Completion Report of EcoGov 1

COMPLETION REPORT OF THE PHILIPPINE
ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
PROJECT (ECOGOV) PHASE 1
DECEMBER 1, 2001 - NOVEMBER 30, 2004
December 28, 2004
This project is implemented by Development Alternatives, Inc. with the support of its subcontractors:
Orient Integrated Development Consultants, Inc. n

Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc. n
Winrock International n
Abt Associates, Inc. n
Management Systems International n
Michigan State University n
Produced by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-United States Agency for International
Development’s (DENR-USAID) Philippine Environmental Governance (EcoGov) Project through the assistance
of the USAID under USAID PCE-1-00-99-00002-00. The views expressed and opinions contained in this
publication are those of the authors and are not intended as statements of policy of USAID or the authors’ parent
organization.
THE CHALLENGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE:
MAKING IT WORK WITH LGUS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................1
II. Vision provides perspective and direction in local environmental governance ..........1
III. The LGUs are the heart and soul of local environmental governance .......................2
IV. Local environmental governance may just be a matter of public advocacy
and social awareness ................................................................................................4
V. Creating and establishing social enterprises may be the future of forests and
coastal resources and solid waste .............................................................................5
VI. Shifting environmental governance from compliance to results-based
approach ....................................................................................................................6
VII. DENR has to re-engineer itself to be responsive to the increasing demands
for environmental management services ...................................................................7
VIII. Moving forward with local environmental governance ...............................................8
References........................................................................................................................9
The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUsi i

ii The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUs
THE CHALLENGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE:
MAKING IT WORK WITH LGUS1
I. Introduction
This paper synthesizes the various concepts and ideas that emerged during the
implementation of the Philippine Environmental Governance (EcoGov) Project Phase 12
(from December 1, 2001 to November 30, 2004). Reflecting on the Project’s two-and-a-
half years of experience, this paper tries to draw certain ideas from the lessons learned
and recommendations made that could serve as a “think piece” for consideration in the
implementation of EcoGov 2.
Some of these ideas may be obvious and may easily be implemented, a few may be
part of evolving concepts in development and need to be tested, while others may
remain as mere ideas and simply stay in the realm of theory and academic discussions.
Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to discuss even a few of these ideas, as the possibility
exists that even one or two may open up doors for development projects, like EcoGov 2,
to break new grounds or advance environmental governance initiatives, especially at the
local level.
Environmental governance, no matter how abstract this concept may be, is this
paper’s center piece. Emphasis is given on local environmental governance as it is
believed that the LGUs are in a better position—and it is to their interest—to put
resources within their jurisdiction under effective management.
Local environmental governance is a challenging act that LGUs have to perform. The
stage is the municipality or a city where the players are going to perform. The key
players are the local government unit (LGU) leaders and their constituents, the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the civil society
organizations (including the leagues of LGUs, NGOs, people’s organizations, media, and
enforcement agencies). And the objective is to put “flesh and blood” into the concept that
is environmental governance and apply it in the management of coastal and forest
resources as well as solid waste.
II. Vision provides perspective and direction in local environmental

governance
EcoGov 1 invested its resources in helping LGUs to clearly define their vision with
respect to the management of coastal and forest resources and solid waste. The
1
Written by ES Guiang, Chief of Party of EcoGov 1. Ideas and observations in this paper do not necessarily
reflect those of DAI, DENR and USAID.
2
The EcoGov Project Phase 1 is a Technical Assistance Grant of the US Agency for International
Development (USAID) to the Government of the Philippines (GOP). EcoGov 1 was implemented by the
Development Alternatives, Inc (DAI), in close collaboration with the DENR, LGUs, and other partners in
Central and Western Mindanao, Central Visayas, and Northern Luzon. The Project supports policy initiatives
as well as planning and implementation efforts of LGUs on coastal resources, forests and forest lands, and
solid waste.
The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUs 1

processes involved have helped them gain a better appreciation of, and set the direction
for local environmental governance. Moreover, the LGUs learned to state their vision
and outline their strategic directions based on agreements with the local stakeholders
following participatory, transparent, and accountable processes. The Project promoted
the idea that the vision and direction in governing the forests and forestlands, coastal
resources, and solid waste serve as the cornerstone of sound environmental
governance. Vision and directions were crafted from extensive discussions of lessons
from the past (hindsight), the LGU’s current condition (situational analysis), and probing
trends that may impact the future (foresight) of forests and coastal resources, and solid
wastes. Each LGU vision and strategic directions were embedded in their FLUPs, CRM
plans, and ISWM plans. These are proving to be the rallying points for the local
stakeholders and interested parties to participate, invest, and collaborate. Clearly,
“without vision, a people fails” and according to the Koran, “If you don’t know where
you’re going, any road will take you there”.
In the past, the lack of a clearly defined vision in environmental governance at the
national, regional, and local level had led to decisions and actions that were less than
optimal. Scarce resources were thinly spread over wide geographic coverage. There
was no single focus for resource mobilization, resource allocation and re-alignment,
public advocacy, information dissemination, enactment of local policies, enforcement,
and support for the rule of law. There was a strong motivation for “quick fix solutions”
and “quick actions” and firefighting. These were not sustainable, especially in the
protection and management of forests and forestlands. Currently, at the national level,
the vision and direction of governing the coastal resources and solid waste are clearly
laid down in the Local Government Code, Fisheries Code, and the Ecological Solid
Waste Management Act. This is not exactly the case with forests and forestlands (except
for areas that were declared or proclaimed as belonging to the NIPAS law coverage), for
which reason, the LGUs, the communities, the private sector, and the civil society
organizations are getting mixed signals with respect to the protection, development, and
management of such forests and forestlands.
The LGUs need assistance to translate at the local level with their constituents the
vision and direction set in the national laws. EcoGov 1 tried to facilitate this process. In
all the technical sectors, the assistance given by the Project to the LGUs started with the
question on where they would like to go, and asking them to paint a picture of what they
would like to be. With clear vision and direction, the LGUs could put in place effective
environmental governance in their forests and coastal resources and solid waste –
determining the vision and the right direction and strategic actions before attempting to
invest scarce resources to carry out specific activities. The efficiency of carrying out
strategic actions will be a major challenge in implementing EcoGov 2. This will be crucial
for spread, replicability, and upscaling environmental governance initiatives. The LGUs
could always start with what they know, what they can do, what they have, and where
they can go with what they know and have. The EcoGov 2 and the national government
should support the LGU initiatives.
III. The LGUs are the heart and soul of local environmental governance
Environmental governance at the local level cannot prosper without the active
participation and full commitment of the LGUs. In the past, the national government has
implemented projects at the local level, giving only supporting roles to the LGUs.
2 The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUs

Experience shows that this strategy does not work. When it comes to local development
and local governance, the LGUs have to take the driver’s seat, with the national
government assuming a supporting role. Because ultimately, it will be the LGUs who will
be accountable to their constituents – not the national agencies.
Under a democratic and participatory system of governance, the LGUs represent the
first level of decision makers and actors who are closest to the people and thus, directly
responsible, accountable, and capable to act as the brokers and implementers of good
environmental governance. They can allow the participation of local stakeholders in
planning, making decisions, and carrying out actions that would impact the allocation
and use of forests and forestlands; the collection, diversion, and disposal of solid waste;
and the protection, development, and management of municipal coastal waters.
As a political unit, the city and municipal LGUs with their elected barangay leaders
and the oversight of the provincial governments are in the best position to leverage
support from the national government, from the private sector, and civil society
organizations. If these local leaders are strategic in their direction with respect to the
governance and management of coastal and forest resources and solid waste, they can
be the highly effective and efficient in the delivery of environmental governance services.
The LGUs, through their local leaders and civil society organizations, have a better
“feel” of the people’s pulse; enabling them to better organize campaigns to do collective
actions such as enforcement against illegal logging, destructive and illegal fishing, and
irresponsible waste management. Under EcoGov 1, these were occurring in LGUs in
Illana Bay (apprehending illegal commercial fishing in municipal waters), in Lebak and
Kalamansig (controlling illegal logging), in Baler Bay (forging of agreements among
LGUs for inter-LGU management of fishery resources), and in Alburquerque, Bohol
(offering a landfill to service a cluster of adjacent LGUs). The 79-assisted LGUs were
able to commit at least P40 million as their counterpart in environmental governance
planning and initial implementation of plans.
All these prove that LGUs can make things happen.
The implementation of EcoGov 1, which focused heavily on LGUs, showed a

