protected areas and wildlife bureau department of ... › 2014 › 01 › 2011apr-pir.pdfthose...
TRANSCRIPT
-
UNDP-GEF2011 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW/
PERFORMANCE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEWREPORT
Biodiversity Management DivisionProtected Areas and Wildlife BureauDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources(BMD-PAWB-DENR)
Global Environment Facility (GEF)United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
2
UNDP-GEF 2011 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW/
PERFORMANCE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW
REPORT1 (August 2010 to June 2011)
1This report was generated from the Excel template of the APR/PIR provided by UNDP-GEF Headquarters. The
contents and main sections follow the pro forma based on the Excel templates, This report has been subjected to
final review by the UNDP GEF Regional Technical Advisor (RTA). The ratings on achievement of
development objective (DO) and implementation progress (IP) given by the partners were discussed during the M and E Workshop held on August 31 September 2, 2011. It is hoped that the report will be useful for the
Project’s adaptive management strategy. Only the main sections of the APR/PIR report are presented here. For
those interested in the full report, including Annexes, please contact the NewCAPP PMU .Copies of the full
APR/PIR will soon be available at the GEF website.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
3
Table of Contents
1. Basic Data .................................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Official Project Name ......................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Project Summary ................................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Project Milestones and Timeframe ..................................................................................... 6
1.4 Project Contacts: ................................................................................................................ 6
2. Comments by UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor ................................................................. 7
3. Comments from the UNDP Country Office ................................................................................. 9
4. Rating Description for Meeting Development Objectives ......................................................... 10
5. Progress Towards Meeting Development Objective ................................................................. 11
5.1 Progress Towards Meeting Development Objective as of 30 June 2011 ............................ 11
5.2 Rating of Progress Towards Meeting Development Objective ........................................... 20
6. Rating Description for Implementation Progress ...................................................................... 27
7. Implementation Progress ......................................................................................................... 28
7.1 Key Outputs of the Project as of 30 June 2011 .................................................................. 28
7.2 Rating of Implementation Progress .................................................................................. 30
8. Adjustments to Key Project Milestones and Project Strategy ................................................... 37
8.1 Key Project Milestones ..................................................................................................... 37
8.2 Adjustments to Project Strategy ....................................................................................... 37
9. Financial Information: Cumulative form Project Start to June 30, 2011 .................................... 38
9.1 Disbursement of GEF Grant Funds .................................................................................... 38
9.2 Actual Co-Financing .......................................................................................................... 38
9.3 Additional Leverage Resources ......................................................................................... 39
9.4 Other Financial Instruments ............................................................................................. 39
10. Communications and KM ..................................................................................................... 40
10.1 Story of the Project .......................................................................................................... 40
10.2 Adaptive Management ..................................................................................................... 40
10.3 Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................... 41
11. Partnership .............................................................................................................................. 43
12. Gender Relevance ................................................................................................................ 45
13. Impact Results – Overarching Information ........................................................................... 46
13.1 Contribution to Addressing Climate Change Impacts ........................................................ 46
13.2 Work with Invasive Species .............................................................................................. 46
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
4
13.3 Contribution to the Millennium Development Goals ........................................................ 46
13.3.1 Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger ......................................................... 46
13.3.2 Goal 2: Promote gender equality and empower women ........................................... 47
13.3.3 Goal 8: Global partnership for development ............................................................. 47
14. Impact Results – Protected Area Projects ............................................................................. 48
14.1 Existing Protected Areas Being Strengthened ................................................................... 48
14.2 New PAs/CAs to be established under the Project ............................................................ 50
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
5
1. Basic Data 1.1 Official Project Name : Expanding and Diversifying the National System of Terrestrial
Protected Areas in the Philippines (EDNSTPAP)
1.2 Project Summary
The importance of the Philippines in the world terrestrial biodiversity map rests in it being one of the
seventeen megadiverse countries which host 70-80% of the world’s life forms. Because of its size,
the country is regarded to harbor more diversity of life than any other country on earth on a per
hectare basis. It is one the only two countries in the world – Madagascar being the other, which are
both a megadiversity country and a biodiversity hotspot. The country has more than 52,177
described species, of which more than half are found nowhere else on earth. Of these, 491
threatened species already are listed in the 2004 IUCN Red List. Of more than 1,130 terrestrial
wildlife species recorded for the Philippines, almost half (49%) are endemic; 157 are threatened, and
128 are threatened endemic species. The country is ranked as 5th in the world in terms of the
number of plant species. The archipelago is also now recognized as one of the most important
centers of amphibian and reptile diversity in Southeast Asia. An estimated total of 359 species of
amphibians (101 species) and reptiles (258 species) are now known in the country. Of the 359
species, 246 (68%) are endemic – currently the highest known percentage endemism among
vertebrates. The Philippines is home to 576 species of birds, of which 395 species are resident
breeders. Of the resident breeders, 195 species are endemic, while 126 are restricted range species
(range size estimated to be < 50,000 sq. km.). This record makes the Philippines the 4th country in
the world terms of bird endemism. About 45 species are either extinct in the wild, critical, or
endangered. Forty of the 45 are endemic birds, making the Philippines the number one country in
the world in terms of threatened endemic species of bird. The archipelago is also home to one of the
greatest concentration of terrestrial mammalian diversity in the world and the greatest
concentration of endemic mammals in the world on a per unit basis. The most recent inventory of
land living mammals includes 174 indigenous species, 111 of which are endemic, or about 64%.
Despite this, the mammal assemblage in the Philippines is the 8th most threatened in the world,
with 50 threatened species. The diversity and endemism is believed to be much more than what is
reported due to lack of information and knowledge on many of the country’s KBAs. The country has
one of the highest discoveries in the world, with 36 new species discovered in the last 10 years.
The major threats facing the Philippines’ terrestrial areas include: habitat degradation and land
conversion due to logging and increasing population; overharvesting of resources; minings threats
and infrastructure development. The country’s National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS)
has been the main government response to place important biodiversity areas under effective
management. To date, a total of 2.6 million hectares representing some 117 PAs within the
identified key biodiversity areas (KBAs) are under legal protection. However, the implementation of
NIPASs has certain weaknesses,. Key capacity constraints include: (i) biogeographical
representativeness; (ii) limited capacity for PA management; and (iii) limited financial sustainability.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
6
The expansion of the national PA system to recognize new conservation areas such as those
managed by IPs, local communities and local government units is seen as an opportunity to
accelerate the coverage of the existing system, before the important KBAs are overtaken by these
threats. In partnership with key organizations, local communities and other stakeholders, the Project
will directly address key barriers and establish solid foundations for accelerated expansion of the
terrestrial system in the Philippines, supported by strong management capacities, and sustainable
financing. Three major outcomes are envisaged out of these partnerships: Outcome 1: PA system of
the Philippines has been expanded under new and diverse management regimes (ancestral domain,
local government and community managed areas) to cover an additional 400,000 ha. of Key
Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and with enhanced potential for further expansion; Outcome 2: Improved
conservation effectiveness through enhanced systemic, institutional and individual capacities; and
Outcome 3: Enhanced financial sustainability of the terrestrial PA system.
1.3 Project Milestones and Timeframe
Date of First Disbursement : July 2010 Date Project Manager Hired : September 2010 Revised Planned Closing Date : September 2014 Dates of Project Steering Committee Meetings : September 2010
December 2010
Date of Mid-Term Review : July 2011-June 2012
Date of Terminal Evaluation : July 2014-June 2015
1.4 Project Contacts:
National Project Manager : Floradema C. Eleazar
Government GEF OFP : Undersecretary Analiza R. Teh
Project Implementing Partner : Theresa Mundita S. Lim
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
7
2. Comments by UNDP-GEF Regional Technical Advisor
(Briefly describe the context of the project – what problem it was designed to address – (i.e., threats
to the environment); the long term solution to addressing these threats, and the barriers to
addressing the solution.Summarize the general progress made so far in removing these barriers.
