The National Capacity Self-Assessment Project

of the Philippines (GOP-UNDP-GEF)

The NCSA Document of the Philippines

NATIONAL SELF-ASSESSMENT OF PHILIPPINE CAPACITIES TO MEET COUNTRY OBLIGATIONS TO

THREE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS

• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change • UN Convention on Biological Diversity • UN Convention to Combat Desertification

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU Department of Environment and Ntural Resources of the Philippines

(Focal Point on UNFCCC) PROTECTED AREAS AND WILDLIFE BUREAU

Deaprtment of Environment and Natural Resources of the Philippines (Focal Point on UNCBD)

BUREAU OF SOILS AND WATER MANAGEMENT Department of Agrticulture of the Philippines

(Focal Point on UNCCD)

With assistance from

The National Capacity Self-Assistance Project Team

September 2005

TRANSMITTAL

TO THE HONORABLE MICHAEL T. DEFENSOR SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

NCSA Project Implementing Agency

MR. SECRETARY: Please find with this the Philippines’ National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) Document, entitled National Self-Assessment of Philippine Capacities to Meet Country Obligations to Three United Nations Conventions: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN Convention On Biological Diversity, and UN Convention to Combat Desertification. The document describes the NCSA process done in the Philippines (please see the summary of the process in the next page). It describes the existing levels of Philippine capacities to attend to urgent environmental issues that are the concerns of the three Conventions and to which the country had committed to address in their instruments of ratification. Critical capacities needing to be developed in the short-, medium, and long-terms are identified, including the actions that need to be taken to develop and sustain the capacities. Too, the document describes how the capacities, if strengthened, will contribute toward achieving Philippine development objectives as stated in the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan, Philippine Agenda 21, the Millennium Development Goals, and the President’s BEAT THE ODDs program of priorities (please see the Summary of the NCSA’s Relevance in the Table shown in the third page). We take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the Honorable Secretary, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (as NCSA Implementing Agency), the Focal Agencies (EMB-DENR, PAWB-DENR, and BSWM-DA), and, through you, Mr. Secretary, the UNDP-GEF, for the occasion given us to participate in this endeavor. We thank the DENR-FASPO for the high level of professional facilitation they provided to the NCSA Project Team. THE FOCAL POINT AGENCIES AND PHILIPPINE NCSA PROJECT TEAM DEMETRIO L. IGNACIO, JR Undersecretary Chair, NCSA Project Management Board

Summary of the Philippine NCSA process and products.

PRELIMINARIES Desktop Assessment

(Part I of the NCSA Document) What’s to be Done?

Developing consensus with FPAs on the design of the NCSA process; identification of key documents and stakeholders; developing concensus of method, procedures and data gathering instruments

Method Close working collaboration with FPAs and the NCSA Team; cross-validation of design, methods & procedures among experts from FPAs and the NCSA Team

Product Description of the NCSA process: design, methods, procedures, data gathering instruments, identified key documents and stakeholders

PHASE I Stock Taking Phase

(Part II of the NCSA Document) What’s to be Done?

Determine the existing levels (degrees) of capacities to sufficiently address the thematic concerns of the 3 UN Conventions, and so meet the Philippines’ obligations to each Convention

Unit of Assessment

The Philippines (as a party to each Convention) and its over-all national capacities to address the thematic concerns of the Conventions

Method of Assessment

a. Define “capacity” as “having the people + the funds + the organizations + the public support (dimensions of capacity), to sufficiently address the thematic concerns of the Conventions”

b. Assess national capacities” by assessing the capacities of Focal Point Agencies & of key organizations & sectors attending to the concerns, in regional & national levels (tiers of organization)

c. Assess capacities through triangulation: using data and information gathered from at least 3 sources (including documents) & validated by FPAs, key organizations and sectors in different regions of the country; determine “existing levels” (degrees) of capacities (“severely lacking”, “lacking”, “barely sufficient”, “sufficient”, or “more than sufficient”) as modal indications of similar levels (degrees) of each dimension of the capacity; determine “capacity needs” in terms of degrees to which a capacity needs to be upgraded to “sufficient” level

d. Assess the thematic capacities for constraints (issues & conditions [factors] that promote or hinder the build up of the capacity in the country)

e. Assess the thematic capacities for common and cross-cutting issues & capacity needs (common: capacity needs or constraints indicated in all 3 thematic capacity needs; cross-cutting: capacity needs beyond the thematics but which intensify or weaken their promoting or hindering factors) Existing capacity levels and

capacity needs to address Climate Change matters and obligations

Existing capacity levels and capacity needs to address

Biodiversity Conservation matters and obligations

Existing capacity levels and capacity needs to address Land

degradation & Drought matters and obligations

Inventory of Common Issues and Capacity Needs in 3 levels (tiers) of Social Organization: Individual, Institutional, and Systemic

Products

Inventory of Cross-Cutting Issues and Capacity Needs in 3 levels (tiers) of Social Organization: Individual, Institutional, and Systemic

PHASE II Action Agenda

(Parts III and IV of the NCSA Document) What’s to be Done?

Construct a program of action (an Action Agenda) to develop the capacity needs identified in the stock taking phase; includes prioritizing the needs, how their development might be supported (funded) & sustained, & how their development may be monitored & evaluated over time

Unit of Asmnt The set of capacity needs identified in the stock taking phase Method of Constructing the Action Agenda

a. The FPAs & the NCSA Team initially prioritized the thematic, common & cross-cutting capacity needs as development priorities in the short- (1-3 yrs), medium- (4-6 yrs) & long-terms (7-10 yrs), using criteria adopted by the FPAs, team & stakeholders; also did the initial cut of a Resource Mobilization & Sustainability Strategy & an M&E framework, using criteria adopted by the same parties; activities & projects to translate the Agenda into a program of development in the short to long terms are identified

b. The draft Action Agenda is validated by the FPAs individuallyw c. With the Stock Taking Results, the Action Agenda (the two now constituting the first draft of the whole NCSA

Document for the Philippines), it is submitted for validation to the PCSD, then, if indorsed, to the PMB; if indorsed by the PMB, the Document is submitted to the GOP & UNDP

National Schedule of Priority Capacity Needs (Thematic, Common, Cross-Cutting) Activities to Develop the Priority Capacity Needs Resource Mobilization and Sustainability Strategy

Monitoring & Evaluation Framework

Products

Recommended Projects (described as project briefs in Part IV of the NCSA Document) (to translate the Agenda into a Development Program for consideration by the FPAs, GOP & donors)

The relevance of UN Convention-related capacities to the Arroyo administration’s priority development and governance agenda (“BEAT THE ODDS”).

Direct & Indirect Impacts and Relevance of Improved Convention-Related Capacities Climate Change Biodiversity Conservation Combating Land

Degradation and Mitigate Drought

“BEAT THE ODDS”

10-Point Agenda of the Arroyo Administration

Action: Reduce vulnerabili-ties from climate change (ENSO, sea level rise, more severe weather events)

Action: Reduce threats to genetic assets; build up valuable biological assets

Action: Improve land quality & mitigate the negative effects of drought on productivity

Balance the budget Reduce public spendings on vulnerable infrastructure aand production systems

Stabilize agroecosystems; increase income from agro-industries, bio resources & biotechnologies

Reduce spendings on land stabilization and drought mitigation; more income

Education for all Reduce climate-related threast to schools & school children

Improve nutrition security for school children especia-lly in rural areas

Reduce threats to schools & children (flooding, landslides)

Automate elections Indirect: less vulnerabilities improve incomes & thus social & political stability; this raises voters’ quality & hence lowers pressures vs. electoral process

Indirect: improve agricul-tural incomes raises social & political stability; raises voters’ quality & so lower pressures against electoral process

Indirect: land ql improves agri incomes & so also social & political stability; raise voters’ ql & hence lower pressures against electoral process

Transport & digital infra to link the nation

Reduce climate-related threats to transport & communication systems (flood, landslides)

Indirect, except through higher agri prodn that raise usage & earnings from transport & comm systems

Reduce threats to transport & comm systems, e.g., flooding, erosion, land-slides, and land subsidence

Terminate hostilities Reduce conflicts due to rising climate pressures on primary production

Improve primary producti-vity & incomes; lower social tensions fueling conflicts

Improve land & water quality & so also rural income; lessen social tensions fueling conflict

Heal the wounds of EDSA 1, 2 and 3

Lower climate-related threats stabilizes producti-vity; lowers social & poli-tical tensions

