protected areas and wildlife bureau department of ... › 2014 › 01 › 2011apr-pir.pdfthose...

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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


12



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


13



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


14



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


Institutional – 12 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



15







Mobilize information and knowledge

Systemic – 1 of 3

Systemic – 2 of 3






Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and learning

Systemic – 2 of 6

Systemic – 4 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


16



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.


17



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


18



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


19



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


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


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


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


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.


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).


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


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.


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


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.


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.


30

7.2 Rating of Implementation Progress


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.


31


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


32


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.


33


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


34


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


35


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


36


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.


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


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)


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.


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.


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


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.


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


44

efforts of IPs was seen as a welcome alternative to place these areas under effective management

protected areas and wildlife bureau department of ... › 2014 › 01 › 2011apr-pir.pdfthose...

Documents