Please keep your input to 1200 words.)
The major threats facing the Philippines’ terrestrial areas include: habitat degradation and land conversion due to logging and increasing population; overharvesting of resources; mining threats and infrastructure development. The country’s National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) has been the main government response to place important biodiversity areas under effective management. NIPAS has a strong legislative basis and good institutional management, and to date a total of 2.6 million hectares has been brought under legal protection within it. However, the NIPAS system suffers from some constraints, including: (i) inadequate biogeographical representativeness; (ii) limited capacity for PA management; and (iii) limited financial sustainability. This project aims to overcome these deficiencies in four ways;
a) by expanding the coverage of the ‘formal’ protected area system under NIPAS by an additional 400,000ha of terrestrial key biodiversity areas to a total of three million hectares;
b) by creating structures which allow ‘non-conventional’ forms of protected areas to be
established and supported, outside the formal NIPAS system. These non-conventional PAs include governance systems such as Indigenous Communities’ Conservation Areas (ICCAs), local protected areas established by Local Government Units (LGUs) as part of local development planning (e.g. within LGU Comprehensive Land Use Plans- CLUPs) and potentially other forms of PAs such as conservation easements, privately-managed reserves, etc.;
c) by improving conservation effectiveness of the existing PA system through increased
capacities at all key levels (systemic, institutional and individual); and
d) by strengthening the financial sustainability of the terrestrial PA system through improved financial and business planning, strengthening existing financial mechanisms under NIPAS, etc.
The project commenced implementation in late 2009, and on-the-ground activities began in mid-2010 after the recruitment of the Project Manager and project team, establishment of offices and other inception-stage activities. In its first year of implementation the project focused on setting out strong and clear baselines to track progress, establishing effective partnerships at the national and local levels, and revalidating some of the key metrics and assumptions on which the project design was built. Immediate progress was made in the expansion of the formal NIPAS system when the Government gazetted three new PAs covering a total of more than 174,500ha. Although this expansion was not the direct result of the project’s activities, it demonstrates the importance that the Government (and particularly the Department of Environment and Natural Resources) places on the expansion of the national PA estate.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
8
In addition, the project has made good strides in engaging with Indigenous Peoples’ groups on the establishment of Indigenous Community Conservation Areas (ICCAs). The project capitalized on interest in ICCAs which grew out of the CBD COP10 in Nagoya, and was able to form partnerships with other networks supporting ICCA establishment in the region. By exploiting this early opportunity the project has been able to make good progress in demonstrating conservation models outside the formal NIPAS PA system. Overall the project has demonstrated good results in its first year, and shows the potential to achieve great success during the rest of its cycle.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
9
3. Comments from the UNDP Country Office (Please use the following comment box to highlight any other significant results that are not addressed in the DO and IP tabs, and include any other comments not entered elsewhere in the APR/PIR. (word limit=400) The IEC activities to promote the project to be noted as excellent. The project participated in the
PINES Conference in August 2010 and put up an exhibit during the SM Green Retail Agenda held last
June 2011. The exhibit showcased the NewCAPP IEC materials complete with the developed video
presentation.
List the dates of site visits by CO staff to the project in this reporting period. (word limit=200)
21 September 2010 - 1st Project Board Meeting;
7 December 2010 - 2nd Project Board Meeting;
23 March 2011 - Operations Manual finalization;
5 May 2011, 2010 Audit exercise exit meeting;
23 May 2011 Launching of NewCAPP;
14-16 June 2011 - Site visit to NugAs and Lantoy, Cebu - Region VII
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
10
4. Rating Description for Meeting Development Objectives
HS –Highly Satisfactory
Project is expected to achieve or exceed all its major global environmental objectives, and yield substantial global environmental benefits, without major shortcomings. The project can be presented as “good practice”.
S – Satisfactory
Project is expected to achieve most of its major global environmental objectives, and yield satisfactory global environmental benefits, with only minor shortcomings.
MS – Marginally Satisfactory
Project is expected to achieve most of its major relevant objectives but with either significant shortcomings or modest overall relevance. Project is expected not to achieve some of its major global environmental objectives or yield some of the expected global environment benefits.
MU – Marginally Unsatisfactory
Project is expected to achieve its major global environmental objectives with major shortcomings or is expected to achieve only some of its major global environmental objectives.
U – Unsatisfactory
Project is expected not to achieve most of its major global environment objectives or to yield any satisfactory global environmental benefits.
HU – Highly Unsatisfactory
The project has failed to achieve, and is not expected to achieve, any of its major global environment objectives with no worthwhile benefits.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
11
5. Progress Towards Meeting Development Objective
5.1 Progress Towards Meeting Development Objective as of 30 June 2011
Project Strategy Objectively verifiable Indicators
Baseline Level Target Level by end of Project Level as of 30 June 2011
Objective: To expand and strengthen the terrestrial PA system in the Philippines by developing new PA models and building capacity for effective management of the system
Expansion of the terrestrial PA estate: increased areas of KBAs under legal protection; new governance types in new conservation areas recognized as part of the national PA system; program for accelerated expansion of PA system
59 terrestrial PAs covering 2.6 million hectares
Additional 9 terrestrial PAs covering 400,000 hectares, bringing the total area of KBA under protection to 3 million hectares
62 terrestrial PAs covering an additional 174,549 has (Mt. Matalingahan Protected Landscape - 120,457 hectares under Presidential Proclamation 1815 dated 23 June 2009; Carac an Panikian Watershed Forest Reserve - 43,601 hectares under Presidential Proclamation 1747 dated 23 March 2009; and Aliwagwag Protected Landsscape - 10,491 hectares under Presidential Proclamation 139 dated 05 April 2011). These were all established through regular program of government
New PAs are established only through the NIPAS process
At least three new governance types – IP, LGU and local community managed conservation areas recognized by Executive fiat as part of national PA system
Existing laws establishing PAs currently do not provide for inclusion of new conservation areas as part of the national PA system. The Project is working towards establishment of a separate registry of new conservation areas (CAs) managed under different governance arrangements such as those managed by indigenous peoples through the recognition of indigenous community conservation areas (ICCAs); and those managed by local government units (LGUs).
No program for accelerated expansion of terrestrial PAs
Program for accelerated expansion of terrestrial PA system to include
N/A
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
12
Project Strategy Objectively verifiable Indicators
Baseline Level Target Level by end of Project Level as of 30 June 2011
to cover new conservation areas
new conservation areas within KBAs developed and ready for implementation
Habitat range of 109 globally threatened species in 9 pilot sites protected
Expected to decrease by at least 10% per year
Increase by 200% N/A (to be assessed at mid-term and final points)
Management Effectiveness in PAs and new conservation areas
Average of 35 in all nine sites
Increase in METT scores in pilot sites by an average of at least 20% compared to baseline levels
N/A (to be assessed at mid-term and final points)
METT scorecard applied in all PAs and new CAs as basis for supporting capacity development and implementing adaptive management
METT scores applied in all PAs per PAWB Memorandum dated 21 May 2010.