growing interest among LGUs to carry out effective local environmental governance. In
all sectors, there was a mounting clamor from LGUs and the local stakeholders to
participate in the transparent and accountable processes of:
• Planning and allocating forests and forest lands based on watershed divides,
regardless of the purpose of allocation: biodiversity, watershed, production,
protection, social equity, civil/military use, and private use. Their active
participation in these decisions, especially in the allocation, enforcement,
resolution of conflicts, will determine the future status and condition of the
resource. The lukewarm tendencies of LGUs to protect the forests arise from
their perception that these resources do not have any value or do not benefit
the local constituents.
• Determination and legislation of CRM zones, and protection and
management of municipal waters based on agreed-upon zones. This includes
enforcement of rules and regulations in the protection of marine protected
areas, fisheries management, and facility development.

• Determination of ISWM options and the accompanying local legislation for
enforcement, incentives, penalties, and procurement of equipment and
facilities.
IV. Local environmental governance may just be a matter of public

advocacy and social awareness
When the LGU’s vision, direction, and strategic actions are set and defined with
respect to the management of coastal and forest resources and solid waste,
governance-oriented operational decisions and actions could then take place. This is
where public advocacy and social awareness campaigns can influence the mindsets of
decision makers and implementers. In addition to strategies that appeal to emotions,
public advocacy can then use science-based analysis, consensus of various
stakeholders, results of consultations, and the need to address equity and social justice
as arguments to ensure that local environmental governance should be based on “sound
and transparent information” in order to serve the “greater good” rather than catering to
the demands of a few.
For instance, if a legitimized FLUP has shown the urgent need for forest protection
and relocation of settlements in disaster-prone areas, then public advocacy and
awareness campaigns should openly inform the decision makers and the affected
communities of the impending disaster that may come. It is also the LGU’s and DENR’s
responsibility to inform the communities inside the protected areas and watershed
reservations why the government is imposing restrictions on the use and development of
forests and forest lands in these “set asides”. Or if certain forests and forestlands are
going to be allocated as protected areas, then the LGUs and the DENR should get the
consensus and endorsement of local communities, especially in the protection and
management of these areas. Otherwise, these areas will only exist on paper as
“declared protection forests.”
In EcoGov 1, the fisheries and bio-economic modeling in municipal waters was able
to demonstrate both the negative and positive impacts of local decisions to (a) expand or
reduce marine protected areas (MPAs), (b) limit fishing efforts, (c) increase aquaculture
areas, (d) allow commercial fishing in municipal waters, and (e) introduce alternative
livelihoods or community enterprises. In this case, public advocacy and awareness
campaigns should focus on helping decision makers evaluate the benefits and
determine who will benefit, who will be displaced, and the steps to take to minimize
displacement and damage to fisher folks.
In solid waste management, EcoGov 1 has established that the major sources of
biodegradable and recyclables (at least 80% of the total waste generation of LGUs) are
from public market and residential and commercial areas. In this case, public advocacy
and awareness campaigns can influence how the LGUs will allocate funds for certain
waste management options (establish materials recovery facilities, composting facilities,
etc.) Increasing awareness of households, hospital staff, and other generators of toxic
and hazardous waste may eventually prevent the occurrence of a major disease within a
locality.

At the LGU level, it is also crucial to identify those who are the decision makers, how
they make decisions, how they could influence, and what triggers them to make
decisions. The leagues, organized constituents, civil society organizations, and
incentives will play a significant role in influencing the decisions and actions of local
decision makers. In Tacurong City, for instance, the champion in solid waste
management was a lady “kagawad”. Her passionate plea and influence over other LGU
officials, including the mayor, helped in the passage of local ordinances and
performance of actions that led to improved waste management.
In Wao, Lanao del Sur, the mayor’s decision to fully enforce forestry regulations in
the municipality was a result of the advocacies done by the dependable and highly
credible municipal planning development coordinator.
V. Creating and establishing social enterprises may be the future of

forests and coastal resources and solid waste
The effective governance of forests and coastal resources requires sustainable

financing. Funds are needed to cover (a) fixed costs -salaries and wages for protection,
development, enforcement, and overhead, (b) recurring costs - travel, training,
workshops, coordination activities, etc., (c) investment and maintenance costs -
equipment, capital outlays. Fund sources could be the government (national and local),
equivalent cash value of the voluntary labor of communities and other volunteers, loans,
private sector financing, in kind contribution of civil society groups or the private sector,
grants and donations, profits, and other form of government subsidies.
For community-managed forests and coastal resources, e.g., marine protected areas
(MPAs), their main source of funding for protection, enforcement, coordination, and
assistance to their members will be from their own volunteer labor, income from
community enterprises if any, income from savings and credit if any, grants and
donations, and subsidy from the local/national government. Unless these communities
are able to generate revenues or access subsidies, they will continue to use their own
volunteer labor as the major source of funding support to protect and manage their
resources. It is ironic, however, that due to the nature and externality in natural resource
management, these communities will only be able to capture a portion of the total direct
value of the resource. In forestry, for instance, only an average of 60% is captured by
the communities; the rest of the benefits trickle down to other members of the society
(public benefit or public good).
In community-managed MPAs, the communities are only able to capture part of the
fishery spillovers within their vicinity because the fish may move outside their area. In
addition, other members of the community who may not be active in protecting the MPA
may also catch the fish and benefit. These are the “free riders”. But since the MPA
provides control and empowerment to the communities, they are in the best position to
protect and manage these resources. When an Industrial Forest Management
Agreement (IFMA) holder manages the forests and forestlands, the holder only captures
60% of the total direct value of benefits while the rest goes to public consumption in the
form of better quality of water, aesthetic, and biodiversity values (Francisco, 2004). In
solid waste management, the efficient collection, recycling, and disposal operations of a
privatized system benefit the operator and the public in general because of reduced

threats to public health and environmental hazard. The junkshop owners are serving the
general public by recycling while generating revenue stream for his/her enterprise.
The externality in managing forests and coastal resources and solid waste yields
both public and private benefits and costs. In many cases, the management of these
resources requires continuing expenditures to serve public good purposes such as
protected areas or watersheds. In this case, the government has the responsibility of
fully funding the operations since the dominant beneficiaries are the greater public and
the next generation of Filipinos. In addition, coastal resources and forests and
forestlands are natural resource assets. The LGUs and communities are in a better
position and have the greatest interest to improve and protect their value through
improved property rights and appropriate enabling environment. The LGUs and
communities, however, with the private sector have to be allowed to generate revenues
to adequately cover their fixed costs, and to expand and continue operations while
empowering communities and improving the overall condition of the environment.
It is therefore imperative that the governance and management of forests and

coastal resources and solid waste should seriously consider applying the concept of
“social enterprises”, which is the “promotion and building of enterprises or organizations
that create wealth, with the intentions of benefiting not just a person or family, but a
defined constituency, sector, or community, usually involving the public at large or the
marginalized sectors of society….” (Dacanay, 2004). For instance, social enterprises
may be used in protecting and managing watersheds, bays, or waste disposal facilities
since these can be managed to generate double or triple bottom lines – generation of
profits (from user fees, tipping fees, permits, etc.), empowerment of communities
(especially in the uplands and coastal areas), and improvement of environmental health
and quality. Making and operationalizing this concept in selected areas may be a
challenge that EcoGov 2 should tackle. Also, as social enterprises, these units have to
generate adequate profits to finance environmental protection and rehabilitation while
empowering communities. This way each management unit will become less dependent
on government subsidies and donor funds.
VI. Shifting environmental governance from compliance to results-

