to LGUs and others who visit about how these approaches and tools can be of benefit. Table 8.3 Learning and Investment Destination Sites EcoGov Learning and Investment Destination Sites Twelve learning/investment destinations will serve as demonstration sites to showcase good practices in environmental governance. Some will also integrate features designed to attract external investments. Supporting documentation, strategic action and development plans, promotional materials/collaterals, learning circuits and maps are being developed. Documentation and planning for Camotes Sea (covering six municipalities among which Danao City is the gateway) and Kiamba, Sarangani are the most advanced. Six Mindanao learning destinations have been developed The activities identified in the knowledge management strategy to develop these sites are ongoing.  FFM and UEM models in Wao and the septage treatment model of Alabel are developed. Kiamba presentation materials have been finalized and consist of 66 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation signage, stylized posters and displays, brochures and two distinct power point presentations for the local LGU, one for other LGU guests and a second for targeted investors. This site has received attention to date in view of the increasing profile of the investment by Rocky Mountain Café, and the social and environmental benefits that are part of their engagement with the T’boli indigenous people – facilitated by EcoGov. The story has been developed as a case study to demonstrate that good governance will attract investments. The development of the materials for the Surallah SLF is being accelerated so they can be launched at the scheduled opening of the facility in late April. There are an additional six destinations being developed in Central Visayas. The destinations are being developed in collaboration with host LGUs and a range of partners, to showcase EcoGov best practices, and foster peer‐to‐peer knowledge transfer among LGUs. Technical assistance combined with stakeholder consultations, development of concept papers, mapping of learning circuits, and IEC materials. Noteworthy are Camotes Sea LGUs Pilar and San Francisco. Due to improved governance in these areas, interest is increasing from the socially responsible investors (SRIs), based in part, on presentations during the Cebu Business forum. Combined with technical assistance in sustainable tourism, the Camotes Sea offer opportunities for investment to build up the NRM and related tourism infrastructure. Learning Destinations in Mindanao FFM CRM UEM Kiamba, Sarangani X X Surallah, South Cotobato X Alabel, Sarangani X General Santos City X Wao, Lanao del Sur X X Ilana Bay X Learning Destinations in Central Visayas FFM CRM UEM Talibon, Bohol X X Janga, Bohol X X Dauin, Negros Oriental X X X Bayawan City, Negros Oriental X X Alcoy, Cebu X Danao, Camotes Sea, Cebu X Source: Development Alternatives, Inc. 2010. EcoGov Annual Report No. 6 DENR in some circles is doing what it can in the scaling up process related to EcoGov tools and approaches. The mainstreaming of the FLUP is one good example. It has also identified 131 critical watersheds where it says EcoGov type of activities would be appropriate, using the R2R model (DENR prefers the term “watershed approach”). The World Bank’s ICRMP and the Asian Development Bank’s INREM Project have both been directed by DENR to capitalize on the FLUP knowledge and to use it as a model in their loan projects. DENR, as an institution, is also recognizing the fact that the LGUs have the financial wherewithal to pay for much of the technical assistance needed to design and implement these municipality land use management plans. DENR regional staff in two instances noted that the management responsibility for an LGU’s environmental resources rests with them Final Evaluation Report | 67 and that they are also better financially prepared than the DENR to do so as well. The LGU can value DENR for its technical expertise (in assisting with management planning, etc.) if DENR can show that it has the capacity to provide it when it is requested. (LGU payment to DENR for specific services/outputs with FTAP-grounded agreements could certainly be devised.) This type of formal relationship is also apt to benefit DENR’s professional reputation and help to mitigate its more negative historical role as a controller and enforcer. 8.3 EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES This report has discussed examples of the successes of improved governance and NRM at EcoGov assisted sites in previous sections. The evaluation team interacted with government officials, NGOs, POs and IPR holders in each of the three geographic regions where EcoGov has operated and discussed these successes. Quezon in Nueva Vizcaya (FFM), Wao in Lanao del Sur (FFM and UEM), Alabel in Sarangani (UEM/WWM), Kiamba in Sarangani (FFM), City of Bayawan in Negros Oriental (FFM and UEM), and the DuGJan network in Bohol (CRM) are all examples of the evidence of effective governance and improved management of forest, coastal and marine resources. EcoGov also documents these examples in its Sixth Annual Report. The team also observed the excellent coordination and communication (at the majority of these sites just listed) between the province, the LGUs and DENR. Except for Quezon, the aforementioned sites are also part of a list of 12 “Learning Destinations” mentioned above. This designation is the result of the fact that these sites do exemplify success and can be visited by other interested parties that want to scrutinize effective environmental governance practices and see first-hand improved natural resources management that has resulted from these practices. DENR’s Forest Management Bureau recognizes their value and points LGUs who are interested in FLUP in their direction, encouraging cross visits and discussions. These sites can also serve as training sites for DENR staff as it scales up its own capacity to assist LGUs with land use planning and related technical assistance. The FMB is also including EcoGov approaches (mainly FLUP, but also guided by the FTAP principles) as it begins to develop what is being called a Forest Investment Management Approach to encourage private investments in the development of forest lands. A “package” of documents and tools will be prepared in advance by to include a site’s overall environmental assessment, informed consent documentation from indigenous peoples, an LGU endorsement, a baseline FLUP for the area, etc. DENR is tipping its cap, so to speak, to the governance principles espoused by EcoGov and also making sure that some of the tools and approaches are used as well. A little scaling up, but also a belief that improved governance will help improve natural resource management, and promote investment, too. 8.4 SYSTEMS, PROCESSES, AND STANDARDS CRITICAL TO ECOGOV SUCCESS EcoGov is a governance project. Its successes are primarily attributed to this fact and the foundation of its activities is, as reported above and elsewhere in this report, is the FTAP mantra of governance principles. EcoGov has been deliberate and strategic in following these 68 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation in all of its technical assistance. And these have left an indelible impression on all the partners engaged in EcoGov activities at all levels of government. The municipal governments and provincial environmental offices that EcoGov have worked with recognize the value of this standard. Sites that have embraced them sincerely appear to have the most widespread success. It has been stated elsewhere: good environmental governance encourages investment, economic growth and improved livelihoods and proper natural resources management. EcoGov has also helped LGUs understand that they must do many things to improve and sustain themselves, but that they cannot do them alone; they must forge partnerships in order to succeed. Equally important is the fact that these partnership agreements must be among institutions, not personalities (part of the transparency and accountability principles). DENR, at several levels, also commented on the fact that it is the largest absentee landlord in the Philippines and they cannot do the management alone. Partnerships, such as those exemplified in EcoGov’s activities are critical to success. There is still some reticence in some quarters of DENR to recognize the value of these processes and standards and the evaluation team did learn of reluctance to embrace them as part of their management principals. When they did, the success in working relationships among the province environmental staff and the LGUs was immediately obvious and that the benefits from such partnerships were recognized by almost all parties. 8.5 ECOGOV APPROACHES WITH MULTIPLE BENEFITS Many of the LGUs that have benefited from EcoGov’s technical assistance have received immediate and practical guidance with governance issues and problems (ordinance formulation, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation, etc.). These indirectly have indirect and longer term benefits and impacts to environmental and biodiversity conservation within their municipalities. It had been the application of the FTAP principles with planning assistance that have made the government units really understand and value their own and shared natural resources within their borders. LGUs that have prepared the solid waste management plans, their coastal resources management plan and the forest land use plan (in particular) have often realized more than just improved environmental benefits. These municipalities have developed a solid appreciation for (a) what resources they have, (b) where they are located, and (c) how robust/healthy they are. These EcoGov-assisted plans also allow them to see comprehensively the interconnectedness of their resources and the population of the LGU. Priorities of use over time can be established which in turn can be used to attract investments and plan for economic growth. The private sector and other donors operating the Philippines have seen this and approached these municipalities to work with them on other planned activities. The development of coastal resources management plans (facilitated by EcoGov) in the Camotes Islands (Central Visayas) has helped to prioritize tourism activities and provided entrepreneurs with a better understanding of the fact that B often has to follow A. The Final Evaluation Report | 69 interconnectedness of the resources, the LGU and the private sector are now better understood by all the stakeholders. This provides a more solid footing for sustainable tourism to flourish there. In Kiamba, the FLUP and its complementary IPR process has given rights to upland POs to make choices on lands ideal for growing coffee. An independent investor is working with these IPR-holders to grow coffee for specialty markets. In nearby Maasim, open-access lands are now under a planned development with IPR-holders to grow pineapples, and in Wao, in the ARMM region of Central Mindanao rubber trees have been planted and will be tapped next year for that product on lands that were previously open￾access and with no income opportunities in sight. Table 8.4 Financing Mechanisms Testing of various financing mechanisms has yielded viable case studies. Watershed‐based payment for ecosystems services in Wao, Lanao del Sur and Upi, Maguindanao are leveraging investments from water districts. A successful public‐private partnership in Kiamba, Sarangani has leveraged private sector investments in agro forestry development (coffee). The team assisted Talibon and San Miguel in Bohol; Wao, Lanao del Sur and Upi, Maguindanao in setting up co‐ management special accounts as a mechanism to ring fence LGU allocated funds for FFM and other funds generated from the use of forest resources, such as in recognizing IPRs. Source: Philippines Environmental Governance Project. 