Financing of national PA system, including new conservation areas
Governance frameworks for sustainable PA financing – 33.3%
Governance frameworks for sustainable PA Financing – 79%
Governance frameworks for sustainable PA Financing – 41.77% (as of Dec 2010)
Business planning and other tools – 19.6%
Business planning and other tools – 57%
Business planning and other tools – 45.9% (as of Dec. 2010)
Tools and systems for revenue generation and mobilization – 17.54%
Tools and systems for revenue generation and mobilization – 56%
Tools and systems for revenue generation and mobilization – 24.56%(as of Dec 2010)
TOTAL - 24.48% Total – 65% TOTAL –38.07% (as of Dec 2010)
Capacity to manage national PA system
Systemic – 43%
Systemic – 82%
SYSTEMIC: Internal - 60; External - 40; Average – 50
Institutional – 47%
Insitutional – 73%
INSTITUTIONAL: Internal – 59; External – 45; Average- 52
Individual – 43% Individual – 71% INDIVIDUAL: Internal – 58; External – 44; Average - 51
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
13
Project Strategy Objectively verifiable Indicators
Baseline Level Target Level by end of Project Level as of 30 June 2011
Outcome 1: PA system of the Philippines has been expanded under new and diverse management regimes (ancestral domain, local government and community managed areas) to cover an additional 400,000 hectares of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and with enhanced potential for further expansion
Coverage of the national PA system in terms of governance types
Limited to PAs established through the NIPAS process, managed by PAMBs only
Coverage of national PA system is expanded to include new conservation areas under diverse governance types (IP, LGU and local community managed areas)
12 pilot sites identified. Preliminary activities underway to identify and establish conservation areas and develop appropriate management scheme. Two pilot sites identified to demonstrate the procedures for ICCA documentation, mapping and registration in the World Conservation Monitoring Center (WCMC), in partnership with IP groups and national NGOs. Establishment of local conservation areas (LCAs) in three municipalities in Polillo group of islands being documented as an alternative model for LGU managed regime of conservation areas. Lessons and experience from earlier DENR-LGU co management agreements in forest lands also being reviewed as another model for LGU managed establishment of conservation areas.
Extent of the national terrestrial PA system in proportion to total area of the country
8% 10% 9.26%
Representation of KBAs in biogeographic zones and ecosystem
Greater Luzon BZ – 48% Greater Luzon BZ – 56% Greater Luzon – N/A (activities not yet commenced)
Mindoro BZ – 49% Mindoro BZ – 81% Mindoro BZ – N/A(activities not yet
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
14
Project Strategy Objectively verifiable Indicators
Baseline Level Target Level by end of Project Level as of 30 June 2011
types in the national PA system
commenced)
Greater Negros Panay BZ – 47%
Greater Negros Panay BZ – 50%
Greater Negros Panay BZ – N/A(activities not yet commenced)
Greater Mindanao BZ – 32%
Greater Mindanao BZ – 37%
Greater Mindanao - 33.5% (established through the regular program of government)
Sulu BZ – 29% Sulu BZ – 46% Sulu BZ – N/A(activities not yet commenced)
Program for expansion and diversification of national PA system
None Expansion and diversification of the national PA system is guided by a 5 year program
N/A(activities not yet commenced)
Outcome 2 : Improved conservation effectiveness through enhanced systemic, institutional and individual capacities
Capacity of PAWB and regional offices to manage national PA system
Capacity Assessment Results:
Capacity Assessment Results: (see data below)
Formulate policies and plans
Systemic – 4 of 6
Systemic – 6 of 6
Systemic - (Internal-4.31 of 6; External-2.92 of 6; Average-3.61 of 6)
Institutional – 2 of 3 Institutional – 3 of 3 Institutional - (Internal-2.32 of 3; External-1.61 of 3; Average-1.96 of 3)
Implement policies and plans
Systemic –3 of 9
Systemic – 6 of 9
Systemic - (Internal-5.33 of 9; External-3.69 of 9; Average-4.51 of 9)
Institutional – 12 of 27
Institutional – 18 of 27
Institutional - (Internal-15.09 of 27; External-11.46 of 27; Average-13.27 of 27)
Individual – 5 of 12 Individual – 8 of 12 Individual - (Internal-6.36 of 12; External-5.38 of 12; Average-5.87 of 12)
Engage and build consensus
Systemic – 3 of 6
Systemic – 5 of 6
Systemic - (Internal-3.05 of 6; External-1.85 of 6; Average-2.45 of 6)
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
15
Project Strategy Objectively verifiable Indicators
Baseline Level Target Level by end of Project Level as of 30 June 2011
Institutional – 4 of 6
Institutional – 6 of 6
Institutional - (Internal-3.77 of 6; External-2.84 of 6; Average-3.30 of 6)
Individual – 1 of 3 Individual – 2 of 3 Individual - (Internal-1.97 of 3; External-1.46 of 3; Average-1.71 of 3)
Mobilize information and knowledge
Systemic – 1 of 3
Systemic – 2 of 3
Systemic - (Internal-1.87 of 3; External-1.46 of 3; Average-1.66 of 3)
Institutional – 1 of 3
Institutional – 2 of 3
Institutional - (Internal-1.82 of 3; External-1.31 of 3; Average-1.56 of 3)
Individual – 2 of 3 Individual – 3 of 3 Individual - (Internal-2.08 of 3; External-1.38 of 3; Average-1.73 of 3)
Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning
Systemic – 2 of 6
Systemic – 4 of 6
Systemic - (Internal-3.48 of 6; External-2.07 of 6; Average-2.77 of 6)
Institutional – 2 of 6
Institutional – 4 of 6
Institutional - (Internal-3.77 of 6; External-3.07 of 6; Average-3.42 of 6)
Individual - 1 of 3 Individual - 2 of 3 Individual - (Internal-1.87 of 3; External-1.08 of 3; Average-1.47 of 3)
Management effectiveness at nine pilot sites
BBNP – 64 BBNP – 932 BBNP = 38
ZMR – 18 ZMR – 79 N/A
Mts. IglitBaco – 60 Mts. IglitBaco – 87 N/A
Mt. Irid Angelo and Binuang – 21
Mt. Irid Angelo and Binuang – 76
N/A
Mt. Nug as Lantoy – 51 Mt. Nug as Lantoy – 95 Nug as Lantoy - 50.21
Mt. Hilonghilong – 15 Mt. Hilonghilong – 79 Mt. Hilonghilong -42
Mt. Nacolod – 10 Mt. Nacolod – 78 Mt. Nacolod– 38
Tawitawi – 27 Tawitawi – 74 N/A
Polilio islands – 47 Polilio islands – 90 N/A
2These targets will be confirmed during Inception
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
16
Project Strategy Objectively verifiable Indicators
Baseline Level Target Level by end of Project Level as of 30 June 2011
Incorporation of BD conservation goals in local plans
Isolated efforts only by a few PAMBs and NGO partners
ADSDPP – 4 (BBNP, ZMR, Mts. Iglit – Baco, Mts. Irid Angelo and Binuang)
None yet. Integration of community conservation plan into ADSDPP in two ICCA pilots (Kalatungan and Cabangan) included as part of the work and financial plan
Resource management plans of local communities - 2 (Nug as Lantoy, Hilonghilong)
None yet. Still in progress.
LGU land use and development plans – 3 (Tawitawi, Mt. Nacolod, and Polilio islands)
None yet. Integration of local conservation areas in LGU comprehensive land use plans in Polillo part of the year’s work and financial plan. In Nacolod and NugasLantoy KBAs, some participating LGUs have prepared their own forest land use plans (FLUPs) through an earlier USAID assisted project. NewCAPP will identify conservation areas within forest zones and enhance existing FLUPs. The LGUs of Mangatarem (Zambales KBA) and General Nakar (Irid Angelo KBA) have prepared their FLUPs. Enhancement of existing FLUPs are targets of the Project.
Operational Manual for local management bodies
Inadequate for use by existing PAMBs; no Manual yet for local management bodies of new conservation areas
Operational Manuals are implemented to strengthen capacities of local management bodies of existing PAs and new conservation areas
Work will start on the development of the Operational Manual before the end of 2011. Focus group discussions with select Protected Area Management Board Chairpersons in early September to define the expectations from this Manual.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
17
Project Strategy Objectively verifiable Indicators
Baseline Level Target Level by end of Project Level as of 30 June 2011
Capacities for M and E Weak for existing PAs; no M and E protocols for new conservation areas
PAWB and local PA/CA Managers and staff have capacities to undertake M and E and use this information for adaptive management
The plan to engage an expert to help in the development of the PA M&E deferred in light of a similar effort under a WB -GEF funded Project on National Program Support for Environment and Natural Resources Management Programme (NPS-ENRMP)
Awareness and support from stakeholders for national PA system
Limited awareness and support, as evidenced by:
Increased awareness and support as evidenced by:
(i) only 10 legislations passed to date;
(i) additional legislations passed to legalize establishment of more PAs and inclusion of CAs in the system;
Three more legislations passed to establish new PAs thru the efforts of government and its partners
(ii) limited amount of IPAF (US$ 2.98 Million);
(ii) increased funding support from various sources;
Increased funding for PA business planning and preparation of management plans.
