Project Concept Note s4

Document of

The World Bank

Report No:











Government Of The Philippines


National Program-Support to Environment and Natural Resources Management PROJECT



(Exchange Rate Effective {Date})

Currency Unit / =
= / US$1


January 1 / – / December 31


ADB / Asian Development Bank / EA / Environmental Assessment
APL / Adaptable Program Lending / EcoGov / Environmental Governance
AOs / Administration Order / EMB / Environment Management
BNFI / Bicol National Park
Foundation / ENR / Environment and Natural
CAS / Country Assistance Strategy / ENRU / Environment and Natural
Resources Unit
CBD / Convention on Biological
Diversity / FASPO / Foreign Assisted Program
CBFM / Community Based Forest Management / FMB / Forest Management Bureau
CENRO / Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer / GEF / Global Environment Facility
CEPF / Critical Ecosystems
Partnership Fund / GIS / Geographic Information
CLUP / Comprehensive Land Use
Plan / GOP / Government of the
CPPAP / Conservation of Priority
Protected Areas Programme / GOP / Government of the Philippines
DA / Department of Agriculture / GPOA / General Plan of Operations
and Activities
DA-BFAR / Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources / IBRD / International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development
DA-BSWM / Department of Agriculture-
Bureau of Soil and Water Management / ICB / International Competitive Bidding
DAO / Departmental Administration
Order / IEC / Information and Education
DENR / Department of Environment
and Natural Resources / IEM / Integrated Ecosystem
DILG / Department of Interiors and
Local Government / IPAF / Integrated Protected Area
IPRA / Indigenous Peoples’ Rights
Act / PA / Protected Area
IUCN / International Union for the Conservation of Nature / PAB / Project Advisory Board
JICA / Japan International
Cooperation Agency / PAMB / Protected Areas and Management
LGUs / Local Government Units / PAWB / Protected Areas Wildlife Bureau
LSP / Local Service Providers / PCO / Project Coordination Office
M&E / Monitoring and Evaluation / PFEC / Philippine Federation for
Environmental Conservation
MFO / Major Final Outputs / PENRO / Provincial Environment and
Natural Resources Officer
MGB / Mining and Geosciences
Bureau / PES / Payments for Ecosystem Services
MOAs / Memoranda of Agreement / PSU / Private Service Unit
MSWW / Metro Manila Water and
Sewage Authority / SIL / Sector Investment Loan
MTPDP / Medium Term Philippine Development Plan / SIM / Sector Investment and Maintenance Loan
NBSAP / National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan / SLM / Sustainable Land Management
NEDA / National Economic
Development Authority / USAID / United States Agency for
International Development
NIA / National Irrigation
Administration / UNDP / United Nations Development
NIPAS / National Integrated Protected Areas System / WEM / Watershed and Ecosystem
NPS-ENRM / National Program Support to Environment and Natural
Resources Management / WMC / Watershed Management Council
NRM / Natural Resource
Vice President: / Jeffrey S. Gutman
Country Manager/Director: / Joachim von Amsberg
Sector Manager: / Rahul Raturi
Task Team Leader: / Idah Pswarayi-Riddihough


National Program-Support to Environment and Natural Resources Management




1. Country and sector issues 1

2. Rationale for Bank and GEF involvement 5

3. Higher level objectives to which the project contributes 7


1. Lending instrument 8

2. Project development objective and key indicators 9

3. Project Components 10

4. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design 1211

5. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection 13


1. Partnership arrangements (if applicable) 15

2. Institutional and implementation arrangements 16

3. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results 17

4. Sustainability and Replicability 18

5. Loan/credit conditions and covenants 20


1. Economic and financial analyses 21

2. Technical 22

3. Fiduciary 22

4. Social 23

5. Environment Category B (Partial Assessment) 24

6. Safeguard policies [Idah/Joe] 25

7. Policy Exceptions and Readiness 25

Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background 26

Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies 34

Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring 36

Annex 4: Detailed Project Description 49

Annex 5: Project Costs 66

Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements 67

Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements 70

Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements 75

Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis 78

Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues 79

Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision 80

Annex 12: Documents in the Project File 82

Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits 83

Annex 14: Country at a Glance 85

Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis 87

Philippines: National Program-Support to Environment and Natural Resources Management 96