2010a. In each of the IPR examples just cited, other fruits and vegetables are also being intercropped as the primary crop matures, bringing immediate improvements to local livelihoods and contributing to the improvement of the overall socioeconomic status of the LGUs. In Bayawan (Negros Oriental) city officials are steadily reaping the benefits of their land use planning efforts. Their understanding of the R2R approach, its utility as tool for understanding climate change impacts to their territory (and developing mitigation strategies), and their comprehensive land use plan developed with the FLUP and ISWMP has served as a model for other regions. Donors are also willing to invest more in the city for their guidance and advice in assisting other municipalities. The evaluation team learned of more than 22 million pesos (about 0.5 million USD) of additional donor grants (2010-2015) for environmental activities that the city attributes directly to its progress developed with EcoGov technical assistance. In Davao, EcoGov’s flexibility and its adherence to the TFAP principles has gained significant favor with the City’s Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Department. EcoGov 70 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation worked with the Chamber, with the DENR regional office and its own local networks to help carry out a “Biodiversity Summit” in the CBD’s 2010 Year of Biodiversity. This was a very successful awareness-building event that brought together companies in the private sector, city and regional governments and thousands of private citizens. It was not only good for biodiversity awareness, but also stimulated the region’s industry, the economy’s driver’s to work together. A similar event is planned for 2011, the Year of the Forest. Table 8.5 EcoGov Investment USAID EcoGov investment leveraged for USD 1,283,721 (Php 55.2 million) in GTZ financing for Central Visayas. Bayawan City, Sta Catalina and La Libertad received grants for Php 20.0 million (USD 465,116), Php 22 million (USD 511,628), and Php 13.2 million (USD 306,977) respectively. These funds are in support of reforestation, assisted natural regeneration, and agro forestry to support development of IPR areas including forest protection activities. Source: Philippines Environmental Governance Project. 2010a. 8.6 EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT COORDINATION WITH PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS Success in achieving goals and objectives in governance, as one municipal environment and natural resource officer told the evaluation team, rests on establishing and building solid partnerships. He also noted that EcoGov has excelled at doing this. EcoGov’s staff and its regional offices have allowed for substantial flexibility in communication and coordination. LGUs, sub grantees, provincial ENROs and DENR regional offices all have appreciated EcoGov’s readiness and timely inputs to help them solve problems and address governance and technical issues. One DENR official noted that “EcoGov lightens my load.” And, their effectiveness in the field also dealt adroitly with changeovers in municipal officers and mayors, provincial governors and transferring DENR regional directors. This was done mainly through very strategic meetings and briefing early on in the transition process. New officers were brought up to speed as quickly as possible and also invited to view and participate in EcoGov-assisted activities in the LGU. The tugs and pulls at the national level have been more difficult to handle. At DENR eight Secretary of the Department have come and gone, creating difficulties for establishing continuity. The work with FASPO and the FMB has also been positive. Usually the communication and coordination has flowed fairly effectively in and out between these offices and EcoGov. The communication has broken down and been more problematic with Final Evaluation Report | 71 the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) and especially in situations where there need to be coordination among the various DENR offices themselves. They often have relied on EcoGov to assist their own internal coordination – a very inefficient use of resources. (The evaluation team experienced this directly while trying to establish interviews among the various offices. The communication went one or two steps and then collapsed, never coming back in a confirmation process. Delegation of authority also appears weak.) With other partners at the national level coordination was also problematic throughout the course of the project. Some of this is easily attributed to staff changeover and shifting internal priorities within the partner institutions. (The Leagues seem to be a good example of this.) In many instances it has been the unwillingness to meet halfway, or to be flexible at times and meet a little more than halfway. Partnerships where each of the constituents place value in the professional conduct and products of the other will flourish and grow; sometimes one will lead and the other will follow, and then vice-versa. EcoGov has too often found itself in the leader role, and the Filipino institution too reluctant to try that on itself (at least in its relationship with EcoGov). This has resulted in a weak partnership with communication and coordination becoming ineffective. In the field, with LGUs and with regional and provincial offices this was usually the exception. As a result the institutions that EcoGov was assisting grew stronger and more confident and the communication and coordination flowed much more effectively. DENR (Forest Management Bureau) told the evaluation team that communication may have been more effective with an EcoGov presence within their offices. There are pros and cons with this strategy, especially with a governance project where the focus needs to be on the LGUs and the field government units, not at the national level. Nevertheless, there may be merit on housing a dedicated EcoGov specialist solely devoted to the DENR’s desire to institutionalize the FLUP. This person would be in DENR’s front yard 24/7 organizing trainings and events at the national, regional and local levels only dedicated to forest land use planning. DENR would in turn also have to be an equal partner in these activities and also budget manpower and financial resources accordingly. 8.7 INEFFECTIVE APPROACHES, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIVITIES The evaluation team did not learn about any approaches or activities that were viewed as ineffective. There were some that are viewed as difficult, or were not given enough time in which follow-through would have allowed greater gains. At the time of project start-up the R2R approach was originally seen as a panacea for governance success – a model that everyone could easily identify with and that would provide a rallying point. But EcoGov found that in sites (such as Baler in Aurora Province) where it could be a good pilot, the demands on doing full activities were too much for the municipalities. The information required was costly and very time-consuming. It has already been noted elsewhere that the FLUP approach is expensive, usually lasting a minimum of six months and costing upwards of USD 5-6,000. The simple math associated with of doing full bore R2R planning would be considerably more demanding time-wise and would drain project and municipal budgets. Although the effort may provide a very comprehensive land use plan for the length of the 72 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation ridge to the reef it is doubtful that the upfront costs could support the benefits (and political risks) of a plan that would be useful to all the stakeholders four to five years in the future. Over time it was also realized that greater attention to global climate change, with adaptive strategies and mitigation activities can also be of considerable value to municipalities. Some are doing it, scratching the surface, but more is definitely needed. They can continue to use the governance approaches of EcoGov and also the R2R perspective to provide good traction in the LGUs and provinces. There also appear to be missed opportunities with the LGU Leagues. These national level organizations may have been, and perhaps still are, logical nodes for assistance and the transfer of knowledge products. Leadership and an institutional vision of a technical role would seem to be fundamental criteria for these institutions to facilitate and promote EcoGov-types of technical assistance in a decentralized environment. EcoGov’s technical assistance and approaches have primarily been geared as an on-the-ground LGU project. Communication at the national level has already been noted as an Achilles heel. Linking and nurturing other national level organizations were not focal areas where the real effort was invested. If the Leagues, or any national organization/institution, with interests in local government units want to be a part of the action then they will need to make certain they have a dedicated presence at that level and leadership that understands that. Final Evaluation Report | 73 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section attempts to capture some of the important observations gathered by the evaluation team in the course of its examination of the Environmental Governance Project Phase 2. These are discussed in no particular priority order, but are mainly concerned with points that appeared and re-appeared in the course of document reviews, interviews with EcoGov partners, and in the focus group discussions during the field visits. The recommendations are items that are intended for further discussion between DENR and USAID. Many are in response to a request by DENR’s FASPO to look at what is observed in the field and what gaps and challenges remain. 