(iii) high degree of threat of KBAs;
(iii) reduction in levels of destructive activities; and
A baseline study on knowledge, attitude and practice on biodiversity conservation, protected areas, and conservation areas to be conducted in August 2011. Main targets are DENR (national and local levels), NCIP and LGUs. The results will be used to develop appropriate KAP strategy to guide scope of Project support.
(iv) high degree of threat of major biogeographic zones from infrastructure
(iv) number of proposed development projects rejected for being incompatible with PA and CA management objectives
No progress in this reporting period
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
18
Project Strategy Objectively verifiable Indicators
Baseline Level Target Level by end of Project Level as of 30 June 2011
development
Outcome 3: Enhanced financial sustainability of the terrestrial PA system
National level capacity to manage financing of the PA system
Limited capacity by PAWB to manage financing for national PA system
PAWB has improved capacity to use new tools and mechanisms to sustainably manage financing of national terrestrial PA system to include new CAs
No progress in this reporting period. An International Consultant is being recruited to assist in development of national strategy for PA financing.
PA Financial Sustainability, as measured by Financing scorecard
Legal and regulatory framework – 33.3%
Legal and regulatory framework – 79%3
Legal and regulatory framework – 41.77%
Business planning – 19.6% Business planning – 57% Business planning – 45.90%
Tools for revenue generation – 17.54%
Tools for revenue generation – 56%
Tools for revenue generation – 24.5%
Total – 24.48% Total – 65% Total – 38.07%
Number of sites with capacities for financing, business planning and cost effective management
Nil At least 3 new PA/CAs have capacities for site level financing, business planning and cost effective management
Mount Apo Natural Park, Mt. Kitanglad Natural Park; accomplished through regular government program
Number of PAs/CAs using new tools and mechanisms for sustainable financing
Nil Additional PAs/CAs benefit from use of learning manual, revised policies, and replication of sustainable financing tools and mechanisms for PA/CA management
PES scheme of Wao, Lanao del Sur and Upi, Maguindanao where Water Districts pay for use of water; revenues generated accrue to watershed management activities - accomplished through other projects
3These targets will be confirmed during Inception
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
19
Project Strategy Objectively verifiable Indicators
Baseline Level Target Level by end of Project Level as of 30 June 2011
Access to IPAF and levels of collection
IPAF annual allocations legislated through General Appropriations Act US $ 2.98 Million
100% of IPAF collections automatically appropriated for PA management Increase in IPAF collections by 25% or to a level of US $ 3.73 Million
Study in progress; as well as review of existing policies to enable PAs to increase internally generated revenues 56% increase from 2009 to 2010
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
20
5.2 Rating of Progress Towards Meeting Development Objective
By Whom Rating COMMENTS
National Project Manager/Coordinator
S- Satisfactory The Project is on track in establishing the necessary baseline information required to
determine achievement of results and outcomes by end of the Project. It is also on
its path in laying the foundations for recognition of indigenous community
conservation areas (ICCAs) through pilots of processes established by IUCN in
registration of ICCAs in WCMC. For LGU managed conservation areas, it is taking
stock of the experience in one pilot LGU and existing initiatives in DENR-LGU co
management of forests, following the Local Government Code.
In terms of capacity development, the in-depth assessment of sector's capacity in
government is ongoing to inform the formulation of more responsive strategy and
program. At the sites, the partners have implemented priority capacity building
activities such as training on environmental law enforcement and deputation of local
government officials and volunteers. Institutional arrangements for the co
management of forest lands within two key biodiversity areas (KBAs) are being set
up following agreement in principle by local government unit counterpart and their
local Councils.
On PA Financing, work has commenced in reviewing existing policies to improve
revenue generation in PAs; while recruitment of international Consultant is in
progress to help formulate a framework to support the national PA system.
However, a number of issues have affected overall progress. These include: (i)
varying levels of capacities of Local responsible Partners (LRPS); (ii) coordination
issues between two NGOs working in the same site; (iii) difficulty in recruitment of
suitably qualified Consultants and Staff; (iv) changes in leadership in partner agency
(National Commission on Indigenous Peoples) has affected the momentum of
engagement at the policy and program level. The Project is addressing these issues
in the following ways: On variable capacities of LRPs, an in-depth capacity
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
21
assessment was undertaken of three LRPs, and recommendations discussed with
partners. These are being used as basis to monitor actions taken to address the
identified weaknesses. Study findings were also used to strengthen oversight by
Project Management Unit (PMU) on the LRP performance. In terms of poor
coordination among two NGOs working in one of the Project's sites, the
implementing partner - PAWB - organized a dialogue to bridge the gap. This
mediation however, was unsuccessful in resolving the differences in work styles and
principles among the two NGOs. Thus, the Project suspended its activities in the site
until after a more appropriate environment is achieved to enable greater
collaboration.
The absence of suitably qualified staff affected the timely completion of the PMU
team. This has now been addressed, but affected the prompt start up of the
Project's information education and communication work; as well as initiatives in PA
financing. Recruitment of consultants is being done more pro actively, so that those
who could be qualified and interested in the positions available within the Project
are being informed.
The engagement with NCIP - a key partner is being renewed through a series of
presentations and dialogues to inform the new officials of the Project. Engagements
with other groups working to support the plight of indigenous peoples (IPs have
likewise been strengthened, such as the Consultative Group on IPs (a coalition of
NGOs and other organizations working for the advancement of IP rights; wherein
UNDP is a member). Linkages with other personalities such as the Congressman
Chair of the Committee on IPs have been made, to assist in better understanding of
the need for continued institutional collaboration.
GEF Operational Focal Point S- Satisfactory While the Project has encountered substantial delays in the approval of the work
and financial plan, execution of memorandum of agreements (MOAs) with its Local
Responsible Partners, and set back with partnership with NCIP, overall, the
likelihood to achieve the development objective remains high. The Project was able
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
22
to position itself to ensure that the expected results and outcome by the end of the
Project are met. The systematic gathering and establishment of baseline information
have commenced. Various studies, such as capacity assessment of the PAW Sector,
PA Financing, Biodiversity Assessment, Socio-Economic Baseline Study, etc., have
been designed and in varying stages of implementation. These studies, along with
the establishment of baseline information, will ensure there is sufficient basis for
measuring achievement of envisaged results and outcomes.
There are notable progress in the establishment and recognition of conservation
areas outside of the formal system (NIPAS). As early as now, the Project was able to
identify two feasible management regimes: (i) IP-managed conservation areas
through IUCN Indigenous Community Conservation Areas (ICCAs); and (ii) LGU-
managed conservation areas.
Lastly, the Project was able to engage partners in meaningful collaboration/
partnership. MOAs with Local Responsible Partners and DENR Regions have been
signed. Funds to support implementation released. Furthermore, the Project was
able to secure additional funding for the Project sites and leverage resources for the
sector.
Other Partners (i.e., Joint Programs or projects)
S- Satisfactory FROM DENR REGIONAL PARTNERS: The project is relevant, timely and appropriate
considering serious threats to loss of biodiversity. The project provides an
opportunity to explore other management schemes that are appropriate to our
areas. The Project has opened opportunity for establishing new conservation in
more efficient manner; NIPAS proclamation process takes time and resources. Also
the Project is very timely, relevant and appropriate because LGUs and IPs have
initiated their conservation efforts.
FROM LOCAL RESPONSIBLE PARTNERS (NGO PARTNERS): Although we did not reach
global environmental objective (yet,) there have been concrete achievements. In
some areas, actual increases in areas have been accomplished. In one area with or
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
23
without NCIP, FPIC has been given by the IPs; in another, NCIP may pose a serious
shortcoming.