Annex 16: STAP Roster Review 130


1.  Country and sector issues

A. Country Context

Since the 1980s the Philippine economy has been lagging behind others in Asia with appreciably lower levels of GDP growth and investment per capita than for the region as a whole. Weak economic performance and a fast growing population significantly constrain the country’s ability to reduce poverty. In response to these trends, the Government’s Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP 2004-2010), the President’s 10 point agenda for development and the World Bank’s (WB[1]) current Country Assistance Strategy (CAS), view economic growth (with social inclusion and environmental responsibility), as the principal engines for achieving core development objectives related to poverty reduction and employment. In policy, the guiding principles are to ensure that the positive benefits from growth are optimized sustainably, whilst the real or imputed costs of attaining growth are minimized.

Long term, sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction in the Philippines, moreover, will depend critically on how successful Government will be in improving public service delivery and accountability and encouraging greater and more responsible private investment. Given the very high dependence of the economy and private income on primary resources, the responsible utilization and management of natural capital will be crucial in meeting and sustaining future development goals and preventing excessive environmental costs. Conversely, inadequate regard to implementing sound natural resource management (NRM) measures and safeguarding the nation from excessive environmental degradation will rapidly erode resource inventories (some of which are unique to the Philippines) and seriously offset short term economic gains by significant, longer term costs.

In addition to direct resource costs (depletion of forests, minerals and fish), the country’s propensity to costly natural disasters, as recent events have shown, will likely increase with a result that investor confidence will lag as pollution, health and congestion costs rise, tourism revenues decline and the cost of cleaning up after irresponsible industries falls on Government. Consequently, continued Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) mismanagement constitutes a major impediment to long term growth and poverty reduction.

B. Sector Issues

The Philippines is an archipelago of more than 7,100 islands covering an estimated area of 29.9 million hectares. Its territorial waters cover an estimated 221.1 million hectares or approximately 88% of the Philippine territory. Within these lands are important, but dwindling areas of rainforest which contain high species diversity and high levels of endemism and territorial waters of equally extensive coral reefs, sea grass beds, seaweeds, which are also home to a high diversity of fishes, and beautiful and pristine beaches that attract tourists. The Philippines is one of two countries in the world (the other is Madagascar) that is both a mega-diversity country and a biodiversity hotspot. Per hectare, the Philippines probably harbors more diversity of life than any other country on earth, but this diversity is also under tremendous threat of total destruction.

An expanding population, at present increasing by 2.36 percent annually, weak governance as well as high dependence on, and, “mining” of, natural resources has led to pollution and extensive ecosystem degradation. These threaten the livelihoods and health of a large proportion of the population and could jeopardize economic growth and productivity. Poverty is acute in rural areas where about 47% of the population still lives below the poverty line. Degradation of the environment and natural resource base is reflected in:

·  Severe forest degradation, with forest cover reduced from 70% in 1900, to only 6% remaining;

·  Only one third (32%) of coral reefs remain in good condition, while most are degraded with 27% in poor condition; coastal mangroves are also significantly depleted;

·  Loss of watershed integrity due to inappropriate upland agriculture, deforestation, and road construction, leading to water shortages, sedimentation and natural disasters;

·  Almost half (45%) of the arable lands in the Philippines have been moderately to severely eroded, forcing subsistence farmers to move onto critical and marginal lands;

·  As a result of deforestation and overexploitation, the Philippines has many species under severe threat and endangered with 331 species on International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Vulnerable or Endangered list in 2002 (compared to 183 species in 1992) while 23% of the endemic vertebrate species are threatened.

·  Although the country has 206 priority protected areas (PAs) only 8 of these have been approved by Congress, and most PAs are “paper parks” with limited staff and/or no budget.