9.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS EcoGov technical assistance focused mainly on improving the capacity of local government units (municipal and provincial), and their technical personnel. There are numerous, independent results of this assistance that are worth highlighting here. These include the importance of partnerships, the demand-driven approach of technical assistance, community pride, the value of the MENROs, scaling up activities, and the GSA tool. Although listed separately, most of these are inter-related. The demand-driven approach linked to EcoGov’s technical assistance was viewed with skepticism by many, including DENR, mainly due to the fact it was focused on “how-to” assistance and not infrastructure building within LGUs or cash grants to do X, Y and Z. But over time it became evident that the “learning how to fish” assistance was much more valuable in the long-run than what other projects often brought in the short-term. Some of this value was in the tools and approaches espoused by EcoGov. The FTAP principles were very much appreciated and EcoGov practiced what it preached in terms of bringing the technical assistance to the various project partners. The project’s focus on functionality (the F in FTAP) has been especially important as it allowed EcoGov’s partners understand and appreciate the logic and direct application of techniques and approaches for their individual situation. If something was not working, or did not apply to their LGU, then they needed to work to find a way (or other assistance) to make it fit and to obtain the results they desired. The approaches also provided tools and techniques for working together and to communicate more effectively, not only among their own LGU, but with neighboring LGUs, the province, and other service providers. They learned about establishing working groups to accomplish tasks, drawing up formal agreements that spelled out what was expected by whom and for what reason and what the agreement was expected to accomplish. Each of these helped to establish accountability among themselves and in a visible, transparent manner. Public participation in these processes also showed how working together could lead to a more acceptable result for everyone and that conflicts could be resolved. Trust in those with whom they worked grew as did the fact that there was also an expected level of responsibility for 74 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation actions planned and undertaken. Partnerships became a valued way of conducting business, and importantly, it was also realized that an LGU’s business cannot be achieved successfully unless there were institutional partnerships. In the more successful sites visited by the evaluation team (and confirmed in EcoGov documentation), this vision of meaningful partnerships was most strongly expressed by the LGU, the PLGU and DENR. The evaluation team also observed several other factors linked to LGUs with successful partnerships. One was the presence of a competent MENRO. It was noted that the project has institutionalized and mainstreamed programs through the MENRO. In response, LGUs have allotted funds, reorganized, and appointed permanent or designated personnel to sustain the MENRO operations. MENRO is the implementing arm for the institutionalized environment programs, especially FFM and SWM of the LGUs. The team was told "…we can now stand on our own after EcoGov has taught us what to do". (It was noted in Section 7 that one outstanding issue that was brought out by the LGUs in relation to the establishment of MENRO is the inability of some to appoint permanent personnel due to Personnel and Services [P/S] limitations. According to existing regulations, P/S should not exceed 80 percent of the internal revenue allotment as against 20 percent of which intended as development fund.) The presence of a dedicated and knowledgeable MENRO is a helpful factor for LGUs when it comes to successful environmental governance. It was also observed that many municipalities who had received EcoGov assistance also had considerable pride in their municipality. In sites where co-management agreements with DENR had led to IPRs for farmers there was more individual investment in growing crops for sale (e.g., rubber, coffee, pineapples) and visual evidence of good land stewardship through agro forestry and multi-cropping on lands that were open access and usually unproductive. And where FLUPs and/or CRMPs and ISWMPs had been established or were being designed, where solid waste was being segregated and recycled and where schools had undertaken recycling and composting there was a very evident element of pride in the community as well. Perhaps pride was the tipping point, or perhaps it was the result of these other factors being present, but it was also these very municipalities that were experiencing additional funds coming into their communities from the private sector and/or from other donors and government sources. Either way, their success with environmental governance could be linked directly and indirectly with better livelihoods and improved conditions for economic growth. The GSA tool that has come with EcoGov assistance is another important legacy of the project. LGUs, PLGUs, service providers, NGOs have all realized its value in improving environmental governance and its role in improving environmental conservation and protecting environmental assets (forests, marine habitats, biodiversity). It provides a real time snapshot of how the municipality is doing relative to a variety of factors, and it also shows where the community is both weak and strong in terms of managing its environmental assets. The GSA can also be applied at regular intervals and the LGU can see directly how it is improving itself and where additional work is still needed. For service providers, NGOs and donors the application of the GSA helps to target where an LGU can most effectively use technical assistance. Final Evaluation Report | 75 EcoGov’s scaling up process has capitalized on its technical assistance to individual LGUs to focus more attention on organizing and strengthening clusters of LGUs. In consort with establishing learning destinations and bringing together other institutional assets to solve common management problems, EcoGov has helped to create partnerships with provincial LGUs and local offices of the DENR. As part of this process the project has worked to strengthen the capacity of field offices and provincial governments to extend lessons learned to an even wider audience of LGUs. The scaling up process has also not only shown where capacity building is still weak in mainstreaming the processes, but it has helped to reveal, particularly with DENR, where the weakness are in providing assistance to first-time LGUs, and also what gaps exist in DENR’s own capacity for proving an acceptable product. The R2R model has provided a holistic approach for a bringing together these partnerships, the resource management planning and the scaling-up activities beneath a science-based umbrella. There are many like-minded concepts being touted in the Philippines. DENR prefers “watershed approach” as a label, but there are also many others such as integrated watershed management, integrated coastal management, ecosystems approach, island to sky, etcetera. Most LGUs seem to accept them no matter the label, and they also appreciate the utility of the approach, especially when used to describe the impacts of an LGU’s environmental actions on a downstream asset (be that in another LGU or in their own). Their effectiveness comes when the approach can be used to unite several LGUs (and/or institutions) to provide an effective model to expend funds for an agreed upon common cause. R2R was the approach used in Talibon to make planning more effective; in Ilana Bay to bring together a diverse group on small and large LGUs; and in the “I Love Davao Gulf” campaign to help unite public and private interests raising awareness and developing a strategy to address pollution in the Davao Gulf. The targets used in the performance monitoring plan to indicate progress toward objectives do appear to be the correct ones given the geographic spread of the projects and the number of individual LGUs to be engaged. The target figures linked to wastewater treatment were probably too ambitious given the budget resources required by the LGU for infrastructure construction and the political readiness needed to engage and win-over a truly participatory constituency. The biophysical targets, again given the geographic range, diversity of sites and the processes involved appear to be of the correct magnitude for the environmental governance objectives. They were not adequate indicators of reducing threats to biodiversity. The focus of the project in its design was improving environmental governance at the LGU level, and then with this success, improvements to the environmental situation would follow. For a more explicit focus on reducing threats to biodiversity and improving forest conservation a different set of indicators would have been needed and a baseline inventory of information (most likely related to specific sites) would need to be collected. Finally, it is important to note that it is the LGUs that have the financial resources to help pay for the management of their natural resources assets. They are also prepared to pay for the assistance they may need to improve the planning for and the management of these 76 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation resources. This means that there are ample opportunities for scaling up. Provincial budgets may have to change to help their LGUs with this task, and most certainly the DENR will need to realign its budgeting priorities differently if it is to become the service provider that EcoGov technical assistance has been working towards. 