based approach
EcoGov 1 has generated baseline information for key performance indicators in

forestry, coastal areas, and solid waste. The development and installation of an LGU-
based performance monitoring system could effectively monitor improvements of key
indicators in each sectoral area over time. Initially, the DENR and the LGUs will monitor
compliance of each accountability center such as tenure holders, communities managing
MPAs, or junk shop operators or % diversion of each waste source based on
requirements of the law (compliance or rule-based governance). However, the DENR,
LGUs and the different accountability centers may agree to monitor improvement of the
key indicators over time (results-based) as basis for transparent, accountable, and
participatory governance (Durant, Fiorino, and O’Leary 2004). The idea behind results-
based governance is that if incentives are in place, “what gets measured gets done,”
especially if each accountability center is clearly defined.
At the LGU level, the FFM, CRM and ISWM sectors together with the LGUs, DENR
and other local stakeholders will determine and agree what key indicators of

performance will have to be measured over time. The definitions of the indicators, how
they are measured, who measures them, and how they are going to be used should be
clear, and disseminated to each accountability center. In forestry, for instance, natural
forest cover area may be a key indicator; in solid waste, the % diversion of recyclable
and biodegradable waste may be an indicator; and in CRM, the increase in fish biomass
inside and outside the MPA may be an excellent indicator over time. The installation,
operationalization, and use of the LGU-based performance monitoring system should
have the active participation of all key sectors such as the private sector, women groups,
indigenous peoples, civil society organizations, among others.
VII. DENR has to re-engineer itself to be responsive to the increasing

demands for environmental management services
At this point, there is almost no turning back for DENR. The Local Government Code
mandates LGUs to work hand in hand with the DENR in managing the country’s natural
resources. Effectively, the Code devolved to the local government units some functions
which used to be performed solely by DENR, such as enforcement of forestry laws in
community-based forestry projects, etc.
The recent disasters—flashfloods and landslides—that took place in Quezon and

Aurora that killed hundreds and destroyed thousands of homes underscored the urgent
need for effective forest management, which the DE NR cannot do alone. Thus, the
DENR has to re-engineer itself and train partners to manage our forests resources more
effectively. It cannot continue to remain as a regulatory agency. Other national agencies
should follow suit, such as the Department of Agriculture/ Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources in the case of coastal areas.
Based on observations in EcoGov 1, improving local environmental governance at

the LGU and community levels will definitely change the way forests, coastal resources
and solid wastes are going to be managed. This shift has a large implication on DENR. It
will have to reinvent itself to meet new mandates, tasks, and responsibilities. While not
totally displacing the private sector in the governance and management of the forests
and coastal resources and solid waste, the LGUs and the communities will increasingly
play a major role in translating national policies, standards, and directions into actions on
the ground in order to benefit society, in general.
In this case, DENR will only be the “best if it plays the least role” in the governance of
forests and coastal resources and solid waste. Its guide in re-engineering itself will be in
the context of setting the national policies and guidelines, standards, periodic monitoring
of key performance indicators, facilitating the allocation of national resources in support
of LGU and communities as well as in crafting policies that will enable the private sector
to effectively enter into public-private or private business arrangements with the LGUs
and communities. It will continue to oversee the macro level allocation of forests and
forestlands, coastal resources in the context of competing uses and demands such as
mineral exploration and exploitation versus biodiversity and environmental services
concerns. It will continue to access technologies, management expertise, and financing
that may be useful to the LGUs, communities and the private sector. It will also continue
to provide macro level analysis and information on the supply and demand of major
products from natural resources for policy makers.

VIII. Moving forward with local environmental governance
The challenge for EcoGov 2 from EcoGov 1 remains to be centered on the following
questions:
• What can be done at the local level to improve local environmental

governance – LGUs, communities, and CSOs?
• What can be done at the regional support systems level – province, regional
development councils, regional leagues, coalition of regional CSO groups,
regional chambers of commerce, etc.?
• What can be done at the national level – national leagues, DENR, BFAR,
DILG, national training institutions, DBM, donor agencies, national CSO
members?
• Will the EcoGov 1 strategic directions still apply to EcoGov 2? Why or why
not?
As EcoGov 2 continues to craft, refine, and re-adjust its Life of Project Work Plan
and its succeeding annual work plans, the foregoing questions should be considered.
Definitely, assisting the LGUs improve their local environmental governance remains to
be a priority of EcoGov 2. Enjoining the national and regional partners to actively
participate in and contribute to these strategic efforts will significantly increase the
Project’s effectiveness over time. It is also obvious that financing the LGU and
community initiatives over time continues to be a challenge that will have to be faced
squarely if sustainability is to be expected from these stakeholders. The hope is that
environmental financing will increasingly become a major source of funds for the LGUs
and communities and that PO federations and MPA networks will increasingly have the
ability to advocate for and access grant funds from both the public, private, and donor
organizations to carry on with their resource protection and management activities.

References
Durant, R.F., D.J. Fiorino, and R. O’Leary. 2004. Environmental governance

reconsidered: challenges, choices, and opportunities. The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA.
World Bank. 2003. Governance of natural resources in the Philippines: lessons from the
past, directions for the future. Rural Development and Natural Resources Sector
Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region. Washington, D.C.
Francisco, H. 2004. Economics of forestry project under alternative land use rights. DAI
EcoGov 1 Project Technical Report, Quezon City.
Dacanay, M. 2004. Creating a space in the market: social enterprise stories in Asia.
Asian Institute of Management and Conference of Asian Foundations and
Organizations. Makati City: AIM, 2004.

SECTORAL COMPLETION REPORT
• PROMOTING GOVERNANCE-ORIENTED COASTAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT
• LAYING THE FOUNDATION OF A GOVERNANCE-ORIENTED AND

COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO FORESTS AND FOREST LANDS
MANAGEMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES
• HELPING LGUS IMPLEMENT RA 9003: THE ECOLOGICAL SOLID

WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT
PROMOTING GOVERNANCE-ORIENTED
COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
COMPLETION REPORT OF THE
ECOGOV PROJECT CRM TEAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
II. Scope of Work........................................................................................................................ 2
III. Targets and Deliverables ...................................................................................................... 4
IV. Key Strategies ........................................................................................................................ 5
Demand Driven Technical Assistance (TA)........................................................................ 5
Delivery of CRM TA Modules ............................................................................................. 5
V. Status and Accomplishments .............................................................................................. 7
CRM TA to LGUs................................................................................................................ 7
Promoting Good Governance Practices........................................................................... 11
Local Capability Building .................................................................................................. 13
IEC and Policy support ..................................................................................................... 14
Innovations and Policy Studies......................................................................................... 15
VI. Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................. 16
What Worked .................................................................................................................... 16
What Did not Work ........................................................................................................... 20
VII. Recommendations............................................................................................................... 21
Policy and Advocacy ........................................................................................................ 21
Improving Regional TA Operations .................................................................................. 22
EcoGov 2 Small Grants Program ..................................................................................... 23
Overall implementation of CRM Governance................................................................... 23
References ................................................................................................................................... 24
Annexes
Promoting Governance-Oriented Coastal Resource Management i