·  Air and water pollution in major urban centers exceed national standards;

·  About 31% of diseases are water-related.

At present, about 30% of the country’s population or an estimated 17.4 million people live in upland areas. Half of the area cultivated in the upland areas is characterized by very steep slopes, and much of this land is cultivated without proper soil and water conservation measures being undertaken. This is a particularly serious problem because critical watersheds and protected areas are being damaged. Furthermore, swidden agriculture (or kaingin) is extensively practiced in many areas, adding to the pressure on local forest systems.

Many upland areas rich in valuable timber and minerals are severely affected by unsustainable exploitation practices. Widespread and commercialized illegal logging takes place in many forests, watersheds and protected areas. It has a devastating impact on the ecosystems and negatively affects local communities' livelihood and resource management options. Current environmentally unsustainable mining practices have serious implications for many communities. Likewise rapid urban growth and industrialization has resulted to serious pollution and reduction in the overall quality of life in major urban centers.

The root causes of ENR degradation are sector-wide and inter-related including: (i) overexploitation; conversion of natural ecosystems, such as forests and mangroves, to other uses (such as inappropriate land conversion, upland agriculture, deforestation, and road construction); (ii) migration from lowlands to uplands due to population growth and the limited opportunities for alternative livelihoods; (iii) lack of awareness of natural resource values; (iv) lack of clear tenure; (v) pollution and sedimentation from urban and industrial centers and agricultural expansion; and (vi) because natural resources, and biodiversity, in cases where protected areas have yet to be created, are generally given a lower priority in terms of budgets, there is a general lack of enforcement of appropriate management techniques, even in created parks. A matrix is presented in Annex 1, which demonstrates the linkages between root causes, threats and proposed mitigation measures that could be implemented under the proposed program.

Overall, the present state of the Philippine environment is assessed to be in worse shape than in the previous decade or two, (see 2004 environment indicators from various WB and ADB reports and the UNDP Human Development Index).

C. Government Strategy

The Government of the Philippines (GoP) has undertaken widespread reforms to enhance the policy and institutional framework for ENR management. Numerous laws and regulations are in place. Government institutional functions were transformed with passage of the Local Government Code (LGC), which advocated comprehensive decentralization and devolution of some Department of Environment and Natural Resources Management (DENR) functions to Local Government Units (LGU). Other significant laws include the National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS) Act, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the Mining Act, the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) Act, Fisheries Code, the Wildlife Resources Conservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, the Toxic and Hazardous Waste Management Act and the Clean Water Act. Some of these policies are beginning to have a positive impact by encouraging the integration of environmental concerns and improved sustainable resource use and ecosystem protection into local development planning, though on a limited scale.

Despite these commendable initiatives, many barriers still remain to overcoming the threats to the natural resource base. For example, weaknesses in local resource planning still remain, with biodiversity concerns not sufficiently integrated into sector plans. The major challenge facing the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is to ensure that its core mandates as protector and conservator of environment and natural resources is fully reflected in future development policy and conduct. However, to ensure this, the Department will need to:

I.  Improve credibility and transparency – enhance public confidence in the DENR, away from a perception of being just a regulator to being an effective and respected conservator. This negative perception of the Department, often clouded by allegations of corruption, has significantly limited the ability of DENR to forge constructive partnerships with other Departments and stakeholders in ENR management;

II. Rationalize functions & expenditures- promote a sound and efficient institutional basis for ENR management, only after which other purposeful policy and regulatory actions become more feasible. In this regard DENR needs a substantial institutional overhaul to improve service delivery. In particular: (a) rationalize functions and expenditures; (b) finalize prioritization of functions with budget; (c) enhance effective partnerships with line agencies to improve delivery; (d) devolve more responsibility for ENR management (ENRM) to other public agencies and local government units LGUs where possible; (e) provide incentives for sustained private sector involvement in ENRM; and (f) streamline the policy and legal framework for ENRM to improve effectiveness; and