Indirect: biodiversity imp-roves ecosystem services that help lower social, political tensions

Improved land & water quality leads to improved income & so also lower political tensions

Electricity and water to all barangays

Reduce climate-related threats to power & water infrastructure & systems

Improve the quality of watersheds to produce power & water

Lessen threats to power & water systems (erosion, floods, landslide, drought)

Opportunities for liveli-hood (6-10 M jobs)

Reduce climate-related threats to livelihoods & agro-industries

Improve income opportu-nities from agro-industries

Improve land ql & water regimes to support agro-industries

Decongest Metro Manila Improve production oppor-tunities in rural areas and coastlines

Improve primary product-ion in rural areas & support more income seekers from urban areas

Improve primary product-ion in rural areas & support more income seekers from urban areas

Develop Subic & Clark Reduce climate-related threats to Subic & Clark

Increase opportunities for tourism & site values

Stabilize land, soil & water regimes in these sites

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The NCSA Project of the Philippines was funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through a grant executed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The project is implemented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) of the Philippines in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture (DA). The support of Secretary Michael T. Defensor of DENR, Secretary Domingo F. Panganiban of DA, and UNDP Philippines Country Representative Deborrah Landey have been invaluable. So, too, were the support of former Secretary Elisea G. Gozun of DENR and former Secretaries Luisito Lorenzo, Jr. and Arthur D. Yap of DA. The Program Management Board (PMB) provided the principal leadership and direction of the project: • Demetrio L. Ignacio, Jr. Undersecretary for Planning and Policy (DENR) • Atty. Analiza Rebuelta-Teh Assistant Secretary for FASPO (DENR) • Felizardo K. Virtucio, Jr. Director, Agriculture Staff, NEDA • Atty. Lolibeth R. Medrano Director, DENR-EMB • Dr. Rogelio N. Concepcion Director, DA-BSWM • Mundita S. Lim Director, DENR-PAWB • Shella Marie M. Encabo Chief, Economic Development Specialist (NEDA) Focal persons of the three Conventions (UNFCCC, UNCBD, and UNCCD) and their senior technical staff provided the leadership in the conduct of the thematic assessments. They were active participants in all phases and activities of the project: DENR-EMB • Fernandino Y. Concepcion Assistant Director • Joyceline A. Goco Head, IACCC Secretariat and Chief, Insitutional

Coordination & Documentation Section • Ma. Gerarda D. Merilo Senior Environmental Management Specialist • Consolacion P. Crisostomo Development Management Officer IV DENR-PAWB • Lorenzo C. Agaloos Assistant Director • Nancy R. Corpuz Officer in Charge, Planning Staff DA-BSWM • Gina P. Nilo Chief Agriculturist and Chief, Soil and Water

Resources Research Division • Sarah B. Buarao Research Assistant

ii

• Sharon Elvie Marie N. Solito Research Assistant Senior and tehnical staff of the Environment Portfolio of UNDP Philippines provided close support and technical inputs in all project activities: • Dulce D. Supetran Portfolio Manager • Clarissa C. Arida Program Manager • Imelda F. Manal Program Manager • Sharon A. Gil Program Assistant The project was actively and skillfully administered by the DENR FASPO Project Management Office: • Ma. Lourdes G. Ferrer Project Development Officer V and Chief, Project

Evaluation Division; NCSA National Project Coordinator

• Ma. Socorro A. Mallare Executive Assistant III and GEF Desk Officer • Evelyn M. Juanillo Project Evaluation Officer III and ADB Desk

Officer • Raymunda V. Agetano Administrative Staff Previous other officials of the DENR other than former Secretary Gozun, who have served and provided very valuable leaderships in the implementation of the project include: • Rafael E. Camat, Jr. (former Assistant Secretary for FASPO) • Julian D. Amador (former Director of DENR-EMB) The NCSA Team was composed of: • Ben S. Malayang III Institutions Specialist and Team Leader • Candido Cabrido Jr. Thematic Specialist - Land Degradation • Amy Lecciones Thematic Specialist - Biodiversity • Carmelito Tatlonghari Thematic Specialist - Climate Change

The participation of field officials of DENR and DA and representatives of LGUs, civil society organizations, academe, business and industry in different regions of the country, are deeply acknowledged with gratitude.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page LIST OF TABLES Page LIST OF FIGURES Page

iv

ABBREVIATIONS ADB Asian Development Bank ALI Ayala Lands, Incorporated ARCBC ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations AusAID Australian Agency for International Development BSWM Bureau of Soils and Water Management CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CC Climate Change CENRO Community Environment and Natural Resources Office CFNR College of Forestry and Natural Resources (UPLB) CFNR College of Forestry and Natural Resources (UPLB) CHM Clearing House Mechanism CI Conservation International CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CLSU Central Luzon State University CMU Central Mindanao University DA Department of Agriculture DAP Development Academy of the Philippines DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DFA Department of Foreign Affairs DFID Development Fund for International Development (of the United Kingdom) DMMMSU Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University DFI Direct Foreign Investment DoF Department of Finance DTI Department of Trade and Industry EGF Environmental Guarantee Fund EMB Environmental Management Bureau ENSO Equatorial North-South Oscillation ERDB Ecosystem Research and Development Bureau ERF Environmental Revolving Fund EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FASPO Foreign-Assisted and Special Projects Office FPA Focal Point Agency FPE Foundation for the Philippine Environment GAA General Appropriations Act GEF Global Environment Facility GOP Government of the Philippines GSIS Government Service Insurance System GTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation IACCC Interagency Committee on Climate Change IPAF Integrated Protected Area Fund IMO International maritime Organization IRA Internal Revenue Allotments IBRD-WB International Bank for Reconstruction & Development (see also WB [World Bank]) IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFC International Financing Corporation ISU Isabela State University JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JIBEC Japan International Bank for Economic Cooperation

v

LD Land Degradation LGC Local Government Code LGU Local Government Unit LMB Land Management Bureau MDG Millennium Development Goals MGB Mines and Geosciences Bureau MTPDP Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan NAPCPLDD National Action Plan to Combat Poverty, Land Degradation and Drought NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan NC National Communication NCSA National Capacity Self-Assessment NIPAS National Integrated Protected Areas System NZAID New Zealand Agency for International Development NGO Non-Government Organization ODA Overseas Development Assistance PA Protected Area PAB Pollution Adjudication Board PaCSD Palawan Council for Sustainable Development PAMB Protected Area Management Board PASU Protected Area Superintendent PAWB Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau PA 21 Philippine Agenda 21 PCSD Philippine Council for Sustainable Development PI Plan of Implementation (of the WSSD) PO Peoples’ Organizations PENRO Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office R&D Research and Development RO Regional Office RTB Retail Treasury Bond SAFDZ Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development Zone SESAM School of Environmental Science and Management (UPLB) SIDA Swedish International Development Agency SMC San Miguel Corporation SME Small and Medium Enterprises SSS Social Security System SWOT Strength, Weakness, Threats, and Opportunities TA Technical Assistance TSU Tarlac State University UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNCBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNO United Nations Organizations (FAO, UNDP, UNEP, IMO, UNFPA, others) UPLB University of the Philippines Los Baños UPV University of the Philippines Visayas USAID United States Agency for International Development UUT Utility Users Tax V&A Vulnerability and Adaptation WB World Bank WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development WWF-KKP World Wildlife Fund-Kabang Kalikasan ng Pilipinas

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Philippines’ NCSA project1 has two (2) primary and five (5) secondary objectives: • Primary Objectives 1. Identify the priority capacity needs of the Philippines; 2. Identify the barriers to developing the priority capacity needs of the country.

• Secondary Objectives 1. Incorporate environmental issues into the national development process; 2. Develop higher public awareness of existing capacities in the country, what priority

capacities need to be additionally developed, and which of these would be a priority for different sectors and organizations, in relation to Philippine obligations to three UN Conventions: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, including the Kyoto Protocol), UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD, including the Cartagena Protocol); and the UN Convention to Combat Degradation (UNCCD, which encompasses land degradation and mitigating impacts of drought);

3. Identify the particular capacities needing to be developed for local government units (LGUs), to allow them to widen and intensify their participation in meeting the country’s obligations to the three UN Conventions, contribute to achieving the MDGs, and to promote sustainable development in the Philippines;

4. Strengthen the enforcement of environmental laws and regulations in the country; 5. Encourage wider dialogue and information sharing among actors and stakeholders to

the three UN Conventions (cross-thematic collaboration). The assessment combines organizational self-assessments and regional and national stakeholders’ validation and sectoral assessments. It follows the incremental approach described in the UNDP-GEF Guidelines. The Philippines’ existing capacities and capacity needs are assessed against its obligations to each Convention. (The assessment recognizes that meeting the obligations is consistent with national interests of the Philippines. They involve capacities to reduce social and economic vulnerabilities and risks arising from climate change [e.g., El Niño, La Niña, sea level rise, and more frequent and severe weather events like typhoons], capacities to control the threats to genetic resources and ecosystems [that support agricultural production and agro-industries], and capacities to reduce soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, and to mitigate the negative impacts of drought on agriculture and livelihoods. These are concerns in the Philippines with or without the conventions.)