Project Implementing Partner (i.e., Government or NGO)
S- Satisfactory The Project has identified clear approaches towards establishment of new
conservation areas through two major modalities within the framework of existing
legislations. For IP managed conservation areas, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
(IPRA) was deemed sufficient to proceed with the mapping, documentation of
conservation areas within ancestral domains/claims. The Project's pilot in testing the
procedures of the internationally known registry of ICCAs is expected to provide the
necessary impetus towards putting in place the necessary implementing policies,
operating guidelines and procedures, all in support of the IPRA law; which
recognized IP rights and obligations in conservation and sustainable natural
resources management. For LGU managed conservation areas, the Project is
capitalizing on the recent experience with DENR-LGU co-management of forest lands
to under the USAID supported project to pursue the deepening of LGU engagement
in biodiversity conservation. Despite the challenges, it is believed that these are not
insurmountable to enable the Project to achieve the desired outcomes.
UNDP Country Office S-Satisfactory The project has made significant progress in its overall goal of, as the title suggests,
expanding and strengthening the protected areas systems (PAs) by improving
capacities of PAWB at national level to provide assistance to PAMBs in management
of PAs and at the same time identifying the innovative modalities for effective
implementation and management of PAs at the local level.
Partnerships at both national and local levels, which are fundamental in protected
areas establishment, expansion and conservation, have been forged and are
proceeding as designed. The increase in number of sites for the project is seen to
further strengthen the objective of diversifying existing PAs. There have been on-
going activities for strengthening the national level capacities to managing financing
of PA systems for sustainability purposes as well.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
24
Essential to the recognition of new conservation areas is the legal and policy review of the existing NIPAS law, which the project has significantly and purposely been doing. Likewise Involvement of IP-NGOs in the project significantly creates opportunity for the ICCA approach to conservation be further advocated and strengthened.
UNDP Regional Technical Adviser S-Satisfactory During this first full year of implementation the project has made solid progress in establishing baselines and building partnerships at the local level for effective implementation. A competent and dynamic project team has been recruited, with strong leadership and a good mix of skills. The project team and government counterparts have undertaken a thorough process to engage with all key stakeholders involved in the project, from focal Government agencies such as the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) to regional and local counterparts, NGOs and civil society and communities at the project sites. Engagement at the project sites also included reviews of baselines as described in the project document, as well as processes to update capacity assessments against the baselines determined during project formulation. Within the formal national PA system (NIPAS), significant gains have been made in terms of expansion of formal protected areas thanks to a renewed focus on conservation and PAs within the Government. Although this strengthened focus is not a result of the project’s efforts (and no attribution is claimed), it demonstrates a positive change in the enabling environment which will help the project to accomplish the outcomes and objective that have been agreed. These gains have been reflected in concrete terms through the creation of three new protected areas covering an additional 174,500ha:
1. Mt. Matalingahan Protected Landscape, consisting of 120,457 hectares protected under Presidential Proclamation 1815 dated 23 June 2009;
2. Carac an Panikian Watershed Forest Reserve - 43,601 hectares protected under Presidential Proclamation 1747 dated 23 March 2009; and
3. Aliwagwag Protected Landscape - 10,491 hectares protected under Presidential Proclamation 139 dated 05 April 2011).
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
25
Good progress has also been made in identifying and engaging with indigenous
communities in the creation of ICCAs (Indigenous Community Conservation Areas).
This builds upon the focus on ICCAs which came out of CBD COP-10 in Nagoya, and
leverages a useful set of partnerships which the project team has been able to
establish. Engagement with Indigenous Communities at the local level and with
regional IP networks has been strong, and has demonstrated yet again the strong
interest and willingness of local indigenous communities to address conservation
and protection of natural resources as part of their Ancestral Domain management
agendas. At the national level, engagement with Government institutions such as
NCIP will require further attention to ensure that they are fully aware of the
progress being made on the ground, and that they are in a position to provide the
institutional support required to formalize such partnerships as part of national
policy.
Moving forward into the second year, the project should continue to capitalize on
the opportunities to engage with Indigenous Peoples in expanding ICCAs, given the
strong interest expressed by IPs and the momentum that has been created.
Progress in this area will help to strengthen the links between biodiversity
conservation, protected areas, poverty alleviation and community empowerment,
which helps to demonstrate the value of protected area systems as a tool for
sustainable development.
At the same time, the project should continue establishing the foundations required
to engage with LGUs and other partners on other types of non-traditional PA
systems. Engagement with LGUs can be coordinated with the activities to be
undertaken by the PIMS 2904 Biodiversity Partnership Programme, which will focus
on mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into LGUs.
The strengthening of the formal NIPAS system should also continue to be supported,
particularly through more work on the sustainable financing components of the
project strategy. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
26
highlighted sustainable financing as one of their key priorities in the current cycle,
which provides an opportunity for the project to advance this set of activities in its
project strategy.
Note: Please address the following points:
1. Justify your rating
2. Indicate trends, both positive and negative, in achievement of outcomes as per the Project indicators
3. Detail critical risks that have affected progress
4. Outline response to MTR undertaken during this reporting period.
5. Outline action plan to address projects with DO rating of HU, U or MU. Please keep your input to 1200 words.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
27
6. Rating Description for Implementation Progress
HS –Highly Satisfactory
The project was managed in very effective and efficient manner in accordance with the workplan, schedule and budget. The project can be presented as “good practice”.
S – Satisfactory The project was managed in a reasonably effective and efficient manner, largely in accordance with the workplan, schedule and budget
MS – Marginally Satisfactory The project was managed in an acceptable manner but not fully in accordance with the workplan, schedule and budget.
MU – Marginally
Unsatisfactory
The project was managed in a marginally effective and responsive manner but not fully in accordance with the workplan, schedule and budget
U – Unsatisfactory The project was managed in a less than effective manner due to internal or external factors and not in accordance with the workplan, schedule and budget
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
28
7. Implementation Progress4
7.1 Key Outputs of the Project as of 30 June 2011
Project Outcomes Key Outputs this Reporting period
Outcome 1 Review of existing laws to determine whether current policies are sufficient to establish/recognize conservation areas managed by local government units (LGUs); local communities and indigenous peoples completed.
Draft of Joint Administrative Order between DENR and National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) to recognize indigenous community conservation areas (ICCAs) in the Philippines prepared
Agreement reached with Council of Elders of Menuvu community and Philippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID) to document, map and register ICCA in global database of World Conservation Monitoring Center (WCMC); and use the process and experience to document procedures; and learning site for other IP groups for other sites
Stock taking of data and initiatives completed in pilot sites and preliminary studies carried out in selected sites to generate information required for in depth engagement with local stakeholders on the management planning options
Outcome 2 In depth assessment of capacities of Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) and its regional counterparts (Protected Areas, Wildlife and Coastal Zone Management Sector - PAWCZMS) commenced to validate results of capacity assessment score card developed during project preparation; initial results discussed
METT scorecards prepared during project preparation validated in five sites: BalbalasangBalbalan; Nug as Lantoy; IglitBaco; Mt. Nacolod; and Mt. HilongHilong
Capacity development activities carried out at national level and selected sites - learning session on establishment of Polillo local conservation areas; National PA Conference; DENR-LGU co management agreement reviews, wildlife enforcement training and orientations.
Outcome 3 Financing Scorecard reviewed and updated in December 2010
National PA Financing Consultant commenced work on review of existing policies to improve internally generated revenues from PAs
Prepared TOR for PA Business Planning for 18 PAs to be financed under the WB National Program Support for Environment and Natural Resources Management Project (NPS-ENRMP)
Project Management
Establishment of mechanisms for effective and efficient project management commenced. The Operations Manual was prepared and Project partners oriented. Process for annual planning established. AWFP for 2011 prepared in January and revised in June. Proposed 2012 budget under GOP prepared and submitted to DENR. The preparation of Project M&E system started, with revisiting of Results Framework; and RME workshop with partners scheduled in August. One of the
4List maximum of four key outputs produced during this reporting period only.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
29
Project Outcomes Key Outputs this Reporting period
expected outputs is the development of site-specific results framework. Capacity assessment of select LRPs conducted. Recommendations include strengthening of financial management (CBCFI and PBCFI); and technical competencies (SEDFI and CBCFI). All three partners have undertaken measures to strengthen management. Study recommendations became basis for strengthened PMU oversight in three sites.