9.2 DENR-RELATED CONCLUSIONS Foreign Assistance and Special Projects Office (FASPO) and the Forest Management Bureau (FMB) have been champions of the approaches technical assistance provided to DENR and LGUs aimed at better and more consistent natural resources management. And with the stated devolution of management responsibility to the LGUs the Department should be taking on a stronger role as service provider. The evidence in the field is mixed. The special order by the FMB to mainstream the FLUP is very laudable, as is FASPO’s insistence that several of the donor projects embrace the R2R approach and also adopt the FLUP as a management tool at sites that are appropriate. There is also promise in the DENR’s “forest investment portfolio” (described in Section 8) as another way to improve environmental governance and overall management of forest resources. But the Department still seems unwilling to realign its budgeting priorities and to provide the financial backing necessary to effect positive change with these tools and approaches. LGUs are very interested in receiving TA from DENR and many are willing to provide financing for that TA which could probably be done through a MOA approach spelling out what each party is responsible for and that the results and outputs are for the agreement. The main problem that remains is DENR’s capacity to respond to the TA needs. There is recognition by some at DENR that there is a lack of “buy-in” on the part of most of their regional offices and there is little sense of ownership of EcoGov approaches. The training provided by EcoGov has been embraced in some places and not in others and for the FLUP process now being promoted by the FMB the budgeting for scaling up is weak. Without experience and without a practiced cadre of DENR staff the ownership issue will continue to flounder. Stated more directly, the capacity level within DENR for environmental governance is weak, and to undertake even a phased devolution of management to the LGUs as is currently mandated, a more solid commitment of funds and manpower will have to happen. The Department is certainly not ready to have this happen now. (Most of the environmental governance in the DENR is tied up with foreign-funded projects, but there is a small, ineffectual arm of environmental governance in house.) There also continue to be some co-management issue gray areas in current laws and policies that restrict interaction with LGUs, these seem to be more prevalent with the National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS). Some of this may also be related to the lesser engagement of the Protected Area and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB), which is responsible for the NIPAS, with EcoGov activities. Final Evaluation Report | 77 9.3 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS EcoGov’s legacies will be tied to the tools and approaches they brought to the LGUs and how the use of those tools could bring about good environmental governance and provide for better conditions of the management and use of an LGUs use of its natural resources. Future efforts should nominally include the Functionality, Transparency, Accountability and Participation (FTAP) principles of good environmental governance as well as the promotion of partnerships and solid communication. LGUs and DENR staff have noted that partnerships require good communication in addition to trust among the partners, and most important, the responsibility of getting the task assigned done. Landscape approaches, such as Ridge to Reef, lend themselves well to an easily definable geographic entity: a watershed, a group of watersheds, a bay, and an island. These sites are very plentiful in the Philippines. DENR has identified 131 critical watersheds where EcoGov approaches, including the R2R model could be applied. Making certain that these are also critical KBAs also needs to be a criterion if action is taken. More investment in landscape approaches is practical and worthwhile. But it takes a significant effort and time to organize, coordinate and implement R2R activities. There also needs to be a full-time dedicated leader to ensure that the necessary partners are on board, that opportunities are both leveraged, and leveraged at the proper moment, that IEC materials are timely and that there are open and effective communication channels. EcoGov and DENR have experienced some of these lessons. R2R, or a landscape approach is an expensive undertaking. Opportunities for a successful one may be in the Davao Gulf region. City government, the DENR regional office, the regional chamber of commerce, the Garden City of Samal, numerous private sector entities and others are challenged to improve the conservation efforts, reduce threats to biodiversity both in the Gulf and in the upland watersheds. They also recognize that making the region “greener” is also good for business, for the economic growth and health of the region and for improving lives of the citizens in their municipalities. Past experiences and the current activeness of the region make this a prime area for future R2R investment. The various LGU leagues have a role to play in future environmental governance activities. The League of ENROs is a promising one because it involves more permanent members with a technical capacity and understanding grounded in practical events at the LGU level. But for any national-level institution to be involved with LGU actions, there needs to be a stronger leadership that maintains the focus, the communication, and the resources at the local level. Mainstreaming the critical gains achieved with EcoGov is important. LGUs and PLGUs all clamor for “more EcoGov.” There does not have to be more of the same, but the successful approaches and tools can figure in to the next round of technical assistance. The planning tools used in each of the three sectors should be expanded, perhaps relative to climate change adaptation strategies and mitigation approaches. This is another area where an R2R approach can be helpful. 78 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation Assistance to LGUs cannot happen all at one time. There are many other activities that the LGUs have as priorities and these need to be respected. In some cases during its technical assistance implementation EcoGov laid down a formidable gauntlet of activities for an LGU’s participation. Alternative scheduling, annual refreshers, and carefully planned scaling up activities can make these more palatable to LGU staff and increase their likelihood for participation and use. 9.4 DENR-RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS DENR still needs technical capacity building to be effective in undertaking phased devolution to LGUs for management responsibilities. This capacity building needs a significant readjustment of budget to allow this to happen and effective positive change. DENR/USAID collaboration could help to identify what DENR could do/wants to do in the short-term and also plan for what is logically possible in the medium term. DENR wants to mainstream the FLUP. It needs a practical examination of what is possible with current resources, what could be done and where with additional resources, and what the priorities need to be so that momentum with assistance to LGUs in the areas of planning is not lost. Several DENR regional offices have excelled in their technical prowess for proving assistance and working with a variety of LGUs and PLGUs. The partnerships are dynamic and working. A workshop aimed at understanding what has worked and why may be productive and also provide insights for other regions. DENR FASPO understands that without buy-in to EcoGov approaches at the regional offices there is very little chance for moving forward. DENR staff needs to be actors and not just players in the process. Future assistance to DENR needs to be aimed at active involvement of DENR staff in the planning and the monitoring and evaluation of the FLUP actions and activities. The FMB voiced a strong desire for the physical presence of a FLUP project specialist to reside in their national office. This needs to be more closely examined, but to be effective a definitive MOA between DENR and USAID should make it clear that this is a dedicated FLUP position and that is the only focus for the specialist who would be responsible for organizing trainings and events at the national, regional and local levels dedicated to forest land use planning. (These would be of both a technical nature and also aimed at scaling up activities to engage more provinces and LGUs.) The DENR would, in turn, also have to be an equal partner in these activities and also budget manpower and financial resources accordingly. More organized, technically capable and responsive teams are needed at the regional level so that assistance to can be responsive to an LGU query in an email or text. These elements also will require allocations in the DENR regional budgets dedicated to a technical assistance provision. (Even basic funding for fuel for travel is lacking.) Joint and formal cooperation between the DENR and DILG for the implementation of the phased devolution should be designed with the specific steps and responsibilities of the Final Evaluation Report | 79 partnership spelled out in an MOA. A sampling of provincial and municipal LGUs should also be a part of the design process. Communication issues are well-known within DENR, and they represent a serious barrier to successful implementation of many activities. A communication management overhaul with an independent outside consultant may be a worthwhile activity to pursue with a priority focus on the FMB, PAWB/CMMO and the EMB. FASPO and the FMB are to be commended for their efforts to successfully replicate new, successful approaches that come with foreign assistance projects. Their work with the FLUP and the R2R approaches in other donor-funded projects is a very positive step. There are still gaps that exist within other parts of DENR (at the regional offices for example) that prevent these actions from becoming mainstreamed or scaled up. USAID and other donors could work with DENR to make this process more effective. Most environmental governance initiatives are tied up in foreign-funded projects. DENR has only a weak environmental governance arm in-house. The Department also usually relies on consultants of projects to assist in drafting and development of new and needed policies. For the long-term, DENR bureaus should be in a position to formulate white papers that argue for, justify, and contribute to new policy formulation that is appropriate for solidifying the technical assistance roles needed for the phased devolution of management to LGUs. Experienced gained to date by DENR should be used now to do the preliminary work of these new policies. 80 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation 10.0 RESOURCES CONSULTED 10.0 RESOURCES CONSULTED Documents, Reports and Special Communications Alanano R. A. 2010. Coastal Resource Management Program, Dauin, Negros Oriental. Municipal Government of Daiun, Negros Oriental. Power Point Presentation. ARD, Inc. 2007. Philippine Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project (EcoGov2) Midterm Evaluation Report. Prepared under USAID Contract No. EPP‐I‐00‐06‐008, Task Order No. 4 for USAID/Philippines and the EcoGov Midterm Evaluation Committee. 69p. Clark, J. R. 1996. Coastal Zone Management Handbook. CRC Lewis Publishers, New York. 964p. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2003. Primer on DENR‐DILG‐LGU Partnership in Forest Management. Manila. Philippine Environmental Governance Program/DENR. 38p. Development Alternatives, Inc. 2011. EcoGov2 Quarterly Performance Report No. 25, October 1 through December 2010 ‐‐ DRAFT. Manila, USAID Contract No. 492‐C‐00‐04‐00037‐00. 