1 To be distinguished from the “NCSA process”. “NCSA project” refers to the implementation of the

agreement between the Philippine Government and UNDP to do the “NCSA process” in the country. “NCSA process” refers to the manner by which NCSA was done in this case, in the Philippines.

vii

An iterative triangulation procedure is used to acquire data and information on existing Convention-relevant capacities and capacity needs in the Philippines. Data triangulation is combined with six rounds of regional stakeholders’ validation, sectoral assessments, and SWOT analysis of existing capacities. The SWOTs focus on identifying the constraints on developing the national capacities to meet the obligations. These include constraints to the sufficiency, efficiency and sustainability of the capacities. The assessment is a two-phase process involving five steps (Table A). It uses a definition of “capacity” which is “capability + commitment”. “Capability” is having (a) the human and technical know-how and (b) financial resources to do the tasks to meet an obligation. “Commitment” is having (a) the institutional resolve to do the tasks (which means having a composite of organizations with mandates and leaderships to do the tasks), and (b) the public support for doing the tasks. “Capability” without “commitment” does not translate to “capacity”. Neither does “commitment” without “capability”. Capacity is relative to having the capability and commitment, and the scale of the problem to be addressed. Table A. General description of the Philippine NCSA project.

PHASE 1 Stock Taking & Thematic Assessments

PHASE 2 Production of the NCSA Document

Sub-Phases Sub-Phases (1)

Desktop Assessments & Organizational

Self-Assessments

(2) Regional

Stakeholders’ Consultations &

Workshops

(1) Drafting of the

Action Agenda & its components

(2) Review and

Validation by the PCSD

(3) Final Review &

Acceptance by the GOP & UNDP;

public presentations Output

A Report on the Stock Taking, Thematic and Synergistic Capacity Needs

Self-Assessment Process and Findings in the Philippines

Output An Action Agenda to Develop Needed Capacities in the

Philippines, indicating: • Priority Needs • Activities to Develop Needed Capacities (Short-term,

Medium-Term, and Long-Term) • Resource Mobilization & Sustainability Strategy • Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

Final NCSA Project Output Philippines’ NCSA Document containing four (4) parts (with attachments and annexes):

• Part 1: Description of the Philippines’ NCSA Process • Part II: Stock Taking Findings: Existing & Needed Thematic & Synergistic Capacities in the Phil • Part III: An Action Agenda to Develop Needed Capacities in the Philippines • Part IV: Summary, Recommendations on Capacity Dev’t Projects, Risks to Capacity Dev’t in the Phil

“Capacity levels” are compared using a 5-tier Likert scale: 1. “Severely lacking”, where there is hardly any of the indicated capability or

commitment that can be readily mustered to do a task; 2. “Lacking”, where there are some of the capability or commitment, but not at levels to

meet minimum standards on doing the task acceptably well; 3. “Barely sufficient”, where there are some of the capability or commitment, but only

to levels that meet minimum standards for doing the tasks acceptably well;

viii

4. “Sufficient”, where the capability and commitment are at levels that meet more than minimum standards for the tasks but with no readily available replacements for them;

5. “More than sufficient”, where the capability and commitment are at levels to meet more than minimum standards, and there are readily available replacements for them.

The assessment identifies levels (degrees) of thematic capacities, and needs, to meet the obligations to each Convention. It also identifies “common” issues and capacity needs in different levels (tiers) of social organization: individual, institutional and systemic. They pertain to the capacities to meet the obligations to the three Conventions together. “Cross-cutting” issues and capacity needs are also identified in different levels (tiers) of social organization, across the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, environment, socio-political). They pertain to conditions that affect the capacities for each Convention, but which the key agencies and organizations addressing the obligations can only at best mitigate. Regional workshops were conducted in clusters of regions in order to allow stakeholders to the Conventions in different parts of the country to participate in, contribute to, and validate the assessments (Table B). Table B. Regional groupings, location and dates of the nationwide stakeholders’ consultation and validation process.

Regional Groupings Location of Workshops Dates Regions 4A, 4B & 5 Tagaytay City February 21-22, 2005 Regions 1, 2 & CAR Dagupan City March 1-2, 2005 Regions 9, 10 & 13 Cagayan de Oro City March 14-15, 2005

Regions 11, 12 & ARMM Davao City March 17-18, 2005 Regions 6, 7 & 8 Cebu City April 6-7, 2005

Regions 3 & NCR Manila April 12-13, 2005 Climate Change The Philippines (as non-Annex I party) has seven (7) obligations to the UNFCCC: 1. Develop and periodically update and publish national inventories of anthropogenic

emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHGs), by sources and sink removals, using comparable methods;

2. Promote and cooperate with other countries in scientific, technological, technical, socio-economic and other research, systematic observations and the development of data archives related to the climate system and to climate change, and on their full, open and prompt exchange;

3. Cooperate in preparing measures to adapt to the impacts of climate change; develop and elaborate appropriate and integrated adaptation plans including vulnerability and adaptation assessments;

4. Integrate climate change considerations in national policies and actions;

ix

5. Promote and cooperate with other countries in developing, applying, diffusing and transferring technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic GHG emissions in all relevant sectors of the economy;

6. Promote and cooperate with other countries in undertaking education, information and training activities that widen and intensify public awareness of climate change and of its impacts, and encourage public participation on addressing them.

7. Regularly prepare and issue National Communications to the Convention, describing actions being taken to meet the objectives of the Convention.

Existing capacities to fulfill the seven obligations are generally low to very low. They vary only slightly across key agencies and sectors. There are only three “sufficient” levels of a dimension of the capacities. This is the human dimension of the capacities to do research and systematic observations, to integrate climate change concerns in national policies, and to conduct education and training. These refer to human resources that are mainly in the EMB and organizations comprising the IACCC. The human, financial, organizational and public support dimensions of the other capacities hover in the low levels of between “severely lacking” to “barely sufficient”. The Philippines needs to substantially upgrade its existing capacities to meet all seven obligations to the UNFCCC, including to the Kyoto Protocol and its mechanisms like CDM. Biodiversity Conservation The Philippines has ten (10) obligations under the UNCBD: 1.2.1 Develop a National Strategy and Action Plan on biodiversity conservation and

national development; 1.2.2 Identify and monitor the important components of biological diversity that need to

be conserved and used sustainably; 1.2.3 Establish protected areas to conserve biological diversity while promoting

environmentally-sound development around these areas; 1.2.4 Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of

threatened species in collaboration with local residents; 1.2.5 Respect, preserve and maintain traditional knowledge of the sustainable use of

biodiversity with the involvement of indigenous peoples and local communities; 1.2.6 Prevent the introduction of, control, and eradicate alien species that could threaten

ecosystems, habitats or species; 1.2.7 Control the risks posed by organisms modified by biotechnology; 1.2.8 Promote public participation, particularly when it comes to assessing the

environmental impacts of development projects that threaten biodiversity; 1.2.9 Educate people and raise public awareness about the importance of biological

diversity and the need to conserve it; 1.2.10 Report on how the country is meeting its biodiversity goals.