ii Completion Report of the Coastal Resource Management Team
PROMOTING GOVERNANCE-ORIENTED
COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
COMPLETION REPORT OF THE ECOGOV PROJECT CRM TEAM1
I. Introduction
The country’s increasing population, resulting in higher demands for natural resource
use, has brought about adverse effects on the environment. This has been aggravated
by people’s unsustainable practices which are motivated by increasing competition
among resource users. Catch per unit effort of demersal and small pelagic fisheries have
decreased drastically in the past three decades, and various studies have shown that
the major bays and nearshore fishing grounds in the country are severely overexploited.
The widespread degradation of critical coastal habitats, such as coral reefs, seagrass
beds and mangrove forests has contributed substantially to the decline in fisheries
productivity. Habitats, spawning and nursery grounds of many commercially important
species have been threatened by destructive fishing practices and the cutting and
conversion of mangrove forests. Sedimentation due to improper upland management
and other sources of pollution further imperil coastal areas, municipal waters and its
resources. These environmental damages have severe socio-economic consequences
for millions of people, who rely on fishing and fishery-related livelihoods, and on the food
security of the country.
Coastal resource management (CRM) is one of the major functions devolved to the
local government units (LGUs) by the Local Government Code (RA 7160) and the
Philippine Fisheries Code (RA 8550). The LGUs are mandated to conserve and protect
and sustainably manage resources within their municipal waters. In this regard, the
municipal/city LGUs are responsible for planning, legislation, regulation and law
enforcement, taxation and revenue generation and networking with various institutions
for extension and technical assistance. Given that the most productive coastal habitats
and fishery grounds are found within the jurisdiction of LGUs, it is important that they,
together with the local community, make sound and informed decisions regarding the
use and management of these resources. In view of the critical role of the coastal LGUs
and communities, EcoGov 1 primarily aims to strengthen the LGUs’ capacity for good
governance in CRM. At the same time, the Project aims to strengthen the constituency
that will demand for good environmental governance.
1
Written by M A Juinio-Meñez, P Aliño, M F Portigo, R Bojos, D Diamante-Fabunan based on field reports
and observations, relevant memos from assisting professionals ( R Valles, M Samson, A Balang, P Senoc, L
Dizon, P Orencio, E Legaspi), reports of local service providers and short-term technical assistants (STTAs).
The authors are the national and regional CRM specialists of the Philippine Environmental Governance
Project (EcoGov)..
Promoting Governance-Oriented Coastal Resource Management 1

II. Scope of Work
EcoGov 1 is designed to support GOP’s and USAID’s goal of revitalizing the

economy by fostering improved management of the environment and natural resources
that provide key inputs to the long-tern economic development of the country. The
Project aims to address critical threats to the country’s coastal resources and forests,
primarily overfishing and the use of destructive fishing practices, and illegal cutting and
conversion of natural forests. It is also designed to urgently respond to the increasing
need to address unmanaged solid waste at the local level to address issues on public
health and environmental hazard.
As shown in Figure 1, the EcoGov 1 Scope of Work (SOW) for the CRM Sector
supports the goal of Strategic Objectives 4 (SO4) of the Philippine Environmental
Governance Program2. The key outcome indicators to show improved management of
coastal and fisheries resources are:
• Kilometers of coastline under improved management, and

• Coastal area (in hectares) under protection (marine sanctuaries).
Supplementary indicators that were proposed include:
• Area (in km2) of municipal waters under management, and

• Abundance of fish inside and outside marine sanctuaries.
As defined in the Project’s Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP), kilometers of

coastline with improved management is the length of coastline covered by LGUs, which
have completed at least one of the following:
• Municipal waters delineated and supported by LGU ordinance,

• Community validated and LGU legitimized CRM plan, and
• Fishery regulation and enforcement plan supported with fishery ordinance.
The coastal area under management is the area that LGUs and communities commit
to protect and manage based on their legitimized CRM and/or fisheries management
plans. On the other hand, the area (in hectares) placed under protection is the total area
of the marine protected areas (MPAs) which are being jointly managed by LGUs and
communities, based on the approved management plan (with budgetary support). The
supplemental indicator for selected MPA is the change in the fish density and
composition within and outside marine sanctuaries based on technical benchmarking
and monitoring activities.
2
The EcoGov 1 Project is part of the USAID-assisted Philippine Environmental Governance Program as
defined in the Memorandum of Understanding between the GOP and the USAID.
2 Completion Report of the EcoGov Project CRM Team

Figure 1

In relation to the above SOW, EcoGov 1 is to assist local decision makers in arriving
at sound and informed decisions in the formulation, implementation and enforcement of
CRM and fisheries management plans. Training and mentoring is also provided to
DENR, local institutional and individual service providers and other related agencies to
strengthen their capabilities in providing technical assistance on good governance in
CRM to other LGUs.
Aside from strengthening LGUs and local partners, policy, technical and
advocacy/IEC support at the national and regional level is provided. National support in
policy include the review of RA 8550 to enhance good governance provisions, and policy
studies on coastal and marine tenurial arrangements/instruments and shifter
investments. Technical studies and IEC support include the development of a bio-
economic model as a decision support tool for municipal fisheries and CRM
management; a source book on incentive systems for CRM and fisheries; and a primer
on foreshore management. In addition, the small grants program provides support for
complementary activities to people’s organizations and NGOs.
III. Targets and Deliverables
The overall life-of -project biophysical targets set in 2003 are:
• 525 km of coastline with improved management, and

• 25 MPAs/marine sanctuaries covering a total of 250 ha.
Subsequently, as firmer estimates became available, total target kilometers of

coastline with improved management was increased to 710.6 km. While the number of
MPAs was reduced to 17, the area increased to more than 1,500 ha (EcoGov Work Plan
for 2004).
The numbers of LGUs targeted for each of the key performance indicators is as
follows:
Key performance indicators Number of LGUs

1. With Consensus on coastal terminal points of their municipal 13
waters thru individual or joint ordinances
2. With overall consensus on their respective CRM zones 10
3. With legitimized CRM plans 8
4. With municipal fishery management plans and initial 10
management implementation
5. With joint ( inter-LGU) fishery management and enforcement 12
agreements
6. With legitimized MPA plans and initial management 13 (with 17 MPAs)
implementation

IV. Key Strategies
Internally, the EcoGov 1 Team adopted a two-pronged approach in implementing

its technical assistance strategies. Firstly, it built on lessons learned, good practices,
and acceptable and doable approaches and tools in assisting LGUs and communities
and in collaboration with DENR and other partners at the national and local levels. The
Team tried to refine and improve on certain approaches, practices, and tools and
incorporated lessons learned from previous initiatives in the delivery of technical
assistance with the purpose of making them more efficient, doable, simple, and easy to
apply. Secondly, the Team identified, tested, and piloted potential interventions that
could improve environmental governance in each of the EcoGov 1 sector with the
purpose of generating “innovations” that may have a greater application among other
LGUs. This perspective combined with flexibility was used in EcoGov 1 annual work
planning preparation and implementation.
Demand Driven Technical Assistance (TA)
In all the sectors (CRM, FFM, and ISWM), the DAI EcoGov team conducted
interactive assemblies in different locations in Central and Western Mindanao, Central
Visayas and Northern Luzon. These assemblies were designed to “interest” LGUs and
other local partners to collaborate with the EcoGov 1 Project in helping address
governance issues in the CRM sector. The LGUs and the local partners (community
groups, local DENR, or local service providers) express their interest for CRM technical
assistance through a letter or resolution from their respective MDCs and SBs. The
EcoGov 1 regional team facilitated meetings between the concerned LGU, DENR field
officials, other local stakeholders to confirm/affirm the LGU interest, craft a simple action
plan, discuss the key provisions of the draft MOA for collaboration between DENR, LGU,
and the EcoGov 1 Project, and conduct a more detailed orientation on how to improve
CRM governance at the local level. Priority was given to clusters of LGUs sharing a bay
or contiguous shorelines that have common or similar interests and levels of
commitment, such as LGUs in Baler Bay, the Camotes Island, Illana Bay in Zamboanga
del Sur and Sibuguey Bay in Zamboanga Sibugay.
Delivery of CRM TA Modules
Three types of TA modules were provided to LGU partners to help address the
threats of overfishing, illegal and destructive fishing practices and degradation of coastal
habitats. Each module/sub-module is designed to be independent entry points of an
integrated framework shown in Figure 2. The TA modules incorporate good governance
elements, particularly transparency, accountability and participatory (TAP) practices with
technical resource management solutions. The minimum milestones and physical
outcomes (e.g., reports, plans, resolutions or ordinances, documentation of
implementation activities) per module are clearly defined and leveled off with local
partners. Although different in scope, all modules are designed to facilitate sound and
informed decision making and provide opportunities to put good governance into
practice. The “learning by doing” process and technical inputs provided throughout the
delivery of the technical assistance aim to catalyze transformation in governance
perspectives and values and forge cooperation between the LGU and local community.