34p. Development Alternatives, Inc. 2010. EcoGov2 Annual Report No. 6. Manila, USAID Contract No. 492‐C‐00‐04‐00037‐00. 64p. Foreign‐Assisted and Special Projects Office Philippines DENR. 2009. Proceedings – National Conference on Environment and Natural Resource (ENR) Financing – Helping local government units fund good projects. 23‐24September 2009, Quezon City, Republic of the Philippines. 18p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2010a. Briefer – Guided LGU‐Self assessment of the state of environmental governance practices (GSA). Draft. Manila. DAI/EcoGov 22p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2010b. Good governance practices in forest and forest lands management – a quick guide for local government units. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 2p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2010c. Good governance practices in waste management, solid and wastewater – a quick guide for local government units. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 2p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2010d. Knowledge Management Strategy (DRAFT). Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 24p+annexes. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2010e. Marine protected area management effectiveness and enhanced monitoring and evaluation: Deriving incentives for improving MPA governance. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 49p. Final Evaluation Report | 81 Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2010f. Peaceful T’boli tribe welcomes forest‐based investments in Kiamba: Good governance is a key to development. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 9p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2010g. Post election brief. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 16p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2010h. Ring fencing guide. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 46p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2010i. Ring fencing of LGU ENR programs: Enhancing sustainability. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 12p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2009a. Guided LGU Self‐Assessment on the State of Environmental Governance Practices (GSA) Final 2009 Assessment Facilitator's Handbook. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 8p+annexes. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2009b. Inter‐LGU collaboration helps sustain coastal and fisheries resources. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 2p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2009c. Local governments: addressing global climate change by a “Ridge‐to‐Reef” approach to resource management. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 2p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2008. EcoGov Success Stories, Folio 2 – Empowering people; forging partnerships; and improving lives. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 24p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2007a. EcoGov Success Stories – Helping local communities enjoy the benefits of improved environmental governance. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 24p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2007b. Improving the governance of Philippine coastal and marine areas: A guide for local government units. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 164p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2007c. Mid‐Term (2007) Guided LGU Self‐Assessment on the State of Environmental Governance Practices: Current State and Trends in Governance. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 142p. Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2006. Performance Monitoring Plan (Revised). Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 10p +annexes (and subsequent table updates) Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2005a. Assessment of disposal sites of EcoGov‐ assisted LGUs: Determining ways to ensure compliance with RA 9003. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 32p.+annexes Philippine Environmental Governance Project. 2005b. Guided LGU Self‐Assessment on the State of Environmental Governance Practices (GSA) Report of Baseline 2005 Governance Indices. Manila. DAI/EcoGov. 108p+annexes. U.S. Agency for International Development. 2010. USAID Evaluation Policy. Washington, DC, Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning. 14p. 82 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/   Websites Davao City Chamber of Commerce Biodiversity Activities, accessed Feb 2011 Business and Government “Give Back” to Conserve Davao Biodiversity: Fund Raising Launch Emphasizes Shared Responsibility   http://www.ecogov.org/docs/Story_Bus%20and%20Govt%20Give%20Back.htm   Firm to invest P300‐M in its Wao expansion project, accessed Feb 2011 http://www.mindanaotimes.net/?p=17763   Payment for environmental services in Wao Municipality, accessed Feb 2011 Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) for Watershed Rehabilitation in Wao Surges Ahead http://www.ecogov.org/docs/Story_Payment%20for%20Ecosystem%20Services.htm Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources, accessed Jan‐Feb 2011 http://www.denr.gov.ph/index.php/home.html   Philippines DENR, Forest Management Board, accessed Feb 2011 http://forestry.denr.gov.ph/   Philippines DENR and EcoGov site, accessed Feb 2011 http://www.ecogov.org/   US Agency for International Development, Energy and Environment, accessed Jan 2011 http://philippines.usaid.gov/programs/energy‐environment   US Agency for International Development, Environment and Biodiversity, accessed Feb 2011 http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/biodiversity/pdf/biodiversity_report_2010.pdf US Agency for International Development, Environment and Biodiversity Code, accessed Feb 2011 http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/biodiversity/code.html Final Evaluation Report | 83 ANNEXES 84 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation ANNEX A: STATEMENT OF WORK ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE PHASE 2 PROJECT EVALUATION I. INTRODUCTION   This evaluation statement of work (SOW) aims to measure the effectiveness and the impact, as   well as document the key lessons learned, of the seven‐year USAID‐funded $23.5 million   Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project (EcoGov).   II. BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE   Considered among the world’s centers of species diversity and endemism, the Philippines’ forest and coastal‐marine resources are both critical to economic growth and human health, but also are under constant threat of destruction. Over 100,000 hectares of forests are lost each year due to illegal logging and forest conversion. Seventy percent of coral reefs have been destroyed, and destructive fishing practices threaten food security. Pollution from inadequate solid waste management and inadequate sanitation threatens both biodiversity and human health.   Awarded to Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI) on October 1, 2004 the Project had a 5‐year base contract up to September 30, 2009, with a two‐year option period exercised by the Mission that will end on September 30, 2011. The Project contributes to achieving Assistance Strategic Objective 4 intermediate results of reduced over‐fishing, illegal and destructive fishing; reduced illegal logging and conversion of natural forests; and improved management of water resources and solid waste. In addition, it supports USAID/Philippines’ overall goal of enhanced security, governance and capacities for sustainable, equitable economic growth through the Mission’s environment strategic objective of strengthened management of productive and life‐sustaining natural resources.   Building and expanding on the experiences achieved under the Environmental Governance Phase   1 (December 1, 2001 to September 30, 2004), the objective of the EcoGov’s second phase is to strengthen the capacities of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), local government units (LGUs) and other local institutions to improve the management of forests, coastal‐ marine and water resources, and promote integrated solid waste management by LGUs through effective environmental governance. In addition, at a higher level, the EcoGov Project is also designed to conserve biological diversity by addressing open access and mitigating natural resource‐ based conflicts in priority eco‐regions in the Philippines. Over the years, the EcoGov’s overarching strategy has evolved to promote integrated ecosystem management through a ‘ridge to reef’ approach to environmental governance, which provides a management framework within which actions can be designed and implemented to reduce threats to biodiversity conservation. This strategy aims to help local governments to understand the interconnectivity between various elements and systems within a watershed, or defined bio‐geographic area. EcoGov has developed a comprehensive suite of capacity building tools, instruments, lessons, and best practices.   III. SCOPE OF WORK   Final Evaluation Report | 85 The purpose of this task order is to provide USAID with an evaluation of the Environmental Governance Project (EcoGov) that would measure the effectiveness and the impact to date of the largest Mission biodiversity conservation project. The evaluation shall review the project’s achievement of objectives and results, and examine whether project strategies and approaches are valid, relevant and efficiently carried out to address key environmental challenges in the Philippines. The contractor shall review actual versus planned outputs and results; identify and analyze problems related to project implementation and document lessons learned.   IV. DETAILED WORK REQUIREMENTS The contractor shall answer the following key questions within the evaluation:   1. What have been the key outcomes and impacts of EcoGov?   a) Assess the performance of the project against the results specified in the contract, work plans, gender action plan, and the goals of the USAID/Philippines environment program.   b) Has the program met USAID and GRP objectives?   c) Evaluate whether EcoGov project activities have sufficiently institutionalized good governance approaches and methodologies that resulted in improved natural resource management (NRM) and/or biodiversity conservation.   d) What have been the socioeconomic outcomes of EcoGov?   e) Identify the key outcomes and impact in each sector and level of governance (community, municipal, regional, and national).   f) Has the open access situation of the forest and coastal resources been improved at the   sites EcoGov has been working in?   g) Have conflicts been mitigated in EcoGov’s zones of influence?   