x

PAWB and the other key agencies and offices comprising this sector, have presently “lacking” capacities to address the ten obligations. The human, financial, organizational and public support dimensions of their existing capacities are almost all “lacking” except in the case of the human dimension of the capacities of government agencies other than PAWB and the DENR ROs (which are “barely sufficient”). The organizational dimension of the capacities of the same non-PAWB and non-DENR RO agencies are ”lacking” to “barely sufficient”. There are “sufficient” capacities among the agencies and offices in this sector (including PAWB) for formulating, adopting and promoting biodiversity policies, strategies, and plans (like the NBSAP) and for integrating biodiversity concerns into national development plans. This is except DENR ROs, which have a capacity hovering from “lacking” to “sufficient”. The agencies and offices in this sector have “severely lacking” capacities for implementing the Cartagena Protocol (in the event it is ratified), and for providing an enabling environment for its implementation. This sector has “lacking” capacities on the other 8 capacities required to meet the 10 obligations. LGUs, NGOs, academe and research institutions, and business and industry, as a sector, have over-all “lacking” capacities to address the obligations. All groups in this sector have “lacking” levels of the relevant capacities, except academe and research institutions, which have “barely sufficient” capacities. This sector is best with respect to human expertise (but only “barely sufficient”). It is “lacking” in financial capability and organizational support systems. It is worst with respect to public support, which is between “severely lacking” to “lacking”. Over all, the Philippines needs to upgrade its UNCBD-related capacities from “lacking” to “sufficient”. The capacity levels of the PAWB and of the other organizations and sectors relevant to the obligations, need to be elevated from “lacking” to “sufficient”. This is except academe and research institutions that need to have their capacities upgraded from only “barely sufficient” to “sufficient”. Land Degradation and Drought The Philippines has five (5) principal obligations under the UNCCD: 1. Give due priority to combating land degradation (and desertification) and mitigating

the effects of drought, and allocate adequate resources in accordance with its circumstances and capabilities;

2. Establish strategies and priorities, within the framework of the country’s sustainable development plans and/or policies, to combat land degradation (and desertification) and mitigate the effects of drought;

3. Address the underlying causes of land degradation (and desertification) and pay special attention to socio-economic processes;

4. Promote (public) awareness and facilitate the participation of local populations, particularly women and youth, with the support of NGOs, in efforts to combat land degradation (and desertification) and mitigate the effects of drought;

5. Provide an enabling environment by strengthening, as appropriate, relevant existing legislation and, where they do not exist, enacting new laws and establishing long-term

xi

policies and action programs (to combat land degradation and desertification and mitigate the effects of drought).

Existing capacities in the Philippines (which have been disaggregated in the assessment into 19 capacity areas) to address the five obligations vary across relevant agencies. The capacities of the BSWM and related organizations (FMB, DA-ROs, PAOs, MAOs, PENROs, CENROs and PaCSD)2 are “barely sufficient” in 19 capacity areas. They have “sufficient” capacities in 6 areas but generally weak in the other 13 (ranging from “lacking” to “barely sufficient”). When viewed against the 5 obligations together (including the obligations to address field-level problems of soil erosion and loss of soil and water quality), the present capacities of the BSWM and the other key agencies – collectively – are “barely sufficient”. They have “lacking” human and financial capabilities to address the 5 obligations. True, many of these agencies have a good stock of human expertise and equipment in their central offices, but precisely because they are not in the field, they are not translating into real capacities. They are more brain trusts in central offices rather than workhorses on the ground. Over all, LGUs, civil society, academe and industry have low (“lacking” to “barely sufficient”) capacities to address the 5 obligations. But those in Northern Mindanao (Regions 9, 10 and 13) and in Central Luzon and Metro Manila (Regions 3 and NCR) have better capacities than other regions, albeit still low (“barely sufficient”). No sector has capacities exceeding “barely sufficient” in any regional group. Comparably, LGUs and academe have higher capacities, over-all, than civil society and industry, even if they are both low (i.e., “barely sufficient” as against “lacking”). The Philippines needs to do much to substantially upgrade its over-all national capacities to meet its UNCCD obligations, from between “lacking” and “barely sufficient” to “sufficient”. Common and Cross-Cutting Issues and Capacity Needs A framework (Figure A, below) was used for identifying the synergistic issues and capacity needs. Two common issues on individual-level capacities were identified, and two each for institutional and systemic levels. Eleven capacity needs were identified to address all 12 issues. (Table C, below). Six cross-cutting issues on individual-level capacities across economic, environmental and socio-political themes were identified, as were six issues on institutional-level capacities and 14 on systemic-level capacities. Fifteen cross-cutting capacity needs were identified (Table D, below).

2 Other related agencies include the DENR’s MGB and LMB, but they are still to be assessed.

xii

Global Conditions Markets Financial Systems Political Systems Earth Ecosystems Political Systems

Global Risks and Opportunities Environmental Security Economic Security Political Security Cultural Security

Conditions in the Philippines (Cross-Cutting Issues)

Economy Environment Society • Population • Incomes • Employment • Debts

• Fiscal State • Investments • Productivity • Consumption

• Geohazards • Quality of Natural Resources • Quantity of Natural Resources • Pollution

• Structure of Governance • Quality of Governance • Strength and Harmony of

Regulations (e.g. tenure systems)

National Capacities To address Climate Change To Conserve Biodiversity To Combat Land Degradation &

Mitigate the Effects of Drought • Capacities to prepare, update,

communicate GHG inventories • Capacities to cooperate on res-

earch, systematic observations • Capacities to cooperate on

adapting to climate change • Capacities to integrate climate

change considerations in nat’l development plans, programs

• Capacities to cooperate on developing, diffusing, transfer-ing appropriate technologies

• Capacities to cooperate on education, training, public awareness

• Capacities to adopt policies, strategies & action plans

• Capacities to do biotic invent-ories for their sustainable use

• Capacities for good PA mgt • Capacities for rehabilitating

degraded ecosystems • Capacities for protecting trad-

itional knowledge on biodiv • Capacities to control invasive

alien species • Capacities to implement the

Cartagena Protocol • Capacities to strengthen EIA • Capacities for promoting

public awareness • Capacities for Natl Reporting

• Capacities to give due priority to combating land degradation

• Capacities to develop strategies • Capacities to address the under-

lying causes of land degradation • Capacities to promote public

awareness & participation • Capacities to provide an enabling

environment for combating land degradation & drought

Execution Concerns (Common Issues)

Incentives • Salaries of relevant staff • Continuing education & training • Career stability & advancement

Support Systems • Funding • Facilities & equipment • Management systems, administration & leadership • Mandates and Legislation • Public confidence, support and involvement • Complementation of resources across sectors

Activities • Information networks, data gathering; data bases, M&E systems • Report/Communication/Inventory preparations and production • Participation mechanisms in projects

Figure A. Framework for identifying common & cross-cutting issues on national capacities to address the obligations under UNFCCC, UNCBD & UNCCD. Based on the findings & results of thematic assessments.

xiii

Table C. Common issues and capacity needs in the Philippines, by categories.

Category (no of issues)

Common Issues Common Capacity Needs (Capacities to…)

Individual (2)

• Poor incentives for retaining, sustaining appropriate levels of relevant human expertise

• Low availability of relevant continuing education and training programs

• Design, institutionalize effective reward & incentive systems (or improve existing ones) to encourage the tech’l staff of FPAs & other orgs to stay longer w them

• Institute & maintain convention-relevant in-house continuing education & training programs in FPAs & key organizations

Institutional (7)

• Very low levels of financial resources to undertake relevant programs & activities

• Erratic priority given to addressing the thematic concerns by top leaderships that frequently change; when they change, which is often, so do the priorities

• Weak institutional capacities to regularly monitor & evaluate thematic conditions

• Weak mechanisms to regularly involve stakeholders decision making & program implementation including preparing and writing reports to the conventions

• Overlapping & disharmonized mandates • Weak mechanisms for promoting

sectoral complementation of convention-relevant expertise and resources

• Weak enforcement of relevant policies, laws and regulations

• Develop sustainable funding systems & mechanisms

• Design, institutionalize effective systems for sustaining institutional commitments, thematic & synergistic programs, & the commitment of the leaderships of the FPAs and other key organizations

• Design, institutionalize & maintain a national information network relevant to the thematic concerns & the obligations

• Design, institutionalize & maintain a nationwide system to enhance stake-holders’ participation in decision making & programs, including on preparing & writing reports to the conventions

• Do institutional reforms to harmonize mandates & programs

• Strengthen enforcement systems Systemic

(3) • Low public confidence on public sector

agencies as lead entities to address the thematic concerns

• Traditionally low political & budgetary priority given by the national leadership on addressing the thematic concerns

• Low private sector involvement and investments on the thematic initiatives of the FPAs & other key organizations

• Improve the levels of transparency, accountability, policy predictability & participation in FPAs & key organiza-tions, to strengthen good governance & raise the prominence of the thematic concerns & obligations to the public, to nat’l leaders & budget decision makers

• Design, develop & sustain multisector funding support for convention-relevant activities of FPAs & key organizations

xiv

Table D. Cross-cutting issues and capacity needs in the Philippines, by categories and classifications.