The TA modules and sub-modules are as follows:
Module 1: Coastal Resources Management Planning (detailed steps in Figure 2)

Sub module A: Municipal Water Delineation and Enforcement
Sub Module B: Municipal-wide Participatory Costal Resources Management Planning
Module 2: Marine Protected Area Establishment & Management

Sub module A: Establishment and Management of MPAs
Sub module B: Participatory MPA Monitoring and Evaluation
Module 3: Enhancement of
Municipal Fisheries Formation of TWG/Orientation
Management
Municipal water delineation Municipal Water Delineation

is implemented for a cluster of
at least 3 LGUs and dovetails
with some activities in Module Participatory Assessment
• Coastal Habitat & Fisheries
3 for the formulation of an • Socio-Economic
inter-LGU fisheries manage-
ment plan. The second sub-
Validation of Findings; Preliminary
module is participatory Zoning by Barangay
municipal-wide CRM planning.
The results of the participatory Municipal-Wide Consensus-Building
coastal resources, fisheries on Coastal Zones and Management
and socio-economic assess- Strategies
ments can already be used as
inputs to initiate implementa- Economic Analysis of Zone
tion activities to strengthening Management Activities
MPA and fisheries manage-

ment even before plan Formulation of Policy Support and IEC
Components, and Organizational &
formulation and legitimization Financing Arrangements
are completed (Figure 2).
Drafting of Plan
Coastal and municipal
water zoning is used as a
framework for planning. Presentation of Draft Plan to
Multisectoral Forum/Validation
Management strategies per
zone include institutional
Refinement of Draft Plan by TWG
arrangements, financial plans,
policy and IEC support
programs. Legitimization of Refinement & Legitimization of Plan
• Public Hearing
the plan includes community • MDC Review and Endorsement
validation, multi-year budget • SB Review and Approval
allocation for plan Sub-Module 1A
implementation and SB Implementation of CRM Actions
resolution adopting the plan (Module 2 or 3) Sub-Module 1B
and/or enactment of enabling

ordinance.
Figure 2 – Schematic diagram of CRM planning process

In contrast to Module 1 which focuses on planning, Modules 2 and 3 are intended to
facilitate specific implementation activities. The first sub-module on MPA Management is
for the establishment of new MPAs and the development of MPA management plans.
The sub-module on participatory MPA monitoring and evaluation, is provided for LGUs
with more advanced MPAs alongside technical benchmarking activities. Module 3 is
intended to facilitate improved implementation of a few strategic fisheries management
activities that will regulate effort or access (e.g., registry, licensing and permits, close
and open seasons, gear regulation) and/or improve fishery law enforcement (e.g.
reporting and apprehension system, deputation of fish wardens and formation on fishery
law enforcement units). The activities in the module can be used for inter-LGU or LGU
level fisheries management and enforcement planning and implementation. For both
Modules 2 and 3, the minimum outputs are the formulation and legitimization of
operational plans and conduct of initial implementation activities.
Field responsibility for EcoGov 1 CRM activities was decentralized to four regional
offices supported by national teams for Policy Advocacy and for Technical, Analytical
and IEC Support. Two part-time national CRM specialists assisted 3 CRM regional
specialists and 6 assisting professionals. For pilot sites in each region, the national and
regional project staff in collaboration with DENR, BFAR or other related local agencies
provided direct technical assistance. Individual and institutional local service providers
(LSPs) were engaged to provide technical assistance to other LGU partners for specific
modules following the minimum standards and deliverables. The Project specialists
coached the LSPs, provided training materials and reviewed LSP outputs.
V. Status and Accomplishments
The accomplishments of the CRM EcoGov 1 component are discussed in relation to

the scope of work and key strategies discussed earlier. These are organized into:
• Results of technical assistance to LGUs as quantified by the biophysical targets;

• Good governance practices;
• Local capability building;
• IEC and policy support; and
• Innovations and policy studies.
CRM TA to LGUs
A total of 26 LGUs in northern Luzon (4 LGUs), Central Visayas (8 LGUs), Western

Mindanao (12 LGUs) and Central Mindanao (2 LGUs) were provided assistance on at
least one of the different CRM technical assistance modules/sub-modules of EcoGov
described earlier. Highlights of activities, specific outputs and outcomes in terms of good
CRM and governance practices in relation to the different TA modules provided in each
region are summarized in Annex 1. These provide an overview of the synergistic
impacts of EcoGov 1 CRM assistance to LGUs and success stories for each EcoGov 1
region. The number of LGUs attaining the respective indicators and corresponding
biophysical targets accomplished are summarized as follows:

Table 1. Summary of biophysical targets accomplished (as of November 2004)
Actual Number of
LGUs
Key performance (% of WP 2004 Biophysical Targets
indicators target) accomplished
1. With consensus on coastal terminal points (CTPs) 9 664.7 kilometers of
of their municipal waters thru individual or joint (69%) coastline with improved
ordinances management
2. With overall consensus on their respective CRM 8
zones
1
(80%) 149,1702 hectares of
3. With legitimized CRM plans 7 municipal waters under
(88%) management
4. With legitimized municipal fishery management 8
plans and initial management implementation (80%)
5. With joint ( inter-LGU) fishery management and 12
enforcement agreements (100%)
6. With legitimized MPA plans and initial 11 16 MPAs established
management implementation (85%) covering
1,942 hectares
1
km of coastline of LGUs with consensus on CRM zones but with no legitimized CRM/fisheries management plans are not
included
2
not including Talibon and Toledo City (municipal water delineation only). Five km distance from shore is used in
computing area.
Municipal CRM Planning
Only 9 of the 2004 target for consensus on coastal terminal points (CTPs) was met.
The 9 LGUs which completed the process enacted municipal ordinances delineating
their respective municipal water boundaries; 4 LGUs submitted Sangguniang Bayan
(SB) resolutions to the National Mapping and Resources Information Authority
(NAMRIA). Consensus and agreements were facilitated through a series of inter-LGU
technical input sessions, participatory field verification and joint workshops.
Overall, the process of reaching agreements required a lot of effort and time due to
various political reasons between and within LGUs. In a number of cases, agreements in
CTPs were reached only with one adjacent LGU (e.g., Aurora LGUs, Balamban, Danao).
In Camotes Island, the SB of San Francisco rescinded the agreement of the local chief
executive(LCE) with the LCEs of the adjacent municipalities. Thus, only 9 out of a total
of 20 LGUs assisted in municipal water delineation were able to delineate their municipal
waters. Despite these, however, the municipal water (MW) delineation efforts opened
communication lines and fostered collaboration on fishery enforcement among LGUs
(e.g., Aurora, Illana Bay).
Consensus on coastal and municipal waters zones was formally reached in 8 out of
10 of LGUs. Two other LGUs reached consensus of CRM zones but focused planning
on the fisheries management sub-zones. Seven out of 8 LGUs completed and
legitimized their municipal CRM plans with budget allocations and the creation of CRM
bodies. Community validation and barangay-level zoning workshops, together with IEC
activities, facilitated consensus and plan legitimization. These LGUs have started to
implement strategies in their respective protection and fisheries management zones.