2. How effective is the “Ridge to Reef” approach? During the course of its implementation the Project intensified its “Ridge to Reef” approach intended to provide the opportunity to address the key threats to biodiversity along an eco‐regional basis, which may occur from the top of the mountains down to the marine coastal areas.   a) Examine the effectiveness of the “Ridge to Reef” integrated natural resource management approach in addressing the threats to terrestrial and marine ecosystems stemming from human activities affecting those ecosystems including the overexploitation and mismanagement of natural resources.   b) Outline the challenges of implementing the “Ridge to Reef” approach.   c) Which EcoGov sites could be considered models for replication in other areas?   3. How have EcoGov governance approaches impacted threats to biodiversity and improved biophysical conditions? The EcoGov Project intended to demonstrate clear links between governance, the reduction of threats to biodiversity, and ultimately lead to improving biophysical conditions where improved natural resource management strategies are implemented.   a) Assess whether the project’s governance strategies and approaches are valid, relevant, and effective in addressing environmental challenges in the Philippines and reducing harmful environmental practices such as illegal fishing and logging, destruction of coral and marine resources, and improper disposal of solid and liquid wastes.   86 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation b) Specifically, using available data collected at various EcoGov project sites analyze the impact of program activities on the biophysical conditions:   a. Has biodiversity been improved in the sites where EcoGov is working?   b. Has illegal logging and conversion of forests been reduced?   c. What have been the impacts on coastal ecosystems and marine protected areas from project activities?   d. Have there been reductions in the level of pollution from solid waste management and sanitation initiatives? Have these had positive impacts on human health or on biodiversity?   4. What are the primary lessons learned and best practices from EcoGov?   a) Identify those approaches introduced with government partners, local institutions, and communities that were most successful in achieving improved natural resource management and reduction of threats to biodiversity as well as the constraints and challenges that were encountered during project implementation.   b) Identify the lessons learned on scaling up these approaches to a broader range of government partners, local institutions and communities?   c) Identify evidences of effective environmental governance and improved management of forest, coastal and marine resources?   d) Identify which systems, processes, and standards that EcoGov supported that had the most impact leading to the achievement of project results and the extent these have been adopted and sustained by partners.   e) Identify project approaches that, in addition to promoting biodiversity conservation, provided significant financial benefits and other socioeconomic gains for communities.   f) Review the effectiveness of project coordination with partners and stakeholders, including DENR and other national agencies, LGUs, other donors, and other OEE implementing partners.   g) Examine project approaches, strategies, or activities that were not effective and determine why. Analyze cost effectiveness of such approaches, strategies and activities.   5. How effective have EcoGov metrics and indicators been? What performance indicators have been effective and useful in measuring impacts?   a) There are challenges associated with measuring the effectiveness of environmental programs in reducing threats and improving biophysical conditions in complex ecosystems throughout the Philippines. The most critical need is to acquire timely and accurate data about biophysical conditions to better inform stakeholder decisions about the management of natural resources. Therefore, assess which sampling and data collection methods used by the Project have been most effective in accurately monitoring the impacts.   b) Given constraints found at project sites for EcoGov, identify the most effective indicators that have been used to measure changes in biophysical conditions brought about by the reduction of threats to biodiversity, including solid waste and sanitation project activities. Have these been cost effective?   Final Evaluation Report | 87 V. DELIVERABLES AND DELIVERABLE SCHEDULES   The detailed deliverables and deliverable schedule for this contract are as follows:   1. Evaluation Design and Work Plan ‐As soon as practicable after award, the Team Leader and Key Personnel shall meet with the USAID COTR and other USAID Staff to discuss the Task Order and agree on expectations and site visit criteria and deliverable formats. Within 5 days after these discussions, the Team Leader will submit a detailed evaluation plan, methodology, and timeline for the evaluation. This will include, but will not be limited to: initial table of contents of the evaluation report, initial schedule of interviews, interview guides, and sampling of proposed sites to be visited.   2. Draft Evaluation Report and Presentation of Findings ‐ The Evaluation Team will prepare a draft report for review by the COTR. The draft report will include an Executive Summary, presenting the team’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations that address all of the objectives in this SOW. The draft report will also consist of additional appendices and supporting materials. The COTR will provide comments on the draft report within 7 working days of receipt. The Evaluation Team will conduct two presentations of the evaluation findings: one for USAID and, subsequently, another for the DENR. In these presentations, the Contractor shall present preliminary evaluation results (key findings, analysis of the different EcoGov program components, and lessons learned and recommendations).   3. Final Report ‐Following both written feedback on the draft report by the COTR and oral feedback given during the presentation of evaluation findings to USAID and the DENR, the Contractor will be given a week to incorporate comments in the final report, which will be submitted to the COTR for final review and approval. The Evaluation Team shall incorporate necessary edits and prepare the final report and associated presentation materials. The Final Report, with additional associated appendices and supporting materials (e.g. include list of people and organizations interviewed, reference materials, etc.) should include an Executive Summary. The final report should be submitted February 11, 2011 in electronic format not more than one week after comments are due. The report must meet all USAID formatting requirements.   The Evaluation Team will determine the best use of their time, which will be presented as part of their implementation/work plan, including the milestones described above, and timeline to be presented during the inception meeting at USAID, five days after the award.   The Evaluation Team shall have responsibility for the production of the report, with the Team Leader bearing ultimate responsibility for timely submission of the final evaluation report and for coordinating and consolidating team contributions to the final report. All team members are expected to prepare written input for the final report, noting findings and conclusions drawn from interviews and research to assure that all relevant information collected by all team members is included in the analysis. All notes should be submitted with the final report as attachments.   88 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation VI. QUALIFICATIONS OF KEY PERSONNEL Team Composition and Roles: The Evaluation Team will be an interdisciplinary group of specialists which may include experts in natural resources management (forestry, coastal and marine and/or water resources management), urban environmental management, governance, policy or institutional reform, and project/program development and management. The members of the Evaluation Team must have prior experience in evaluating or implementing donor‐funded projects with substantial experience on impact analysis of programs on policy reforms and advocacy and institutional capacity building that links biophysical indicators with governance processes. The team members shall have excellent skills in organizational development, workshop/group discussion planning and facilitation. Including the team leader, the team will likely consist of four (4) team members, excluding one assistant.   The Team Leader will have the ultimate responsibility for overall team coordination of the evaluation activities and timely delivery of outputs. As such, a person with superior experience and credentials in evaluating NRM, biodiversity, and environmental management is recommended. The following qualifications are preferred for a Team Leader:   Have at least 10 years experience in evaluating and/or implementing donor‐funded projects in natural resource management/environmental management, governance/ institutional development or related field with at least five years experience in the Asia/Pacific region and in developing countries, preferably with experience in the Philippines.   Hold an advanced degree (Ph.D. or masters) or equivalent experience in forestry, agriculture, environmental management, community development, rural sociology, development management, public administration or related fields, with expertise preferably in natural resources management.   Excellent written and oral communication skills.   While it is suggested to have a composition of the Evaluation Team members containing a Natural Resources Management (NRM) Specialist, an Urban Environmental Management Specialist, and/or a Governance/Institutional Development Specialist, offerors may propose a different mix of expertise. At least one member of the team must have background in gender and development. The use of qualified local experts is encouraged to the maximum extent possible.   It is also recommended that additional team members have a minimum of the following qualifications:   At least 8 years experience in evaluating and/or implementing donor‐funded projects in natural resources management (forestry and coastal resources management), governance/ institutional development or related field with at least 4 years experience in the Asia/Pacific region and in developing countries, preferably with experience in the Philippines.   Hold an advanced degree (Ph.D. or masters) in environmental science/management, forestry, coastal resources‐fisheries, agriculture/fishery development, community development, rural sociology, public administration or related fields, with expertise preferably in forestry, coastal and Final Evaluation Report | 89 marine management or water resources management, with expertise preferably in solid waste management, toxic and hazardous waste management, or water and sanitation.   