Cross-Cutting Issues (by classification of sustainable development concerns)

Category

Economic Environmental Socio-Political

Capacity Needs

(Capacities to…) Individual • Low salary & poor

rewards/incentives in public service

• Poor opportunities for professional growth & mobility of technical staff in government

• Limited cadre of technical staff in the field offices of gov’t agencies

• Most technically competent staff in gov’t are assigned to managerial po-sitions or given many tasks with limited resources

• Generally poor public confidence & esteem on gov’t personnel; wide perception of corruption

• Leaderships in technical agencies are selected more by politics than by competence

• Improve reward & benefits in the civil service

• Offer in-service prof’l growth

• Rationalize appts & staff assgnmts

• Up staff morale & integrity

Institutional • Public agencies & organizations are placing priorities on revenue gener-ation & on draw-ing investments into the country

• The ability of pub-lic sector agencies to do programs is highly constrained by low budgets for opn & maintenance

• Environment is a low budget priori-ty among public agencies

• Public, private and civil society organizations have different views & priorities on environmental concerns; there is low collaboration among them

• Public sector environmental agencies are not viewed as priority political concerns of the government

• Public agencies’ attn on the envt is driven by public clamor to address concerns about it, more than because it is their priority

• Strengthen env’t as public sector program/budget priority

• Promote multi-sector collabora-tion & resource complementa-tion on envt

• Strengthen civil socty, other sec-tors’ ability to influence govt

Systemic • Weak population policy; high pop’n pressures

• High poverty incidence

• High pressures on primary product-ion from global trade & markets

• Severe fiscal pressures on the public sector

• Low private sector investments on the environment

• Widespread geo-logical hazards

• Severe/continuing deforestation

• Serious levels of air, water, land & genetic pollution

• High sectoraliza-tion of environ-mental regulations

• Sustainable deve-lopment is not a high priority of gov’t & industry; dev’t policy is skewed against the thematic concerns

• Poor domestic fin-ancing for env’t

• Weak & flawed tenure systems

• Poor quality of env’l governance is eroding public confidence on govt

• Weak, ineffective env’l criminal justice system

• Insurgency and seperatism

• Strengthen pop’n policy, programs

• Promote SMEs in poverty areas

• Widen domestic markets for local goods & svcs

• Widen the priva-tization of delive-ry of env’l svcs

• Inventory & mo-nitor geohazards

• Codify env’l laws • Operationalize

SD in devt plan-ning/programs

• Improve tenure & env’l criminal justice systems

• Develop anti- corruption culture

• Mitigate effects of conflicts

xv

General Findings Over all, the Philippines has certain capacities in place to fulfill most of its obligations to the three UN Conventions. But these capacities are over-all low (from between “lacking” to “barely sufficient”). They vary across capacities for different obligations, and across the human, financial, organizational and public support dimensions of the capacities. Funding is a most common shortfall in the capacities. Next is human expertise which is generally available but unevenly distributed and not always sufficient to attend to all the obligations on the ground). Organizational commitments – in terms of mandates and designated functions – are there, but almost always without the funds to support their execution. Public support is not sufficiently developed because of funding limitations. Funding and lack of appropriately trained personnel, almost always limit the ability of the FPAs and related organizations to reach out to their publics and engage them in field interventions. Constraints to Capacity Development While there are conditions in the country that promote the development of Convention- relevant capacities, there are also conditions that inhibit it. At the individual level, these constraints involve mainly conditions that influence personnel welfare, incentives, morale, and career growth. At the institutional level, these involve mainly conditions relating to the harmony of the mandates, leaderships, and resources of the FPAs and related organizations, and, too, of LGUs, civil society organizations, academe and research institutions, and of business and industry. At the systemic level, the inhibitors involve policies and governance systems (and their relevance, accuracy of focus, breadth, and quality), which affect the extent that concerned agencies and organizations are able to muster, deploy and keep their human, financial, organizational and political assets to address the obligations.In many ways, Convention-relevant capacities contribute to national capacities to attain sustainable development goals in the Philippines. These goals and the strategies to attain them are spelled out the MTPDP, PA 21, MDG, and the WSSD PI. The successful achievement of the goals will in turn boost the capacities in the country to meet its obligations to the Conventions. These are explained in this report. Capacity Development Programs The Convention-relevant capacities that need to be developed in the Philippines are many and diverse, but specific. This assessment identifies which capacities or their dimensions need upgrading and by how much. Their development can be prioritized and programmed across the short- (1-3 years), medium- (3-6 years), and long- (6-10 years) terms, based on three criteria: urgency, doability, and strategic value (they boost other capacities as well). Funding would be necessary to develop and sustain capacity development and the capacities themselves. A Resource Mobilization and Sustainability Strategy is described. It identifies alternative approaches for acquiring funds to support sustained capacity

xvi

build-up in the country. The strategy is anchored on four criteria to ensure its viability and validity: legal tenability, they promote and meet the requirements of good governance, they are hospitable to local social capital, and they foster national ownership of the capacities. A Monitoring and Evaluation Framework is presented to track progress on the build-up of the capacities over time, The framework is based on four criteria of viability and validity: legal tenability, simplicity and ease of use, it promotes good governance, and it fosters national ownership of the capacities. Action Agenda The thematic, common and cross-cutting issues were assessed for comparative priorities in the short- (1-3 years), medium- (4-6 years) and long-terms (7-10 years). They were consolidated into a schedule of national priority capacity needs in which related thematic and common needs were put together into a single but more thematically encompassing capacity need, and the cross-cutting needs were identified as contexts to developing the thematic needs. The schedule was translated into activities to develop the priority capacity needs. A resource mobilization and sustainability strategy is presented to provide a basis for government to generate funding support for developing the priority capacity needs. The strategy calls for mobilizing three kinds of support: internal (regular budgets of national and local governments, existing mechanisms like IPAF and ERF, and financial instruments like bonds and securities), external (ODA, DFI), and social capital. A monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework is also presented to provide a basis for government to develop protocols and mechanisms for tracking progress on the build up of the thematic capacities in the country, from local to national levels. Summary and Recommendations Figure B summarizes the Philippine NCSA process and products. Ten projects are recommended to develop the priority capacity needs. They include projects to operationalize the resource mobilization and sustainability strategy and the M&E framework. Certain risks to capacity development in the Philippines are identified. They pertain to the political stability of the country, its relationships with donors, the donors’ policies on debt relief and development assistance, and the long-term viability and consistency of the Conventions themselves. Open and regular communications with donors and stakeholders is proposed as one principal way to manage these risks.

xvii

PRELIMINARIES Desktop Assessment

(Part I of the NCSA Document) What’s to be Done?

Developing consensus with FPAs on the design of the NCSA process; identification of key documents and stakeholders; developing concensus of method, procedures and data gathering instruments

Method Close working collaboration with FPAs and the NCSA Team; cross-validation of design, methods & procedures among experts from FPAs and the NCSA Team

Product Description of the NCSA process: design, methods, procedures, data gathering instruments, identified key documents and stakeholders

PHASE I Stock Taking Phase

(Part II of the NCSA Document) What’s to be Done?

Determine the existing levels (degrees) of capacities to sufficiently address the thematic concerns of the 3 UN Conventions, and so meet the Philippines’ obligations to each Convention

Unit of Assessment

The Philippines (as a party to each Convention) and its over-all national capacities to address the thematic concerns of the Conventions

Method of Assessment

a. Define “capacity” as “having the people + the funds + the organizations + the public support (dimensions of capacity), to sufficiently address the thematic concerns of the Conventions”

b. Assess national capacities” by assessing the capacities of Focal Point Agencies & of key organizations & sectors attending to the concerns, in regional & national levels (tiers of organization)

c. Assess capacities through triangulation: using data and information gathered from at least 3 sources (including documents) & validated by FPAs, key organizations and sectors in different regions of the country; determine “existing levels” (degrees) of capacities (“severely lacking”, “lacking”, “barely sufficient”, “sufficient”, or “more than sufficient”) as modal indications of similar levels (degrees) of each dimension of the capacity; determine “capacity needs” in terms of degrees to which a capacity needs to be upgraded to “sufficient” level

d. Assess the thematic capacities for constraints that promote or hinder capacity build up in the country) e. Assess the thematic capacities for common and cross-cutting issues & capacity needs (common: capacity needs

or constraints indicated in all 3 thematic capacity needs; cross-cutting: capacity needs beyond the thematics but which intensify or weaken their promoting or hindering factors) Existing capacity levels and

capacity needs to address Climate Change matters and obligations

Existing capacity levels & capacity needs to address Biodiversity

Conservation matters & obligations

Existing capacity levels & capacity needs to address Land Degradation & Drought matters and obligations

Inventory of Common Issues and Capacity Needs in 3 levels (tiers) of Social Organization: Individual, Institutional, and Systemic

Products

Inventory of Cross-Cutting Issues and Capacity Needs in 3 levels (tiers) of Social Organization: Individual, Institutional, and Systemic

PHASE II Action Agenda

(Parts III and IV of the NCSA Document) What’s to be Done?