Municipal Fisheries Management
Eight out of 10 LGUs were able to legitimize their

Inter-LGU agreements municipal fisheries management plans. The target for
joint LGU fisheries management and agreements (i.e., 8
The inter-LGU agreements were LGUs in IBRA 9 and 4 in Aurora) was fully
major milestones considering the deep accomplished. More importantly, LGU level and joint
political differences among some inter-LGU implementation activities to improve municipal
LGUs, even among the members of fisheries management (e.g., registry and permit systems
the Illana Bay regional alliance in established, color coding of boats, reporting and
Zamboanga del Sur. The support of apprehension of illegal fishing activities, community IEC
the provincial government was in support of CRM) have been initiated and enabling
significant in facilitating the joint municipal ordinances enacted.
planning and legitimization by the
IBRA 9 council. These accomplishments in municipal coastal and
In Aurora, the inter-LGU fisheries fisheries management planning and implementation (i.e.,
management plan formulation and indicators 1-5) cover a total of 664.7 km of coastlines
legitimization was the very first with improved management. This is 94 percent of the
collaborative effort among the LGUs. 2004 Work Plan target.
The plan provided for inter-LGU
coordination and improved municipal Consensus on zones was reached in Balambam, but
fisheries management efforts of each the planning was not completed because of limited time
LGUs. The LGUs also agreed to and resources. For the same reason, together with the
jointly seek support from the LGU. limited absorptive capacity of the LGU TWG to
undertake activities for two sectors simultaneously, the
CRM technical assistance was not pursued in Lamitan and Isabela City. The estimated
total area of municipal waters placed under management based on legitimized CRM and
fisheries management plans is 149,170 ha.
The Project put 664.7 km of coastline under
The 664.7 km of coastline accomplished by improved management. This already
EcoGov 1 represents 66 percent of the total represents 66 percent accomplishment of the
Philippine Environmental Governance Program entire target of the USAID-assisted Philippine
target. In terms of EcoGov 1 regional distribution, Environmental Governance Program, of
41 percent of the kilometers of coastline under which EcoGov 1 was just a part.
improved management was achieved in Central
Visayas (7 LGUs), 27 percent in Western Also, the Project established 16 MPAs,
Mindanao (9 LGUs), 25 percent in Luzon (4 placing under protection a total area of 1,942
ha; the target was 250 ha.
LGUs), and 7 percent in Central Mindanao (2
LGUs). See Annex 2.
Marine Protected Areas
A total of 16 coral reef MPAs in 11 LGUs were delineated, with MPA management
plans adopted and implementation activities, such as deployment of marker buoys and
patrolling, initiated. These MPAs cover a total of 1,942 ha of critical coastal habitats.
While the number of LGUs assisted on MPA establishment falls short of the target by 2,
and the number of MPAs established is short by 1 MPA, the total area placed under
protection is 1,692 ha more than the target of 250 ha.

Notably, majority of the MPAs established in Western Mindanao are greater than 50
ha (the largest being 880 ha in Tungawan) and one of the MPAs in Tudela in Camotes
Islands covers 69.3 ha. The big sizes of the MPAs is notable given that more than 90
percent of the sanctuaries in the Philippines are less than 20 ha in size (Phil Reefs
database, Alino et al., 2000). This could be indicative of the lesser fishing pressure in the
Mindanao target areas. The LGUs must have also realized the potentially greater
benefits if more than token efforts are taken for replenishment and protection of their
declining stocks. All the MPAs established had support from the municipal government
in contrast to many of the community-based MPAs which were established by people’s
organizations (POs) or barangay officials with little collaboration with the municipal LGU.
Means to generate resources to effectively enforce larger MPAs and address the social
costs due to displacement of fishers (e.g., seaweed farmers in Zamboanga Sibugay)
have to be explored. In Western Mindanao, co-financing by the barangay and municipal
LGUs, close collaboration between the LGU and military and provision of livelihood
assistance to displaced fishers partly address these concerns.
In terms of regional distribution, 50 percent of the number of MPAs are in Western

Mindanao (6 LGUs), 38 percent Central Visayas (4 LGUs), and 12 percent in Luzon
(Annex 2). The number of MPAs established through EcoGov 1 represents 16 percent
of the Philippine Environmental Governance Program target. However, the total area
placed under protection represents 39 percent of the total Program target, instead of
only 5 percent as per original EcoGov Project 1 target. The number of MPAs and total
area protected do not include other MPAs identified in the legitimized CRM plans (~ 500
ha) that are enforced but do not yet have management plans (e.g., Dinas MPAs, the
seagrass reserve in Dinalungan which is a critical feeding ground for dugongs, other
MPAs in Poro and Tabina, including a 12-ha mangrove reserve in Tabina which is
protected by a local PO grantee of the project).
Part of the CRM’s improvement indicator is the periodic assessment of selected

MPAs in Aurora, Bohol and Illana Bay. The Marine Environmental Resource Foundation
(MERF) under sub-contract with the Project carried out these assessments in 6 MPAs in
2003 and 8 MPAs in 2004. Using a combination of line transect, video transect and fish
census, key parameters inside and outside the MPAs were measured, evaluated and
compared to determine improvements of management interventions over time. The
relative state of health of resources in an MPA indicates the potential rate of biomass
increase or recovery. For example, in areas where the densities of fish are usually > 500
individuals per 500 km2 (as in Tabina and Tukuran) there is a higher potential rate of
increase in fish in abundance in both density and biomass.
It is also important to note that the species diversity (20 – 30 species per 500 km2) in
Cataban, which has the lowest fish abundance, is only about half of the diversity in the
high abundance less fished areas (50-60 species
Technical benchmarking results showed that per 500 km2). Based on the results of the technical
fish biomass increased in some of the MPAs, benchmarking (Table 2), the fish biomass
indicating that local efforts to protect and increased in the MPAs of Alindahaw (Tukuran,
manage the MPAs have become effective. Zamboanga del Sur), Tambunan, Talisay and
Concepcion (Tabina, Zamboanga del Sur). It
appears that local collective actions to protect and manage the MPAs in these areas
have become effective. The experts, however, explained that assessing improvement of
fish biomass and other paramenters in MPAs could only be reliable after a number of

periodic measurements as there are so many external factors that could affect fish
biomass in MPAs.
In Aurora, for instance, there was a typhoon before the assessment was conducted.
This significantly affected the density of fishery resources within the MPAs. In Bohol, a
low/very low fish biomass was recorded in the Talibon MPA. This and the low density
and diversity reflects the severely fished status of reefs in the area. Improvement in
reefs, such as those in Talibon, will take a long time and will require a much larger
protection area coupled with enhancement efforts and fisheries regulations.
Table 2. Fish Biomass in MPAs in Selected EcoGov Sites

________________________________________________
MPAs mt/km2 category
2003 2004
Tukuran, Zamboanga del Sur

Sugod-Tagulo 14.09 24.97 medium / high
Alindahaw 16.38 28.81 medium / high
Tabina, Zamboanga del Sur

Tambunan 18.48 26.23 medium / high
Talisay 13.89 19.34 medium / medium
Concepcion 16.60 23.94 medium / high
Dinalungan, Aurora
Mapalad 21.26 14.18 high / medium
Abuleg-Ditawini 13.00 medium
Talibon, Bohol
Cataban 6.14 4.06 low / very low
___________________________________________________
As expected, there were no evident changes in species composition and coral cover
a year after benchmarking. Shifts in species composition become apparent usually after
at least three years of effective full protection in areas which have at least 20 tons per
km2. Thus, the size of the area of protection is important in terms of resilience to effects
outside the area of protection (Russ 2002)
Promoting Good Governance Practices
Aside from the biophysical targets, the TA modules effectively promoted good
governance practices as evidenced by various co-management agreements (e.g.,
financial and logistic support) between barangay and municipal LGUs and clusters of
adjacent LGUs as well as multi-sectoral/cultural collaboration in all regions (Annex 1).
These evolved from holistic participatory assessments, problem identification and
analysis; a systematic multi-criteria approach to informed decision-making; and
utilization of transparency and accountability mechanisms and tools throughout the
planning and initial implementation process.
Adopted plans and enacted ordinances incorporate various TAP provisions (e.g.,
clear roles and responsibilities, protocols, regular feedback and reporting, etc.). Although
difficult to quantify, initial transformations in LGU and local community’s values and
perspectives of their respective roles and responsibilities in CRM, as well as in the
conduct of resources management activities, have been observed.