Excellent written and oral communication skills.   VII. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The Evaluation period is planned within the December 2010 – February 2011 timeframe. USAID anticipates that the Evaluation Team will conduct the evaluation in the Philippines for a total period of six (6) weeks, with an authorized six‐day working week, for a total estimated level of effort of 134 work days.   Expected to begin on or around December 20, 2010, it is anticipated that the Evaluation team will be fielded to locations in the Philippines no later than second week of January for a period of about four weeks.   VIII. EVALUATION CRITERIA The response to this RFTOP is limited to:   1. Technical Proposal (limit 10 pages maximum)   2. Resumes and Biographical Data Sheets for Key Personnel with 3 references (maximum 4 pages each) The proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria:   Technical (100%) 1. Proposed Evaluation Design and Assessment Approach (40%)   Philippine context (25%): Offerors must clearly and concisely describe their understanding of the Philippine environmental context, biodiversity conservation and governance in the Philippines, and the related the development challenges. It is expected that this analysis must go beyond simply restating the information in the SOW. The Offeror should also describe their understanding of USAID environmental programming and earmarks that come into consideration in the implementation of projects such as EcoGov.   Assessment Approach (15%): The Offeror must describe their approach for analysis and evaluation of the EcoGov Project and the illustrative methodology, site selection criteria, and timeline for the evaluation, including site visits. The Offeror shall submit an illustrative timeline as part of the attachment. Describe also how the evaluation will be organized and managed. It is suggested that the Offerors limit the timeframe to no more than four weeks of field work, and to clearly indicate planned start and completion dates.   2. Team Composition (60%) The Offeror’s must propose a team of assessment professionals with the technical, analytical and writing skills and background that meet the requirements in Section VI of the SOW to effectively complete the evaluation. The proposal must demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to field an appropriate team. Team composition will be principally assessed based on the strength and 90 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation relevance of the key personnel’s professional qualifications, and their expertise and experience relative to this SOW. The Offeror must submit resumes, biographical data sheets, and list of 3 references for each individual member being proposed as a separate attachment to the proposal.   PRICE The cost proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness and creativity to reduce costs, and allowability in accordance with the applicable cost principles. The cost proposal will be analyzed for cost realism, reasonableness, completeness and allowability. Where technical proposals are considered essentially equal, cost may be the determining factor. The overall standard for judging cost will be whether the cost proposal presents the best value for the cost   Final Evaluation Report | 91 ANNEX B: EVALUATION TEAM ITINERARY WEEK 1, 17 to 23 January 17-20 January Contract signings, travel prep, initial document review and TL travel to the Philippines 21 January Initial Team Meeting Team briefing with USAID Philippines OEE Introductory meeting with EcoGov management staff 22 January Document review 23 January Rest day (Sunday) WEEK 2, 24 to 30 January 24 January Briefing with DENR FASPO; interview/discussions with FASPO staff 25 January Document review; field visit itinerary planning Interview/discussions with EcoGov senior management staff 26 January Interview/discussions with NCR partners; document review 27 January Field visit itinerary planning; submission of Evaluation Work Plan to USAID 28 January Interview/discussions with NCR partners; document review 29 January Document review 30 January Rest day (Sunday) WEEK 3, 31 January to 6 February 31 January Vehicle travel to Bayombong, Neuva Vizcaya & overnight 1 February Interviews/discussion visit with Provincial partners Travel to Quezon for discussion with LGU and NGO FRENDS Travel to Aritao for discussion with LGU partners; SLF/MRF/composting site visit Return to Bayombong & overnight 2 February Travel to Manila & overnight 3 February Air travel to Davao City, Mindanao & overnight Interviews/discussion with EcoGov regional staff Interview/discussion with Davao City Environment staff Interview/discussion with Samal City LGU staff Interview/discussion with Davao City Chamber of Commerce & Dept of Tourism Interview/discussion with DENR Region 11 RED 92 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation 4 February Vehicle travel to Wao, Lanao del Sur, Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao & overnight Interview/discussion with Wao LGU staff and IPR holders; visits to IPR holdings, training center and nursery, LGU schools for composting & waste segregation activities, the LGU SLF/MRF/composting site 5 February Vehicle travel to Davao & overnight Interview/discussion with DENR Region 11 RTD/Forestry, RTD/PA&W, OIC Chief, CMMD 6 February Rest day (Sunday); Vehicle travel to General Santos City (rental vehicle) WEEK 4, 7 to 13 February 7 February Vehicle travel to Koronadal, South Cotabato Province Interview/discussion with DENR Region 12 RED and RTDs Interviews/discussion with Province EMO staff Interviews/discussion with Governor and DILG staff Vehicle travel to Surallah, South Cotabato Province Interviews/discussions with Surallah LGU staff; site visit to the soon￾to-be-opened SLF serving a cluster of LGUs Vehicle travel to General Santos City & overnight 8 February Vehicle travel to Kiamba, Sarangani Province Interviews/discussion with Provincial staff, Kiamba LGU staff and T’boli PO IPR holders Vehicle travel to Alabel, Sarangani Province Interviews/discussions with Alabel LGU staff; site visit to WWTF Courtesy visit to Provincial governor’s office .. “no one at home” Vehicle travel to General Santos City & overnight 9 February Air travel to Cebu City, Cebu Province (Central Visayas Region) Missed airport interview rendezvous with DENR Region 7 RTD/Forestry Ferry travel to Dumaguete, Negros Oriental & overnight 10 February Vehicle travel to Bayawan City Interview/discussions with Bayawan LGU ENRO staff; site visits to pilot biofuel production facility; WWTF, city nursery and pilot tree plantings; SLF/MRF/composting site Vehicle travel to Dumaguete & overnight 11 February Interview/discussions with Negros Oriental Province ENRD staff Ferry travel to Tagbilaran, Bohol Province & overnight Final Evaluation Report | 93 12 February Vehicle travel to Jagna Municipality Interview/discussions with Province EMO staff, LGU staff from 3 municipalities (Duero, Guindulman, Jagna) that have networked their MPAs Vehicle travel to Tagbilaran & overnight 13 February Rest day (Sunday) WEEK 5, 14 to 20 February 14 February Interview/discussion with Metro Bohol Cluster (11 LGUs networked and trying to open and use a regional SLF) Air travel to Manila & overnight End of field site visits 15 February Team field site visit analyses discussion; draft report planning & assignments 16 February Analyses, NCR partner interviews/discussion 17 February Analyses, NCR partner interviews/discussion 18 February Analyses and writing, NCR partner interviews/discussion 19 February Report writing 20 February Rest day WEEK 6, 21 to 23 February 21 February Report writing, PowerPoint presentations preparation 22 February Evaluation debriefing to USAID; report writing 23 February Evaluation debriefing to DENR; draft report submission to USAID 94 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation ANNEX C: PERSONS CONTACTED, FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVIEWS BY REGION AND SITE MINDANAO Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Wao Municipality, Lanao del Sur Province (16 Females and 5 Males) 1. Elvino Balicao, Jr. Mayor 2. Mary Ruth Catalan Vice-Mayor 3. Bella Bubadilla MPDC/LGU 4. Marina Loja MENRO-Staff 5. Danilo Mahiniay IPR Holder 6. Judith Gracia IPR Holder 7. Dina Gracia IPR Holder 8. Jully De Otog IPR Holder 9. Asunsion Calunsog 10. Cynthia De Otog 11. Arlene Abapo IPR Holder 12. Tranquilina Abapo IPR Holder 13. Perpetua Magdadaro IPR Holder 14. Judith Edulsa IPR Holder 15. Erlinda Pepito 16. Perla Iniego PIO 17. Al Belotenles EA 18. Lida Garcia HRMOII/ LGU-Wao 19. Jonathan Obusca MENRO Staff 20. Martin Bayron 21. Edna Espinosa Lehole Wao Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) XI (1 Female and 2 Males) 1. Myrna Erlinda Arbid OIC, Chief,CMMD, DENR, Region 11 2. Harduardo Patragota RTD- Forestry 3. Emmanuel Isip RTD- PAWAMS 4. Jim Sampulna DENR RED, Region 11 The Garden City of Samal (2 Females and 2 Males) 1. Al David Uy Vice Mayor 2. Cleto Bravo Gales, Jr City Administrator 3. Lludesa Quesada PO III/ LGU-Samal (City ENRO) 4. Teresita Esperanza AO III/ LGU-Samal (City ENRO) Final Evaluation Report | 95 Mindanao- Region XI Davao Region Chamber of Commerce (4 Females and 0 Males) 1. Mary Anne Abundo Executive Director, DCCM 2. Corazon Bayla VP Professional and Service Volunteer 3. Baby Montemayor Chairperson, Davao Region Tourism Council 4. Malou Monteverde DCCCii President Davao City (2 Females and 4 Males) 1. Bienvenido Pogoy MAO- City Agri/ EcoGov TWG 2. Samuel Brotoc CDA- 2 City ENRO 3. Jovencio Umaguing Chief, FRMS/ Member TWG 4. Arthur Cagumbay Exec Assistant 5. Marissa Abella City Councilor/ Chair, Committee on Environment 6. Dolores Remoso Chief, EWMD/ City ENRO Mindanao – Region XII South Cotabato Province (3 Female and 3 Male) 1. Ramon Ponce De Leon Provincial Env. Mgt. Officer (PEMO) 2. Siegfred Flaviano Sup. EMS 3. Nencita Acain Sr. EMS 4. Mary Jane Manlisis Sup. EMS 5. Arthur “Dodoy” Pingoy, Jr. Prov. Governor 6. Josephine Leysa Prov. Dir. DILG Koronadal City, South Cotabato ( 1 Female and 4 Males) 1. Vilma Flautina Nitura Senior SRS-DENR 12 2. Jhul Tare CIESWMS, EMB 12 3. Ernesto Legarda RTD-Forest 4. Datu Tungko Saikel RTD-EMB 5. Alfredo Pascual RED-Region 12 Surallah Municipality, South Cotabato (1 Female and 3 Males) 1. Yolanda Plama MENRO-LGU 2. Jose Mari Pingoy SB- Agri & Environment 3. Jorge Bantista Municipal Administrator 4. Roldan Ensoya Engr. 1- LGU Kiamba Municipality, Sarangani Province (6 Females and 10 Males) 1. Arnold Anog STIPC- AAVI 2. Alfan Fabio STIPC- AAVI 3. Jilsan Siang PENRO- LGU/ EMSI 96 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation 4. Beverly Besmanos EMS 1/ PENRO-LGU 5. Virgie Ares EMS 2/ LGU 6. Emmanuel Fabre CAU-1/CBFM Coordinator 7. Medie Sabal TFCAI Treasurer 8. Julien