Establishment of linkages have commenced and shown great potential for generating additional funding and convergence of efforts amongst various organizations.
Small Grant Programme - Project Development Workshop was held in April and has resulted in the approval of 4 out the 6 proposals submitted (2 Polillo; 1 BalbalasangBalbalan; and 1 Zambales); generating new funding for the Project sites amounting to about US $ 182,000.
FCE - Initial discussions with FPE for a MOA to define strategic partnership in common sites were held.
PAFID - Discussions on co-sponsoring a National ICCA Conference in October, 2011.
GIZ - Coordination on REDD+ initiatives is ongoing. Initial discussions have resulted in the following agreements: (i) conduct of a Joint biodiversity assessment in Mt. Nacolod; (ii) Expansion of FRA plots in Southern Leyte to enable estimation of carbon stocks in Mt. Nacolod; (iii) Planned support to enhancing FLUPs of Mt Nacolod LGUs (prepared with GIZ support) to identify critical habitats and prepare conservation plans); (iv) Coordination in policy study on carbon ownership; and (v) NewCAPP membership in REDD+/PNRPS e group, and participation in selected activities.
NCIP - Coordination with NCIP resulted in strengthened partnership. NCIP agreed in principle to execute a MOA with DENR-PAWB to clearly define areas of collaboration. Workshop with NCIP held in May finalized the following: (i) PAWB-NCIP MOA; (ii) TOR of Joint PAWB-NCIP TWGs; and (iii) TOR for the Capacity Assessment of NCIP. It was agreed that the results of the workshop will be presented to the NCIP En banc. However, delays were encountered due to changes in NCIP leadership.
Mechanism to share and discuss innovations in establishing/recognizing conservation areas established. Learning session on Local Conservation Area held in April. This event was participated by project partners whose sites are likely to set up a management regime led by LGUs. Cross visits to project sites that are relatively advance in establishing/recognizing conservation areas were programmed in the revised WFP to allow learning and sharing of experiences and insights.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
30
7.2 Rating of Implementation Progress
By Whom Rating COMMENTS
National Project Manager/Coordinator
S-Satisfactory The Project is generally on track in the implementation of its activities in accordance with the 2010 work and financial plan and the WFP for the first half of 2011. Focus was given to the establishment of project management procedures, setting up of the PMU, and engagement with partner NGOs and DENR field offices at the pilot sites. These facilitated the engagement with stakeholders at the pilot sites early on at Project start. Expressions of support were secured from the local government units concerned; while orientations have been made with IP communities at the sites. The partners are at varying stages of implementation of assessments and other activities required to establish solid information for management planning, which are expected to commence by 2012. Two models of governance in the management of conservation areas were being looked at. The first, is through the IUCN process of recognizing ICCAs, as the pathway to the recognition of IP managed conservation areas. Two pilot sites have been identified where ICCA procedures will be demonstrated. Site plans include cross visits by other IP groups in the rest of the Project sites to hasten learning among peers and promote uptake of the ICCA approach. A policy review has been completed which confirmed that existing laws and policies are sufficient to establish conservation areas managed by IP and LGUs. A successful Project launch was held last May, which was attended by key personalities in the ENR sector, and high level officials from partner organizations. The Project's information and education campaign was given a boost with the engagement of the Project staff. A number of activities are in train to propel the information campaign of the Project; and develop a strong foundation for the Project's information and communications strategy. These include the development of the Project website, a Project video; news magazine; and the knowledge, attitudes and practice (KAP) study which is being put up for bids. In order to ensure the relevance of Project supported activities, linkages were established with ongoing and planned initiatives of WB, GIZ, UNDP-GEF-SGP, and the regional ICCA consortium to better define the scope of the Project's outputs to capture relevant developments in similar areas of concern.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
31
By Whom Rating COMMENTS
Additional financing was leveraged from the GEF SGP; while complementary financing arrangements were agreed with GIZ in one of the pilot sites. Overall delays however, were encountered in 2011 implementation due to delays in approval of the calendar year's WFP which resulted in delays in releases of funds and delays in formalization of the annual Memorandum of Agreements with partner NGOs and DENR field offices. Issues related to stakeholder readiness and conflicts in one of the Project sites, and financial management concerns in another site; contributed to delays in the implementation of activities. The Project submitted a revised budget in June, to reduce the overall budget for CY 2011; to account for delays in implementation. Total Project expenditures is placed at US$ 212,370; which represents about 6.07% of the total budget; at 16.6% time elapsed.
GEF Operational Focal Point S-Satisfactory Given the delays, the Project was able to meet most of its targets for the year. It was also able to lay a solid foundation for the recognition of conservation areas managed by IPs. Additional two pilots were selected for this, which will follow the indigenous community conservation areas (ICCAs) process of IUCN. This process will lead to the registration of ICCAs in the international database of WCMC. The development of policy support for this type of management regime will soon begin with the engagement of the National ICCA Consultant and renewed partnership with NCIP. For the LGU managed conservation areas, the Project is looking at the Polillo Group of Islands experience. Capacity building for PAW Sector has begun with the conduct of in-depth capacity assessment. For the past year, the Project provided partners a number of capacity development activities as preparatory for the full implementation of the Project at the site level. Works on improving PA Financing are underway. The National Consultant has started the study, and the selection process for International PA Financing Consultant is now on its final stage. The project management mechanisms have been set up. Development of annual plans what been institutionalized. Project Operations Manual prepared and implemented. The activities for the development of monitoring and evaluation (M
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
32
By Whom Rating COMMENTS
and E) system of the Project have started.
Other Partners (i.e., Joint Programs or projects)
S-Satisfactory FROM DENR REGIONAL PARTNERS: Rating – Satisfactory
There were some NCIP problems of FPIC approval include high cost of processing
fees; for some areas, the NCIP cost is minimal as it is considered an IP project,
however, LGUs are supportive to the project as they find it is relevant considering
the climate concerns. The IP groups are also supportive of the project.
FROM LOCAL RESPONSIBLE PARTNERS (NGO PARTNERS): Rating – Marginally
Satisfactory
Delays especially in funding, MOA signing have serious implications especially for
those with short duration partnership with NeWCAPP.
Project Implementing Partner (i.e., Government or NGO)
S-Satisfactory The Project has quickly put in place the necessary support systems to allow smooth
implementation of planned activities; and mobilized partners to get involved in the
Project. The start-up period was therefore short, which paved the way for early
implementation of activities designed to achieve the desired end of the Project
results. Its engagement with stakeholders is a strong quality of the Project. The
expanded team, composed of DENR field officials and staff and partner NGOs, were
adept at recognizing issues and bottlenecks, and has implemented adaptive
management strategies to overcome these.