For example in Zamboanga del Sur, LGUs
The Project’s promotion of the participatory were initially pessimistic about utilizing
process seem to have worked. Whereas
participatory approaches in the planning process
before the LGUs in Zamboanga del Sur were
having difficulty in getting people to join because of consistently very poor turn out of
public hearings, their problem now is how to people for public hearings. However, after the
limit the number of community members who participatory assessment activities and barangay
attend meetings, as people now see cluster zoning workshops, limiting the number of
themselves as part of the LGU decision- participants to meetings became a concern. It
making process. became easier to call the local community
members for meetings because they were
already part of the decision-making process.
Moreover, these changes in governance perspectives have been translated into

concrete actions in various LGUs such as :
• Increase and/or regularization of budget allocation for CRM particularly those

assisted with participatory municipal wide CRM planning and MPA establishment
or fisheries management. For example in Tukuran, the budget has progressively
increased from P400,000 in 2001 to P800,000 in 2004; likewise, Dinas allocated
P380,000 in 2001 and by 2004, allocated
Changes in environmental governance P1.1 M for CRM; Poro allocated P250,000
perspectives of LGUs have been translated in 2003, P400,000 in 2004 and P500,000
into concrete action. In allocating budget for for 2005 and Tudela allocated P200,00.00
instances, LGUs are now putting in more
money for CRM and MPAs.
in 2003, P300,000.00 in 2004 and
P500,000 for 2005.
• Increase support for enforcement such that the number of deputized fish
wardens increased and institutionalization of provision for incentives (allowances,
life and health insurance) for Bantay Dagats (e.g., Tukuran, Dinalungan) in
fishery ordinances, giving of recognition awards (e.g., Outstanding Bantay Dagat
Award during Araw ng Tukuran)
• Establishment of a system for application of permits and licenses, registration
and application and responsibilities and operationalization of CRM management
bodies (e.g., CRM Section in Dinalungan and Tukuran, CRM Office in Tabina)
with clear roles and responsibilities as provided for in the adopted operational
plans to improve municipal fisheries management.
• Co-management and enforcement of relatively larger MPAs by local community
members and municipal LGU with support from other external agencies (e.g.,
military, provincial alliance).
• Dissemination of information on protocols and communication flow for reporting
of illegal activities, procedures, schedules and requirements application for
licenses and permits and other information for public information before and after
adoption of plans and enactment ordinances through IEC activities (e.g., Tabina,
Tukuran, Tungawan, Lebak, Dinalungan, Baler, Poro).
• Enactment of resolutions and supplemental ordinances (e.g., Tukuran on
Livelihood Assistance Fund) in support of CRM activities and posting of notices
on billboards about CRM and fisheries related ordinances (e.g., IBRA 9 LGUs).
• Sourcing out of supplemental funds from province, NGOs of technical assistance
from NGAs and academic institutions for implementation of CRM activities to
augment LGU allotment (e.g., Camotes Islands, IBRA 9 LGUs, Aurora LGUs).

• Negotiations and initiatives to resolve conflicts in municipal water boundaries and
among resource users within the municipality and with adjacent municipalities (all
LGUs assisted).
These concrete actions have also Some of these changes are also taking place
encouraged other adjacent LGUs to invest in in nearby LGUs that are not necessarily
coastal and municipal resources management Project-assisted. For example, after visiting
and forge alliances and linkages with other LGUs. Tukuran (an EcoGov 1-assisted LGU which
For example Tukuran has become a learning site has become a learning site), other LGUs were
for other LGUs in the province and the region. encouraged to invest in coastal and municipal
Because of the CRM initiatives in the four LGUs resources management.
in the province and the exposure trip to Tukuran,
the province of Zamboanga Sibugay wants to facilitate the formation an alliance.
Local Capability Building
The TA modules heightened awareness, increased knowledge, and understanding

particularly of the LGUs, the TWG and local communities on good governance practices
in the management of their coastal resources and municipal waters. Aside from
knowledge, they acquired skills in gathering and analyzing information for informed
decision-making. In addition, coaching and mentoring of LSPs were undertaken.
LGU and local community
The expanded Technical Working Group (TWG) with representatives from all
barangays were exposed and trained on biophysical assessment methods (e.g., manta
tows, line and plot transects, quadrats for coral, seagrass mangrove assessment) and
fisheries and socio-economic assessments (e.g., household interviews, focused group
discussions).
Local participants, particularly active TWG members, were coached on how to

analyze and present results of activities in feedback sessions (e.g., the highlights of the
participatory assessments, synthesis of issues and problems and recommendations,
provisions of draft plans and ordinances, progress of CRM activities, etc.) to community
members and LGU officials. In the conduct of community consultations, the TWG were
trained on process facilitation and preparation of activity designs. Notably, these
approaches and methods have been used for other planning and community
consultation activities.
Members of the plan drafting committees were provided training on cost-revenue

analysis and TAP-enhanced ordinance formulation the outputs of which were part of the
implementation mechanisms for their plans. Writeshops facilitated the preparation of the
draft plans. The draft plans were reviewed and revised by the TWG before endorsement
to the Municipal Development Council (MDC) for SB adoption.
Specialized trainings were provided for groups responsible for enforcement (e.g.,
deputation and fish examiner) and MPA monitoring (e.g., fish census, coral cover
assessment, landed catch monitoring). Other experiential learning opportunities were
provided during cross-site visits to successful MPAs.

Altogether, the technical assistance facilitated the development of a pool of multi-
sectoral local resource persons with firsthand experience on various aspects of CRM
assessment, planning and implementation. An average of 20 TWG members were
trained in 26 LGUs in the EcoGov 1 regions. On the average, about 30-40 percent of the
TWG members were women. In addition, the awareness and knowledge of substantial
number of other local community members (i.e., at least 100-200 persons) who were
participants in barangay-level participatory resource assessments and various training
workshops during the course of the TA activities were enhanced. Over time, more of the
Project’s initial responsibilities and tasks were gradually turned over to the local partners
as they gained experience, knowledge and confidence in facilitating follow-up activities
(e.g., barangay consultations, documentation of results, preparation of work plans,
drafting of ordinances, etc.).
Local service providers (LSPs) and partners
Local institutional and individual service providers were tapped to deliver technical
assistance to LGUs. To establish minimum technical and process standards in providing
assistance to LGUs, orientation, coaching and mentoring aside from training materials
and designs were provided. Project specialists also reviewed LSP outputs and assisted
them in providing quality assistance to the LGUs. Through this process, capabilities of
local individuals and institutions were developed and partnerships with the LGUs
established.
Along the same line, a training course for DENR, BFAR and local institution
representatives in Mindanao was conducted to impart information on innovations on
CRM technical assistance approaches and tools to enhance their capability to provide
technical assistance to LGUs on CRM and good governance practices.
The training was capped with an evaluation exam and certificate of competence was
given to those who passed the exams. As a result of the institutionalization of a CRM
governance certificate course, other prospective LSP and LGUs who may want to avail
of related training may be considered for expansion. In addition orientation and sharing
of information on incentive systems, decision support tools and approaches for fisheries
management were shared with representatives of LGUs DENR, BFAR and academic
institutions during inter-LGU/regional workshops (e.g., ARMM, Malalag Bay).
IEC and Policy support
Among the initial implementation activities of LGUs and TWGs are the drafting and
enactment of enabling ordinances in support of management strategies per zone,
fisheries and MPA management in support of their respective plans. Training on drafting
TAP-enhanced ordinances were provided. Likewise training workshops on IEC, including
the development of communication plans and IEC materials in support of implementation
activities was part of the technical assistance package. The results of the training
activities have been the actual drafts of ordinances that were advocated for issuances by
the LGUs.
At the national level, IEC materials were produced and/or developed include: (1) a
primer on the ARMM fisheries code, (2) pamphlet on CRM tenure instruments with focus
on foreshore areas, (3) case studies on resolving conflicts in CRM; and (4) a CRM
Training Guide LSPs.