Construct a program of action (an Action Agenda) to develop the capacity needs identified in the stock taking phase; includes prioritizing the needs, how their development might be supported (funded) & sustained, & how their development may be monitored & evaluated over time

Unit of Asmnt The set of capacity needs identified in the stock taking phase Method of Constructing the Action Agenda

a. The FPAs & the NCSA Team initially prioritized the thematic, common & cross-cutting capacity needs as development priorities in the short- (1-3 yrs), medium- (4-6 yrs) & long-terms (7-10 yrs), using criteria adopted by the FPAs, team & stakeholders; also did the initial cut of a Resource Mobilization & Sustainability Strategy & an M&E framework, using criteria adopted by the same parties; activities & projects to translate the Agenda into a program of development in the short to long terms are identified

b. The draft Action Agenda is validated by the FPAs individuallyw c. With the Stock Taking Results, the Action Agenda (the two now constituting the first draft of the whole NCSA

Document for the Philippines), it is submitted for validation to the PCSD, then, if indorsed, to the PMB; if indorsed by the PMB, the Document is submitted to the GOP & UNDP

National Schedule of Priority Capacity Needs (Thematic, Common, Cross-Cutting) Activities to Develop the Priority Capacity Needs Resource Mobilization and Sustainability Strategy

Monitoring & Evaluation Framework

Products

Recommended Projects (described as project briefs in Part IV of the NCSA Document) (to translate the Agenda into a Development Program for consideration by the FPAs, GOP & donors)

Figure B. Summary of the Philippine NCSA process and products

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

This document has four (4) parts: PART I describes the NCSA project and processes in the Philippines.1 It explains: • The objectives of the NCSA project; • The phases and activities of the project; • The assessment methods and processes used to determine existing and needed

capacities to meet the obligations to the three UN Conventions; • The expected outputs of the project; • The administrative structure of the project. Part II presents the results of the stock taking process. It discusses: • The findings of the thematic assessments on existing and needed capacities to meet

the obligations to each of the three UN Conventions; • The results of the assessment of common and cross-cutting issues and capacity needs

attending the thematic findings; • The implications of the identified capacity needs to the development agenda of the

Philippines as these are articulated in its Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan, Philippine Agenda 21, the MDGs, and the Plan of Implementation of the WSSD.

Part III describes an Action Agenda to develop the needed capacities in the Philippines. The Agenda has three elements: • A prioritization of the capacities to be developed in the short- (1-3 years), medium-

(4-6 years) and long-terms (7-10 years); • A Resource Mobilization and Sustainability Strategy to source support and funding

for developing and sustaining the capacities; and • A Monitoring and Evaluation framework to track progress on the development of the

capacities across sectors, regions and agencies in the country. Part IV summarizes the NCSA process and results in the Philippines. It presents several recommendations on projects to develop the priority capacity needs in the country. It also identifies some risks to capacity development in the Philippines.

1 “NCSA project” refers to the implementation of the agreement between the Philippine Government and

UNDP to do the “NCSA process” in the country. “NCSA process” refers to the manner by which NCSA was done in this case, in the Philippines.

PART I

DESCRIPTION OF THE PHILIPPINES’ NCSA PROJECT AND PROCESSES

Objectives, Phases and Activities, Methods,

Expected Outputs and Project Administration

1

Background of the Project The concept of “national capacity self-assessment” derives its roots from around the 1990s when the international development community began recognizing that developing countries must take the lead in steering their development. They shall have to steer the processes to determine what capacities they require for their development, which would be their priority, and how the capacities are to be developed and acquired.1 Taking off from this new thinking on development partnerships between donors and recipients, the UNDP and GEF Secretariat launched the Capacity Development Initiative (CDI) in January 2000. It was to be “a more comprehensive and strategic approach to building the capacity of developing countries to meet their global environmental commitments.” Extensive consultations and dialogues with global and regional experts and stakeholders were undertaken over a period of 18 months, with close collaboration from other GEF Implementing Agencies and the Secretariats of the UN Conventions on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). The CDI process led to an identification of the basic elements of a donor-recipient collaborative approach to capacity development. The focus is on the capacities of developing countries to contribute to improving the global environment by way of performing their obligations to the three UN Conventions. But the stress is on developing countries leading in identifying the capacities they need to develop, by when, and how. The GEF established a new source of funds to support national capacity self-assessments processes. On September 2001 the GEF Secretariat released the “GEF Operational Guidelines for National Capacity Self-Assessments” (NCSAs), which set the expected content, structure and focus of the assessments. It stresses the countries’ considerable flexibility on how to do the assessments. The Guidelines emphasize the “self-ness” of the assessments in that the countries being assessed take the lead in doing it. They emphasize the need to address cross-cutting issues relating to the themes of the Conventions and to the sustainable development agenda and interests of the countries, and on identifying synergistic capacities across the three Conventions. They encourage an integrated approach to developing capacities, in which environmental initiatives become integrated with the larger issues of sustainable development and of governance in the country. Responding to these GEF initiatives, the UNDP (as the UN’s lead agency to develop national capacities to achieve the Millennium Development Goals) embarked on a program to assist over 100 countries to undertake NCSAs. Among these countries is the Philippines. An NCSA Project was agreed by the DENR (representing the Government of the Philippines) and UNDP on November 4, 2003. It was launched on May 15, 2004 and is scheduled to be completed on September 15, 2005. It is funded by the GEF with a grant of US$200,000.00. 1 From UNDP and GEF 2003. “National Capacity Self-Assessments: UNDP/GEF Resource Kit (No. 3)”.

Unless otherwise specified, all quotes and references in this section of the report are from this document.

2

Project Objectives The Philippines’ NCSA project2 has two (2) primary and five (5) secondary objectives: • Primary Objectives

1. Identify the priority capacity needs of the Philippines; 2. Identify the barriers to developing the priority capacity needs of the country.

• Secondary Objectives

1. Incorporate environmental issues into the national development process; 2. Develop higher public awareness of existing capacities in the country, what

priority capacities need to be additionally developed, and which of these would be a priority for different sectors and organizations;

3. Identify the particular capacities needing to be developed for local government units (LGUs), to allow them to widen and intensify their participation in meeting the country’s obligations to the three UN Conventions, contribute to achieving the MDGs, and to promote sustainable development in the Philippines;

4. Strengthen the enforcement of environmental laws and regulations in the country; 5. Encourage wider dialogue and information sharing among actors and stakeholders

to the three UN Conventions (cross-thematic collaboration). The primary objectives focus on the fundamental purpose of the NCSA process. The secondary objectives define the parameters within which – and for which purposes – the NCSA process in the Philippines is to be particularly achieved. The secondary objectives put into context the NCSA process within the national interests of the Philippines.

Implementation Strategy and Methods The Philippine NCSA process combines organizational self-assessments and broad regional and national stakeholders’ validation and sectoral assessments. It follows the incremental approach described in the UNDP-GEF Guidelines. A country’s existing capacities and needs are assessed against its obligations to each Convention. The process utilizes an iterative triangulation procedure to acquire data and information on existing capacities and capacity needs of the country, to ensure the robustness of the assessment in the short period it is done. Data triangulation is combined with several rounds of regional stakeholders’ validation, sectoral assessments, and SWOT analysis of identified existing capacities. The SWOTs focus on identifying the suficiency, efficiency and sustainability constraints for developing national capacities to address the thematic and synergistic concerns of the three Conventions. 2 “NCSA project” is the implementation of the agreement between the Philippine Government and UNDP

to do the “NCSA process” in the country. “NCSA process” is the manner by which NCSA is done in this case, in the Philippines.