Wite AA-M 9. Doris Fabre MPDC Secretarial 10. Romy Badac TFOAI 11. Sheellah Corpuz ENCR- 1 12. Antonio Corpin Forest 13. Noel Carino OIC- PEMO 14. Gasparito Dela Cruz MPDO- D-2 15. Venacia Banquil Aquacultural Tech. 16. Edison Andan Alabel Municipality, Sarangani Province (3 Females and 2 Males) 1. Corazon Grafilo Mayor 2. Engr. Allan Rivera MENRO 3. Joel Anton SB Member LGU Alabel 4. Beverly Hermanos EMSI/ PENRO-LGU 5. Jilsan Siang EMSI/ PENRO- LGU NORTHERN LUZON Province of Neuva Vizcaya Bayombong, Provincial Capital (7 Females and 7 Males) 1. Manuel Tabora Provincial Administrator 2. Delia Agumay PSWM Coordinator 3. Ramon Salvador EMS 2 4. Henry Patricio PENRO 5. Romulo Calusat EMS 2- ENRO 6. Teresita Acosta Exec. Dir. FRENDS 7. Luzviminda Valentin EMS 1- ENRO 8. Rosalia Florendo EMS 1- ENRO 9. Francisco Tolentino ENR Officer 10. Zocenia Acdal EMS- 1 ENRO 11. Edgardo Sabroso PO-4 PPDO 12. Marily Juan PDOI- MSWMC 13. Fe Marzan Records Officer 14. Virgilio Saavedra EMSI- ENRO Quezon Municipality, Nueva Vizcaya ( 6 Females, 11 Males) 1. Melchor Manzano MENRO 2. Rolando Dela Cruz MPDC 3. Andres Barsicula BMW 4. Morio Zaboy BMW Final Evaluation Report | 97 5. Campus Guinaat Brgy. Captain 6. Ronnie Jay Bullanit MENRO Staff 7. Luzviminda Valentin EMSI/ ENRO 8. Rosalia Florendo EMSI/ ENRO 9. Charmane Joy Navarro AA 2/ ENRO 10. Belinda Yamballa EMSI/ ENRO 11. Jimmy Batael SB 12. Julius Molinar MENRO Staff 13. Joery Dela Cruz SB 14. Eduardo Dasalla SB 15. Gemma Macadangdang SBM 16. Jun Hangdaan SBM 17. Doris Binwag SBM P.C.L Pres. NV Municipality of Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya (2 Females and 2 Males) 1. Guillermo Peros Municipal Mayor 2. Luzviminda Espiritu SWM Supervisor 3. Amelia Penaflor Planning Officer 4. Eddie Crisologo Municipal Engr. CENTRAL VISAYAS Region 7 (1 Male) 1. Andres Bojos Regional Director, BFAR, Region 7 Province of Negros Oriental (2 Females and 2 Males) 1. Manric Barillo PPO 2- CRM Coordinator ENRD 2. Joaquin Dela Pena PPO 3- Resource Mgt. Coordinator ENRD 3. Lucena Amaro PPO 3- EMS Coordinator/ENRD 4. Mercy Teves PDO 4- Division Chief-ENRD Bayawan City, Negros Oriental (4 Females and 6 Males) 1. Dr. Ma. Gretta Nalbhi LGU-CVU -City Net 2. Adrian Enriquez LGU-CAO -ACC2 3. Faith Napigit CAO -Senior Aqua 4. Joel Baderin LGU –City ENRO 5. Erjien Tenefrancia LGU-CAV –AV3/TWG 6. Cindy Hisona LGU Bayawan- CPSO 7. Kenneth Artes LGU Bayawan- DMO CPDO 8. Mark Duque LGU Bayawan- SP 9. Ranciel Padua LGU Bayawan- FMU 10. Ion Joseph Bollos LGU Bayawan- SEMS Jagna Municipality, Bohol (4 Females and 18 Males) 1. Fortunato Abrenilla Mayor 2. Adelfa Salutan CRM officer- BEMO 98 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation 3. Leonarda Vallejos CDA2- BEMO 4. Amalia Vestal MPA Focal Person- LGU Duero 5. Florito Salamare P.O. President- Duero 6. Mariano Castino Jr. AT-LGU Duero 7. Rufino Jamilosa MFARMC- LGU Jagna 8. Jeremy Horowitz CRM Jagna 9. Sonny Natad CRM Officer 10. Pacheco Rances Chairman MMAB 11. Alex Tadem Mun. Fish Warden Coordinator 12. Miguel Besas Mun. Councillor Guindulman 13. Alejandro Salada SBM/ LGU Guindulman 14. Alberto Café LGU Jagna 15. Geoffrey Gulay AT- LGU 16. Gil Moran LGU- Gumel 17. Camilo Rizano MAO- LGU- Jagna 18. Pacheco Rances Chairman- Jagna 19. Alex Tadem Chief B.D.- Jagna 20. Eleno Laga SBM /LGU Guindulman 21. Roderick Virtudato A.T./ AT Jagna-DA 22. Eriberto Ranin GS/ LGU Jagna DugJan, and Bohol EMO (3 Females and 14 Males) 1. Pacheco Rances Chairman- Jagna 2. Alex Tadem Chief B.D.- Jagna 3. Eleno Laga SBM /LGU Guindulman 4. Roderick Virtudato A.T./ AT Jagna-DA 5. Eriberto Ranin GS/ LGU Jagna Metro Bohol Cluster (9 Females and 10 Males) 1. JND Tocmo LCE- LGU Corello 2. Aristobola Solis MPDC- LGU Cortes 3. Reuben Pantanosas Mayor’s Staff -LGU Dawis 4. Manolito Silangan MPDC- LGU Lila 5. Christopher Racho MPDC- LGU Balilihan 6. Fe Tandugon ESLOM Staff BENU 7. Nestor Canda OIC,DENRD- EMZ 8. Benito Ricalde, Jr. MPDC -LGU Corella 9. Ma. Nenita Chin MPDC -LGU Maribuju 10. Ma. Mercedes Selives MPDC -LGU Davis 11. J.H. Balistoy LCE –LGU Cortes 12. Doimeng Villano MPDC – LGU Loboc 13. Aladin Francis Apale MPDC- Baclayon 14. Leila Café MPDC –LGU Albur 15. A. Alian Uy Mayor – LGU Baclayon 16. Ma. Socorro Trinidad Aqua –BEMO Final Evaluation Report | 99 17. Christopher Exclavrada driver –DENR 18. Joseph Saludes driver – BEMO 19. JB Ganub BEMO NATIONAL CAPITOL REGION National Partners (10 Females and 9 Males) 1. Atty Analizah Teh* Assistant Secretary, DENR Foreign Assisted and Special Projects Office 2. Conrado Bravante, Jr. OIC-Chief, Proj Mgt Div., DENR FASPO 3. Maria Lourdes Ferrer Director, Project Ops & Mgmt Services, DENR FASPO 4. Modesto Lagumbay Sr. Forest Mgmt Spec, Forest Management Board, Planning Div. 5. Norlito Sarmiento Sr. Forest Mgmt Spec., FMB, CBFM Div. 6. Theresa Lim Director, Protected Areas & Wildlife Bureau 7. Ermelita Aguinaldo Exec. Dir.- National Solid Waste Management Commission 8. Maria Delia Valdez NSWMC 9. Raul Jardin NSWMC 10. Ma. Veronica Hitosis Program Officer for Policy and Legislation￾League of Cities 11. Alvidon Asis Program Officer for Environment- League of Cities 12. Third Espero Program Officer for Special Projects –League of Cities 13. Roberto Limbago Program Director, League of Provinces 14. Danilo Villas Dept. Head- Department of Environmental Services(Makati), President – Philippine League of Local Environment and Natural Resources Officers, Inc, Association of Metro Manila Environmental Officers 15. Kathleen Almonte Planning Officer 2 – Department of Environmental Services(Makati) 16. Marivel Sacendoncillo Exec. Dir.- Local Government Academy 17. Luz Baskinas Vice-president, Project Development, WWF Philippines 18. Chrisma Salao CTI Program Leader, WWF Philippines 19. Rollan Geronimo Marine Policy Specialist, Conservation International Philippines USAID/Philippines (2 Females and 2 Males) 1. Rolf Anderson Chief, Office of Energy & Environment 100 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation 2. Oliver Agoncillo 3. Joy Jochico Urban Environmental Specialist 4. Rebecca Guieb Coastal Resources Management Specialist EcoGov Staff (5 Females and 3 Males) 1. Arunkumar Abraham Chief of Party 2. Rebecca Paz Deputy Chief of Party 3. May Segura-Ybañez Regional Manager, Central Visayas 4. Ferdinand Esguerra Regional Manager, Mindanao 5. Melissa Sapdoy UEM Sector Coordinator 6. Bien Dolom FFM Sector Coordinator 7. Christy Owen DAI Home Office Manager 8. Theresa Yap Technical Officer Final Evaluation Report | 101 ANNEX D: EVALUATION TEAM Dr. Steve Dennison is a natural resource specialist with excellent leadership and communication skills and extensive experience leading teams in the design, management, and evaluation of natural resources and environmental activities. Dr. Dennison’s professional career spans 30 years and includes long-term and short-term assignments in Central and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, the US, the Caribbean, and North America. He has been a member or team leader on more than a dozen assessments and has successfully led four multi-disciplinary teams evaluating USAID projects, including the mid-term evaluation of the Philippines EcoGov2 project. He has also worked on a variety of USAID-funded biodiversity conservation, natural resource management, and economic growth activities. Dr. Dennison has been directly responsible for managing long-term USAID contracts and projects for other donors that have emphasized natural resources, biodiversity and protected area planning. Ms. Valerie Go holds a degree in Business Administration and has worked effectively in administration support and as a manger. She has excellent communication skills and works well under minimal supervision. As an independent entrepreneur, her skills have allowed her to work on both domestic and international projects. Ms. Go has worked as an educator, a marketing specialist and a human resource department manager. She owns and operates a boutique bakery business. Dr. Benjamin Gonzales is a Fisheries and Coastal Resource Management Specialist, with 29 years of practical coastal management experience working Philippines BFAR and several donor-funded projects including ICRM and FRMP. He worked on the co-management project in coastal resources in partnership with the Marine Institute International of the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. Based in Palawan, he is a full professor and a researcher specializing in biodiversity management of fishes and integrated coastal resource management, which include establishment of marine protected areas, ecology and biology of fishes, coastal habitat resource assessment, resource protection, rehabilitation, enhancement, and project impact assessment. An author of numerous publications, Dr. Gonzales is currently the ICRM Specialist/Deputy Team Leader of the ICRM Project of DENR/DA-BFAR, funded by ADB. Attorney Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio is currently the Executive Director of the Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc. and at the same time, a member of the Faculty of the College of Law of University of Cebu, Philippines. She has almost 15 years of experience in the field of legal, institutional and planning dimensions of marine and coastal resources management. Her expertise is focused on the fields of governance, institutional development, monitoring and evaluation, environmental policy and advocacy, and technical legal support for coastal and marine resources conservation utilizing science-based tools and approaches. Ms. Conchita M. Ragragio is an environmental planner by profession, with more than 25 years of experience in foreign funded development projects in the Philippines. For five years, as the Urban Environmental Planning Specialist of the USAID-funded Governance and Local Democracy (GOLD) Project, she worked directly with local governments in the formulation of local solid waste management programs, municipal environmental plans and comprehensive land use plans. She also served as Country Program Coordinator of the United States-Asia Environmental Partnership, a 102 | Environmental Governance Phase 2 Project Evaluation Final Evaluation Report | 103 regional program of the USAID that introduced policies, technologies and practices that improve air and water quality, waste management, resource efficiency and environmental governance. She has worked extensively throughout the country as an urban and regional planner, program manager and environmental advocate. She has served as executive director of two NGO networks, and as an independent consultant, has helped to draft environmental management policy, to study solid wastes, toxic and hazardous wastes, and participated as a team member in project evaluation activities. In the mid-term evaluation of the Philippines EcoGov 2 Project as she was the Urban Environmental Management and Local Government Specialist.