UNDP Country Office S-Satisfactory The project officially began its 2010 activities in an Inception Workshop in August 2010, though the project document was signed earlier in the year. This can be attributed to the delay in the hiring of the Project Staff in order for the financial releases to the IP could commence. During these 5 months of 2010, the project was able to achieve substantial first steps in the project implementation. Convening the Project Board twice and activities conducted for the selection of local responsible parties and the eventual forging of partnerships through MOAs.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
33
By Whom Rating COMMENTS
For Jan-June 2011, major activities were conducted to include capacity assessment of the LRPs, finalization of the Project Operations Manual; conduct of the Project Launch and specific site-level activities (site visits, data collection and stakeholder consultation). One of the key strategies that the project could be commended on is the constant involvement of major stakeholders in the project activities and consultations, such as the DENR, PAWB staff, local PAMBs and DENR Regional Offices, local government units and of course the partner-NGOs. For Output 1, wherein recognition of new conservation areas is the focus, the policy review was completed, which confirmed sufficiency of existing laws to recognize conservation areas managed by indigenous peoples (IPs) and local government units. Hiring of the legal consultant to look into the gaps and initiate the policy framework and strategy was also done in 1st quarter 2011. The legal consultant provided technical and legal policy advice as well to the project sites. At the site level, plans commenced to support two IP groups to demonstrate the process for recognition of indigenous community conserved areas (ICCA) and registration in the World Conservation Monitoring Center. For Output 2, capacity assessment scoping activities for DENR and PAWB have been initiated while for NCIP, this is to be done in 3rd quarter 2011. Lastly on the PA financing output, the Project supported definition of scope for government’s major effort to develop PA business plans and improve PA financing. In terms of disbursements, of the 2010 budget of USD191,159, the project disbursed USD127,698.43 or 67%. This however is substantial given the 5 month period of implementation only. For 2011 as of 30 June 2011, the project which reduced its 2011 AWP budget to USD842,005, has utilized only 12% of this however, there is an anticipated increase in expenditures in 3rd and 4th quarters of 2011. The mechanism for the effective implementation of the project has been in place and barring any major problem.
UNDP Regional Technical Adviser MS-Marginally Satisfactory
The project is in its first full year of implementation, with the first funding disbursement having taken place in July 2010. Implementation was initially slow due
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
34
By Whom Rating COMMENTS
to some delays in the recruitment of the Project Manager and the rest of the project team. The project manager was recruited in September 2010, however a full project team complement was only in place early in the second quarter of 2011. Some delays were also encountered while systems were established for financial management and reporting within the national executing agency (DENR). Despite the initial delays, the project has managed to accomplish a solid set of activities in the reporting period. A strong project team has been recruited, who have established effective working-relationships within DENR and with partners at the local level. Operational systems and procedures were developed quickly and have been mostly been functioning effectively. This includes development of a comprehensive Operations Manual that captures management and reporting requirements at both UNDP and DENR, initial work on the project’s M&E Framework (to be completed in 2011) and development of more detailed site-level results frameworks for each of the project sites. These site-level results frameworks complement the overall project results framework by setting out more specific targets and strategies for each site, in a frame which complements the targets and indicators in the project LogFrame. Some teething-problems were encountered in the financial management and reporting systems, which delayed disbursement of project funds at the start of calendar 2011. These problems are being addressed to ensure that similar delays are not encountered in the next calendar year. Capacity development activities have also proceeded at a good pace. In-depth capacity assessments were conducted at the central and regional levels, assessed against the baseline capacity levels documented in the capacity development scorecards completed during formulation. The project conducted assessments along two dimensions; internal self-assessments by the relevant offices, and external assessments by partners and stakeholder. By comparing the results of these two assessments the project has been able to highlight interesting differences in perspective which will help to refine and better target capacity development activities. Capacity assessments of project partners (Local Responsible Parties) were also
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
35
By Whom Rating COMMENTS
conducted. These assessments identified a need for financial management and technical capacity improvement in three of the LRPs. These improvements are being undertaken, however this has delayed disbursement of site-level funding to the LRPs, which has significantly affected overall financial delivery against the annual workplan. Aside from these site-level delays, which have necessitated some adjustments in timing at the activity level, progress remains broadly on track for most outputs. Progress at some sites has been slower than others, however the project team and project board are aware of the factors circumscribing movement at these sites and have put in place contingency plans to shift activities elsewhere if these obstacles are impossible to overcome. Good progress has also been made in establishing collaboration with partners such as the World Bank, GIZ and the ICCA alliance. These efforts do not have a discernable impact on financial delivery or achievement of quantifiable outcomes, however they will set the stage for smoother implementation and stronger results in the future. However despite the strong efforts of the project team and the wide range of activities undertaken particularly in the first half of 2011, the overall financial delivery rate remains very low at 6.4% of total project budget. Total planned delivery for 2011 is US$1,312,355 however actual delivery to June 2011 is only US$84,401.15. This represents by far the most pressing implementation concern for the project. Two main factors appear to have hampered delivery; delays in release of funds to LRPs due to capacity and fiduciary management constraints highlighted in the capacity assessments, and delays in the release of project funding at the start of 2011 due to budget and workplan approval issues within DENR and UNDP. The former issue is being addressed and will be largely resolved this year, however efforts will have to be made to ensure that approval procedures in DENR and UNDP do not hamper delivery any further. Although overall implementation progress has been strong – and has improved
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
36
By Whom Rating COMMENTS
significant since the full project team was recruited and funds released – the extremely low delivery rate requires a rating of no better than Marginally Satisfactory. If this issue can be resolved (and progress in Q2 of 2011 indicates that delivery is improving strongly) then further progress at this pace will raise the rating to at least Satisfactory in the next reporting period.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
37
8. Adjustments to Key Project Milestones and Project Strategy
8.1 Key Project Milestones
Have significant delays occurred in the project start, inception workshop, Mid-term Review, Terminal
Evaluation or project duration? If the changes have not been reported in previous years APR/PIR the
please complete the table below. ____Yes_____
Key project milestone Scope of Delay (in months):
Briefly Describe Change or Reason for Change
Source that approved this change where relevant (e.g. Mid-term Review, field visit, project
Project Start (i.e. project document signature date)
Inception Workshop 6 Delays in recruitment of project staff and release of first tranche of funds
None
Mid-term Review
Terminal Evaluation
Project Duration (i.e. project extension)
8.2 Adjustments to Project Strategy
Has the project made any change to its strategy since the Project Document was signed? If the
changes have not been reported in previous years APR/PIR the please complete the table below.
____No_____
Change Made to: Yes/No Briefly Describe the Change and the Reason for that Change
Project Objective No
Project Outcomes No
Project Outputs/Activities No
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
38
9. Financial Information: Cumulative form Project Start to June 30, 2011
9.1 Disbursement of GEF Grant Funds
How much of the total GEF grant as noted in the Project Document plus any project preparation grant has been spent so far?
Estimated cumulative total disbursement as of 30 June 2011. (i.e. CDR information up to 20 June 2011).
USD212,370
Add any comment on GEF Grant Funds.
This amount represents 6.07% of the total GEF financing for the Project; at 16.6% time elapsed in implementation (10 months for the period August to June 2011; over 5 years - 60 months). The level of funds utilized is way below the planned disbursements due to start up delays in calendar year 2010; and the delays experienced in the beginning of 2011 in the approval of WFP; including issues in implementation.
9.2 Actual Co-Financing
How much of the total con-financing as committed in the Project Document has actually been realized?
Estimated cumulative actual co-financing as verified during Mid-term Review (MTR) or Terminal Evaluation (TE)
Add any comment on actual co-financing in particular any issues related to the realization of in-kind grant, credits, loans, equity instruments and other types of co-financing.
Additional funds amounting to US$ 690,925 will be mobilized to support government efforts in PA business planning and other efforts to raise internally generated revenues from PAs. These funds will come from the loan portion of the WB-GEF National Program Support for Environment and Natural Resources Management Project (NPS-ENRMP)
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
39
9.3 Additional Leverage Resources
Have additional resources that were not included in the project documents as co-financing been realized since project?
Estimated cumulative leveraged resources as of 30 June 2011
US $184,246 (from GEF Small Grants Programme) US $ 46,517 (from Toyota Motors Corporation (Japan) Environmental Activities Grants Program
Add any comment leveraged resources.
Project facilitated access to funds from UNDP-GEF Small Grants Programme by local partners in four sites in the amount of US$ 184,246. In addition, Haribon Foundation was able to mobilize an additional US$ 46,517 from Toyota Motors Corporation to support the activities in Mangatarem (Zambales KBA)
9.4 Other Financial Instruments
Does the project provide funds to other Financial Instruments?