3

The Philippines’ NCSA process features two phases: Phase I. Stock Taking, Thematic and Synergistic Capacity Needs Assessments. This is a

series of assessments done by the thematic specialists’, the technical staff of the Focal Point Agencies (FPAs),3 other key organizations, and stakeholders to the issues being addressed by the three UN Conventions. They focus on the current capacities and capacity needs in the Philippines relevant to each Convention and those which are common and cut across them; and

Phase II Production of an Action Agenda. This includes identifying priority capacity

needs; determining the capacity development activites to be undertaken in the short-, medium-, and long-terms to meet those needs; establishing a Resource Mobilization Agenda and Sustainability Strategy to ensure that the needed capacities are developed and sustained, and (d) designing a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework to track and assess progress on the development of the needed capacities.

Phase I is done in two sub-phases: (1) A desktop assessment which includes (a) a review by the NCSA project team and the

FPAs of documents related to the Conventions and on recent and current activities in the country pertinent to the conventions (including who are doing what and where), and (b) agency self-assessments by the FPAs and other key (functionally related) agencies and organizations on their existing capacities to undertake the tasks required to meet the obligations;

(2) A series of regional stakeholders’ consultations and workshops to validate the results

of the desktop assessment and organizational self-assessments, and to assess the Convention-relevant capacities of different sectors in particular areas of the country.

The organizational self-assessments focus on agency capacities. The regional assessments focus on validating the organizational self-assessments and assessing sectoral capacities in different parts of the Philippines. Phase II is done in three sub-phases: (1) Production of a draft Action Agenda. This is done jointly by the project team and the

FPAs (based on the results of the Stock Taking phase); (2) Conducting a national stakeholders’ review of the draft Action Agenda (together with

the review of the stock taking findings). This review shall be under the auspices of the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD, a multisectoral body that vets the country’s development plans.) This review examines the synergy of the capacity needs identified in the NCSA process with the country’s:

3 EMB-DENR for UNFCCC, PAWB-DENR for UNCBD, and BSWM-DA for UNCCD.

4

a. Sustainable Development strategy (i.e., the Philippine Agenda 21) b. The Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) c. National laws and polices on environment and development d. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and e. The Plan of Implementation adopted in the recent World Summit on Sustainable

Development (WSSD PI); (3) Submission of the results of the completed NCSA process in a single Philippines’

NCSA Document. The document is presented to the government and the UNDP for their final review and acceptance. It is also presented to the general public including donors.

Table 1.1 summarizes the phases and sub-phases of the Philippine NCSA project. Table 1.1 General description of the Philippine NCSA project.

PHASE 1 Stock Taking & Thematic Assessments

PHASE 2 Production of the NCSA Document

Sub-Phases Sub-Phases (1)

Desktop Assessments & Organizational

Self-Assessments

(2) Regional

Stakeholders’ Consultations &

Workshops

(1) Drafting of the

Action Plan and its components

(2) Review and

Validation by the PCSD

(3) Final Review &

Acceptance by the GOP & UNDP;

public presentations Output

A Report on the Stock Taking, Thematic and Synergistic Capacity Needs

Self-Assessment Process and Findings in the Philippines

Output An Action Agenda to develop needed capacities in the

Philippines, indicating: • Priority Needs • Activities to Develop Needed Capacities (Short-term,

Medium-Term, and Long-Term) • Resource Mobilization & Sustainability Strategy • Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

Final NCSA Project Output Philippines’ NCSA Document containing four (4) parts (including attachments and annexess):

• Part 1: Description of the Philippines’ NCSA Process • Part II: Stock Taking Findings: Existing & Needed Thematic & Synergistic Capacities in the Phil • Part III: An Action Agenda to Develop Needed Capacities in the Philippines • Part IV: Summary, Recommendations on Capacity Dev’t Projects, Risks to Capacity Dev’t in the Phil

PHASE I 1. Desktop Assessment This includes five (5) activities: 1. Determining which documents are relevant to the assessment and putting together

basic information on the three UN Conventions and on the Philippines’ obligations to each of them;

2. Developing an operational definition of “capacity” to be used in the assessment;

5

3. Developing the methods and processes to assess existing thematic capacities, capacity needs, and common and cross-cutting issues and capacity needs;

4. Identifying the stakeholders on the issues being addressed by the conventions; and 5. Developing a data gathering protocol and instruments to validate and enrich the

information gathered from the documents. 1.1 Identification of Relevant Documents The thematic specialists and FPAs together agree on a criteria for qualifying documents to be reviewed. Table 1.2 shows the criteria by thematic area and the number of documents selected. (See Attachment 1 for the list of the documents.) 1.2 Operational Definition of “Capacity” “Capacity” is defined as “capability + commitment”. “Capability” is having the (a) human and technical know-how and (b) financial resources to do the tasks to fulfill an obligation. “Commitment” is having the (a) institutional resolve to do the tasks (which means having the organizations that have mandates and leaderships to do them), and (b) public support for doing the tasks. “Capability” without “commitment” does not translate to “capacity”. Neither does “commitment” without “capability”. Capacity is relative: its sufficiency depends on the degree of capability and commitments available, and the scale of the problems to be addressed. Thus, “capacity” has four (4) dimensions: 1. Having a sufficient corps of human technical talents who know how to achieve a task; 2. Having sufficient financial resources to do the task; 3. Having the organizations and leadership that are mandated to do the task; and 4. Having a constituency (a public) that gives the political legitimacy to do the task. A rise in the measure of each dimension means an increase in capacity, ceteres parribus. A decline means an erosion or weakening of capacity (Figure 1.1). In this assessment, “capacity levels” (degrees)4 are determined using a five-tier Likert scale: 1 “Severely lacking” (there is hardly any of the indicated capability or commitment that can be readily mustered to do a task); 2 “Lacking” (there are some of the capability or commtiment, but not at levels to meet minimum standards on doing the task acceptably well); 2 “Barely sufficient” (there are some of the capability or commitment, but only to

levels that meet minimum standards for doing the tasks acceptably well); 4 “Sufficient” (the capability and commitment are at levels that meet more than minimum standards for the tasks but no readily available replacements for them); 5 “More than sufficient” (the capability and commitment are at levels to meet more than minimum standards, and there are readily available replacements for them).

4 The UNDP/GEF Resource Kit refers to capacities and capacity needs in three levels (individual,

institutional, systemic). This is here understood to mean three levels (or tiers) of social organization. This is distinguished from “capacity levels” as degrees of capacity which is about how much capacity there is in the country at this time. “Capacity levels” lends to more common usage than “degree of capacity”.

6

Table 1.2. Criteria for selecting documents & number selected in the Philippines’ NCSA process.

Thematic Area

Criteria

Number of Documents*

Climate Change

• Documents identifying Philippine obligations to the UNFCCC • Documents on UNFCCC protocols & mechanisms relevant to Phil • Latest reports on climate change-related activities, policies, &

regulations in the Philippines • Latest reports on studies trelating to claimate change impacts and

adaptation in the Philippines • Latest assessments of Philippine cap-acities to address, study, prepare

for, and adapt to climate change • Communiques and declarations of bodies that include the Philippines,

relating to climate change prepara-tions and plans • Documents on capacity assessment approaches & methodologies • Documents on climate change & related topics • Documents descri-bing national, regional & int’l ini-tiatitives to

address climate change and to develop new & renewable energy • Proceedings of recent national, regional & int’l workshops &

conferences on climate change & ren-ewable energy

20

Biodiversity Conservation

• Documents identifying Philippine commitments to the UNCBD • Documents on Phil efforts to comply with CBD commitments • Documents on National Sustainable Development Strategies, Action

Plans and similar initiatives • Studies on capacity assessments • Landmark Policies & Legislation on Biodiversity Conservation • Charters of relevant agencies doing biodiversity conservation • Project reports of on-going or recently completed major programs &

projects on biodiversity in the Philippines

30

Land Degradation & Desertification

• Documents identifying Philippine obligations to the UNCCD • Latest reports on the state of land degradation in the country • Latest information and maps on land degradation in the country • Nat’l Action Plan for Combating Land Degradation and Drought • Any recent capacity assessment study or capacity building plan of the

focal agency and cooperating agency • Documents containing information on the organization, functions,

programs, budget, personnel, facilities & equipment of focal agency and cooperating agencies

• Documents on focal agency and cooperating agency programs dedi-cated to UNCCD commitments and those programs incidentally responsive to UNCCD commitments

• Policies, laws & regulations related to soil conservation, land res-ources mgt, forest conservation & mgt and related subjects

• Reports & documents describing the activities of other sectors & groups working on soil & water conservation