No
If yes, please discuss developments that occurred this reporting period only.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
40
10. Communications and KM
10.1 Story of the Project
Almost 19 years after the passage of the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of
1992, Philippine biodiversity has remained vulnerable from extractive activities. While the NIPAS has
placed some 61 terrestrial PAs within Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) under legal protection, there are
institutional, systemic and individual factors that still weaken its implementation.
Providing strategic and long-term solution to these management constraints, the PAWB-DENR with
financial assistance from the GEF through the UNDP launched the New Conservation Areas in the
Philippines Project (NewCAPP) in 2010. According to Director Mundita Lim of PAWB, the
Department aims to diversify the management models for biodiversity conservation through
NewCAPP. The Project is now piloting new governance regimes such as indigenous community
conservation areas, local government-managed and community-managed conservation areas in 12
biodiversity-rich areas. If recognized and strengthened, these regimes offer enormous potential to
make biodiversity conservation in the country more flexible, doable and effective in maintaining
ecological balance and preventing biodiversity loss.
To date, NewCAPP continues to foster partnership with the DENR, civil society, local government and
indigenous peoples in reviewing capacities, exploring strategies, and implementing activities leading
towards model building and sustainable biodiversity conservation. Only in its first year of
implementation, the Project has generated strong uptake from stakeholders, who believes that the
project approach will address the many weaknesses of the current system of establishing nationally
legislated protected areas in the Philippines.
10.2 Adaptive Management
In one of its sites, the Project encountered issues relating to relationships between its NGO partner
and another NGO. Efforts for the two NGOs to collaborate implementation of activities have failed.
Further, there were indications of lack of trust among two major stakeholder groups - IP and local
government. In response, the Project deferred implementation of planned activities until the issue
is resolved.
During the same period, the Project received requests from two IP communities for assistance in
documentation, mapping, registration of their indigenous community conservation areas (ICCA) and
development of community conservation plans. One of the sites is outside of the pre identified KBAs
of the Project. In cognizant of this strong uptake and stakeholder support, the Project revised its
AWFP to accommodate such requests. These new partnerships will enable the Project to pilot the
ICCA recognition process and use the areas as demonstration and learning sites for other indigenous
peoples. The engagement in these two additional sites will enable the Project to meet its objectives
at lesser cost, and with excellent added value.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
41
10.3 Lessons Learned
The following were the important leanings during the period:
It is essential that the process for securing FPIC, based on NCIP guidelines be fully understood by local partners to promptly initiate formal engagement with IPs in the implementation of the Project. This lack of understanding has led to under estimation of the time and costs required to secure FPIC, and has affected to some extent, relations with NCIP and IP communities.
Existing FPIC guidelines does not differentiate development projects from those that are meant to contribute to the IP communities’ conservation efforts or reinforcement of their rights to management of ancestral domains, such as what the Project intends to achieve. Current FPIC procedures are costly and time consuming; and has to some extent, contributed to delays in making progress in site based activities.
The need for NCIP cooperation in project implementation is potentially greater than estimated during project preparation.
Dynamics between NGOs working in the same site gets in the way of effective cooperation, thus hampering implementation. Efforts were made by the government in bridging the gap and strike agreements for complementation of efforts have not been successful. Activities have been deferred in the meantime, so as not to sow confusion among local stakeholders; and avoid the risk of duplication of efforts.
Experience has confirmed that conservation strategies based on biodiversity survey and analysis as baseline information facilitates planning.
Long term engagement with stakeholders in programmatic approaches facilitates entry of new initiatives.
It is important to keep an open mind to new ideas and opportunities. The results of the study on NIPAS Act and related laws, and ICCA symposium highlighted the importance of being more flexible in its approach and strategies, to accomplish the same objectives. Partnerships with new groups and sites where there is strong uptake and high degree of readiness provide greater opportunity to demonstrate success.
In some sites, it may take a longer time and more resources for conservation areas to be established due to: (i) dynamics among stakeholder groups, or lack of consensus; (ii) weak capacities of LRP; (iii) absence of similar initiatives in the past or lack of available data to build upon. It is therefore important to strengthen monitoring and engagement to “feel the pulse” of stakeholders, and adopt a phased approach to make informed decisions; identify other sites with strong demonstration potential to promote cross learning; and consider opening a window for supporting other stakeholders with demonstrated high degree of readiness to ensure cost effectiveness in delivering results.
In terms of capacities in the sector, the Project’s initial capacity assessment results largely confirmed the baseline assessment undertaken during preparation. However, internal stakeholders view their capacities slightly better than external stakeholders. In addition to
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
42
differences in levels of capacities; external stakeholders perceive the systemic and individual capacities in consensus building and mobilizing information to be weak compared to the internal assessment by internal stakeholders.
NGO partners have different levels of capacities and approaches to conservation work. The challenge is to harness the inherent expertise of these organizations to bring out the best and encourage cross fertilization and sharing of successful strategies.
Considering the Philippine experience in the 90’s in terms of NGO-government collaboration in conservation; there are challenges in bringing back the trust to the level that will enable unimpeded implementation, and encourage real partnership. The Project is helping facilitate in bridging such gap, and in developing a better partnership environment where both parties appreciate the benefits of complementation, particularly at the field level.
The latitude afforded to the local government units (LGUs) in providing local policy support, and additional budgets for conservation is proving beneficial to the establishment of local conservation areas. The challenge lies in harnessing this potential by developing their capacities and establishing sufficient incentives to remain committed to supporting conservation.
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
43
11. Partnership Describe innovative aspects of the project working with (word limit=200 words for each section):
Civil Society Organizations/NGOs
The Project is working with five national and four local NGOs active in the conservation sector and protection of indigenous peoples’ rights; as Local Responsible Partners (LRPs). Memoranda of Agreements were forged with these groups to spell out the partnerships; and specify the scope of their support to implementation of activities in nine areas within the Project's twelve pilot sites. These NGOs had active prior engagements in the sites even before the Project; and some were able to mobilize additional resources. They bring with them proven approaches, methods and tools. The challenge is how to harness these expertise and best practices to encourage cross learning, particularly because partners have variable levels of capacities. Strategic partnerships were also forged with other grant giving NGOs, such as the Foundation for Philippine Environment (FPE); Philippine Tropical Forest Conservation Foundation, Inc. (PTFCF); to enable greater complementation; and mobilize additional resources. Considering the negative experience in the 90s in government - NGO partnerships, it was not easy rebuilding the trust, and acceptance of this modality among some in government. At the site level, the Project is facilitating such collaboration, and is proving beneficial to both parties.
Indigenous Peoples The Project has stirred a strong interest among several IP groups in the documentation, mapping and registration of ICCAs, even outside of its pilot sites. In partnership with two NGOs working on IP rights issues, requests for assistance were received from the Council of Elders from two IP groups. Such expression of interest is a strong demonstration of commitment and ownership; thus ensuring a high likelihood of success. Because of this, these new sites will be much ahead of implementation than the Project’s pilot sites. Likewise, since the activities were initiated by the IP groups, the Project need not secure FPIC. In some areas, engagement with IPs is made possible through the formal FPIC process facilitated by the NCIP. Institutional partnership with NCIP at the site level enabled the development of streamlined approaches to securing the FPIC, compared to what would be an otherwise protracted process. In other sites, formal peoples organizations (POs) established through the work of development organizations have supplanted the traditional governance structures of IP groups. This has proved difficult for the Project – thus it adopted an approach whereby direct engagement with IP recognized leaders and documentation and strengthening of governance structures will be the focus. In some sites, IPs have expressed reservations about the inclusion of their ancestral domains in the national PA system due to perceived overlaps or conflicts in governance; and/or the threat of diminishing their rights over their territories. The approach of the Project to recognize the conservation
-
2011 ANNUAL PROJECT REVIEW/PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
44
efforts of IPs was seen as a welcome alternative to place these areas under effective management