• UN documents on capacity assesment methods; studies done

16

Institutions • Texts of the relevant UN Conventions, Protocols & Mechanisms • Documents on the Philippines’ obligations to the 3 Conventions • Reports, documents on state of Philippine environment • Legal mandates of FPAs & related or associated agencies • Studies on environmental governance & institutions in the Phil • Documents on approaches & methods of capacity assessment

25

* see list, Attachment 1

7

“Measuring Capacity”“Measuring Capacity”Technical Skills

[PEOPLE]

AdministrativeCompetence

[MANDATES,ORGS &

LEADERSHIP]

Supporting &Legitimizing

Groups[CONSTITUENCIES]

Financial Ability[MONEY]

More thanSufficient

Lacking

Sufficient

Seriously Lacking

More than Sufficient

Sufficient

LackingSeriously Lacking

• SUFFICIENT wrt Obligations & Nat ’l Interests/Plans?• AVAILABLE in short & medium terms?• SUSTAINABLE in long-term?Barely Sufficient

Barely Sufficient

Figure 1.1 Measuring “capacity” using four dimensions of capacity. “Capacity” is constrained by (1) how much of it is available to do a task (sufficiency), (2) the cost effectiveness of using it into performing the task (efficiency), and (3) the degree to which it is kept over time (sustainability). “Capacity” occurs in three levels (tiers) of social organization: individual (what humans can do as persons), institutional (what humans can do as groups organized around a task), and systemic (what humans can do as a large system of groups). (See UNDP-GEF NCSA Guidelines.) 1.3 Determination of Obligations and Initial Indications of Capacities & Capacity Needs Philippine obligations to the three Conventions are identified by the FPAs and the project team together. The process involves a joint review by the FPAs and the team’s thematic specialists of the texts of the Conventions, their associated Protocols and Mechanisms, and the minutes of the Conferences of the Parties. The goals, objectives and targets of each Convention are identified. The tasks (or activities) expected to be undertaken by signatory countries (as these are classified in the Convention and category of the parties to which the Philippines belongs) are listed. Where indicated, the anticipated drivers and constraints on countries’ capacities to undertake the tasks are identified. Similarly, the FPAs and the specialists jointly review the documents, reports and literature on recent (last 10-20 years) and current (on-going) activities (programs, projects, studies) in the Philippines, which address the thematic issues that are within the ambit of a Convention’s concerns. The goals, objectives and targets of the activities are identified in relation to the activities expected under the Conventions. The obligations are compared against current levels by which activities are done to perform a task. “Surpluses” or “deficits” of the activities relative to the obligations are identified and assessed (Figure 1.2; see assessment procedure, below).

8

“Capacity needs” are identified on the basis of which capacities (for performing a task relevant to a Convention) shall need to be developed further in order for the country to have a “sufficient” level of it (for meeting its obligations under the Conventions). These are capacities found in the assessment to be less than “sufficient” (i.e., “severely lacking”, “lacking” or “barely sufficient”) to overcome the “deficits” in how much it is able to perform the tasks (or activities) that are expected in the Conventions.

GoalsGoals ObjectivesObjectives TargetsTargets ActivitiesActivities CapacityCapacityDriversDrivers

Conventions and AgreementsConventions and Agreements

GoalsGoals ObjectivesObjectives TargetsTargets ActivitiesActivities CapacityCapacityConstraintsConstraints

Current Philippine Responses and PerformanceCurrent Philippine Responses and Performance

+/-+/- +/-+/- +/-+/- +/-+/- +/-+/-

Surplus orSurplus orDeficit?Deficit?

Figure 1.2. General approach for identifying convention-related capacity needs in the Philippines

1.4 Identification of Stakeholders As in the case with selecting documents, the project team’s thematic specialists and the FPAs together agree on a criteria for qualifying stakeholders (as entities). Table 1.3 shows the criteria by thematic area and the number of stakeholders identified for the assessment. (See Attachment 2 for the list of stakeholders.) 1.5 Data Gathering Protocol and Instruments Data and information on thematic capacities and capacity needs are procured from (and checked for consistency across) several sources (a process referred to as triangulation). Common and cross-cutting issues and capacity needs are identified from the analyses of the data and information found consistent across more than two sources. The results are validated by the FPAs, other agencies and organizations, and by regional and national stakeholders. Organizational self-assessments are done using a data gathering instrument (DGI) jointly developed by the team’s thematic specialists and the FPAs. 1.5.1 Triangulation of Data and Information and SWOT Analyses Data and information are checked for consistency and accuracy against at least three sources. The assessment of obligations and capacities in the initial desktop assessment uses documents and reports as one source, the team’s thematic specialists’ knowledge and understanding of the obligations and of the country’s existing capacities and capacity needs as another, and the FPAs’ technical staff and stakeholders as a third source (Figure 1.3). The organizational self-assessments also uses 3 sources: (a) individual assessments

9

Table 1.3. Criteria for selecting stakeholders & numbers selected in the Philippines’ NCSA process.

Thematic Area

Criteria

Number of Identified Key Stakeholders*

Climate Change • Entities involved in past & current activities, policy-making, and in undertaking measures related to climate change

• Bilateral & multilateral entities carrying out climate change-related activities, such as those involved in or financing (a) country studies to inventory GHGs & to assess vulnerabilities & adaptation (V&A) to the impacts of climate change; (b) projects on climate change relating to the implementation of UNFCCC; & (c) the country’s implementation of the Kyoto Protocol

• NGOs working on climate change • Local Government Units (LGUs) undertaking local initiatives on

adapting to climate change • Utilities undertaking CDM projects in the country

15

Biodiversity Conservation

• They are providing data & information on Philippine biodiversity & are taking part in making national & local decisions on biodiversity

• They are sources of information although not necessarily regular participants in biodiversity decision-making in the country

• They are needing to be informed on in the NCSA project

66

Land Degradation & Desertification

• They are making and influencing policy and decisions on land & water management in the Philippines

• Entities directly involved in soil conservation & on agricultural and forest land resources management in the country

• Representatives of those directly affected by land degradation and drought (farmers’ organizations, NGOs, agribusiness sector, others)

• Entities that are financing programs & projects to combat land degradation and to mitigate drought

• Entities that are helping in implementing IEC & advocacy programs on soil conservation, soil erosion control & on land resources management.

22

Institutions • Entities that are involved in policy making & decision making in the FPAs and other related organizations

• Entities that are involved in national policy making processes on environment and development in the Philippines, including those representing political forces “out there”

• Entities that are advocating sustainable development & on meeting the Philippines’ commitments to the three UN Conventions

• Entities that are active in critiquing, supporting (including funding) or opposing national programs & projects on environment & sustainable development

• Entities that are involved in climate change, biodiversity & land degradation projects in the country, including those that support or champion capacity development in these areas

• Entities that have otherwise no voice in policies and programs on environment and development

All entities included in the list of thematic

stakeholders

*See lists, Attachment 2.

10

DocReview

FP/ExpView

StkhldrsInfo/Views

H

F

LC

CLIMATECHANGE

DocReview

FP/ExpView

StkhldrsInfo/Views

H

F

LC

BIODIVERSITYCONSERVATION

DocReview

FP/ExpView

StkhldrsInfo/Views

H

F

LS

LANDDEGRADATION

XCUTTINGFRAMEWORK

•Basis: PA21, MDG,MTPDP, WSSD

•Areas: Policy, PlnngBudgeting, Implement-

ation, Enforcement(Local to Nat’l)

Figure 1.3. Schematic procedure of triangulation of data and information sources. of field or junior staff, (b) assessments of senior technical and managerial staff, and (c) information from the team’s thematic specialists, from stakeholders and other agencies. Thematic data and information obtained from the desktop assessment, the organizational self-assessments, and the stakeholders’ assessments, are assessed against each other for common and cross-cutting issues and capacity needs (section 1.5.2 below, “Identification of Common and Cross-Cutting Issues”). These are further checked for consistency with other capacity assessments done previously (e.g., assessments to produce the action plans for each Convention). They are also checked for consistency with Philippine Agenda 21, the MTPDP, existing environmental regulations, the MDGs and the WSSD PI. 1.5.2 Identification of Common and Cross-Cutting Issues and Capacity Needs The UNDP-GEF NCSA Guidelines refer to synergistic issues and capacity needs. These are issues and needs that are either common to the efforts in the country to address the concerns of the three conventions, or which cut across (are cross-cutting) the efforts. For the purpose of this assessment, common issues are defined as capacity constraints on all three thema