Innovations and Policy Studies
To contribute to the advancement of CRM theory and practice in the country, the
Project developed new CRM training modules and enhanced existing CRM approaches,
developed decision support tools (e.g., Fisheries Bio-economic Model) and facilitated
policy studies to enhance good environmental governance policies and practices. These
include the process of developing consensus and prioritization of CRM zones, the use of
multi-criteria analysis in analyzing the CRM zones and the doable interventions per
zone, the legitimization and buy-ins of other stakeholders.
Development of TAP-enhanced CRM training modules
Training modules including activity designs, key technical input materials (e.g.,
powerpoint presentations) and guidelines for LSPs were developed and field tested by
the project specialists. The TA modules incorporated good governance principles with
sound technical inputs and provided opportunities to put good governance into practice.
Participatory municipal-wide coastal development planning using zoning as a spatial
framework was streamlined and enhanced.
The design and methods on participatory fisheries and socio-economic assessment

were developed to complement the participatory coastal habitat assessment methods.
This facilitated a better understanding of the interactions between environmental and
socio-cultural and economic factors and thus provided a comprehensive basis for
informed-decision making. To complement technical inputs on traditional resource/
fishery management options, training workshops on cost and revenue analysis, incentive
systems and revenue generating mechanisms were developed to guide the preparation
of work and financial plans per management zone. The policy support workshop
included analysis of good governance elements in ordinance formulation.
As mentioned earlier, CRM Training Guide based on the training materials and
approaches used in delivering technical assistance to LGUs has been prepared. The
guide is for CRM service providers, including DENR and BFAR field offices, NGOs,
consulting firms, academic institutions and individual professionals. In addition, a source
book on incentive mechanisms for local governance of environmental and natural
resources have been prepared.
Fisheries Bio-economic Model
A bio-economic model was developed by a team of experts to serve as a decision

support tool to explore the ecological (i.e., sustainability of fisheries stock) and economic
consequences (number of fishers who can meet their daily income requirements from
fishing) of decisions (i.e., scenario simulations) on the size of MPAs, allowing
commercial fishing within 10.1 to 15 km of municipal waters, regulation of the number of
fishers/fishing effort. The model simulations using inputs from the participatory coastal
resource assessment in Tabina, Zamboanga del Sur, and information from Illana Bay,
were validated in workshops with local fishers and TWG members and presented at the
regional level for possible scaling up.
The model was also tested using data from different bays in the country. In general,
results were concordant with predictions derived from other fishery models. In addition,

the model’s conceptual framework was presented in a national and international
symposium to gain inputs for further refinement. The model generated a lot of interest
from the LGUs, technical government personnel and the members of the academe and
scientific community.
Based on workshop results and feedbacks from presentations, the model can be
used for IEC and advocacy purposes, comparative analysis and scenario setting, and
actual application in various sites for decisions on fishery management options. In the
future, more user-friendly applications would be explored and linked to IEC and policy
reform advocacy concerns. The results of the model provide information pertinent to the
review national policies on size of fishery reserves, determination of allowable catches
and interaction between municipal and commercial fisheries fishing effort.
Formulation of Foreshore Management Protocols in Central Visayas
TA was provided to DENR 7 to conduct two major workshops to review existing

foreshore practices and policy instruments, identify major issues and gaps and begin to
harmonize institutional overlaps towards the formulation of foreshore management
protocols for Region 7. The regional initiative also provides significant inputs to national
policy considerations on this matter. In addition, a primer on foreshore management for
LGUs has been drafted for review by DENR prior to reproduction.
Policy study on enhancement of good governance provisions in the Fisheries Code and case
studies on CRM tenure and access arrangements, incentives and shifter investments
The Legal Environmental Advocacy Program (LEAP) of Silliman University was

contracted to conduct a review of RA 8550 and its IRR to identify provisions where good
governance can be enhanced or incorporated. This will be the basis of further studies
and recommendations to be submitted to League of Municipalities of the Philippines
(LMP), DENR and BFAR as inputs to the ongoing review of RA 8550. Case studies on
actual good governance practices of selected LGUs in Central Visayas on coastal and
marine access and tenure arrangements, use of incentive systems and initiatives of
shifter investments provides some concrete baseline on current practices for comparison
with good practices elsewhere. This analysis provides insights on opportunities and
areas of possible intervention to expand and enhance local current practices on these
aspects of environmental governance.
VI. Lessons Learned
What Worked
Overall, the technical assistance modules and approaches that were employed were
effective as evidenced by the accomplishments in terms of physical targets, good
governance and capability building outcomes discussed earlier.
Design and Delivery of TA modules
The three TA modules were designed to be focused (i.e., with clear milestones and
outputs) and implementable as independent entry points within a holistic and integrated
framework. As such, one module can build on outputs of another and can be customized

depending on the needs of the LGU. Assistance was also designed to provide improve
planning and implementation at the LGU and inter-LGU level.
Given the limited Project resources, this design allowed for broader geographical
reach and impact coupled with selection of clusters of adjacent LGUs. In relation to this,
only a few selected LGUs per region with highly committed TWGs and local officials
were provided the municipal-wide participatory coastal management planning TA
complemented with one or both of the implementation modules (i.e., MPA establishment
and enhancement of fisheries management). These LGUs are learning sites for adjacent
LGUs. However, even if the scope of the TA for some LGUs were more limited than for
other, all modules followed the same principles of facilitating informed decision making
and providing opportunities to put TAP into practice.
Multi-sectoral TWGs
Creation and mobilization of a multi-sectoral working group paved the way for
participatory decision-making and consensus building leading to collective action from
the assessment through initial implementation phase. This capacitated a core group
within the municipality with knowledge and skills to conduct activities consistent with
good governance practices. Pre- and post-activity strategizing and evaluation always
involved the municipal TWGs and local community representatives. Action planning
involved identification of the action areas and the corresponding resources needed,
agreement on schedules and clarification of the specific roles and responsibilities of all
the participants (e.g., information dissemination, logistic arrangements, co-sharing of
expenses, etc.).
As needed, the TWG was reconstituted or expanded to involve committed local

participants and sector representatives. The composition of the TWG varied but majority
included: Municipal Agriculture Officer (MAO), Municipal Planning and Development
Coordinator (MPDC), Municipal/City Environment and Natural Resources Officer
(M/CENRO), and/or representatives from these respective offices; SB chair or
committee member(s) for Agriculture and Fisheries or Environment, representatives from
the Bantay Dagat, Municipal/Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management
Council (M/BFARMC), Association of Barangay Captains (ABC) president or barangay
captains, fisher folk and PO representatives. In addition, some TWGs had
representatives from local environmental associations, NGOs, representatives from the
business and religious sector, local academic/research institutions, the Philippine
National Police (PNP) and the military (i.e., in Western Mindanao).
Participatory Assessments
Local knowledge and perceptions were determined through participatory approaches

and tools (e.g., community resource/issue mapping, gear/resource use and livelihood
mapping, fishery-related activity calendars, trend lines, commodity flow diagrams) during
the assessment of coastal resources, fisheries and socio-economic situation. This was
enhanced by technical inputs and skills training. The participatory approach was used for
all technical assistance modules.
The experience gave the local participants firsthand knowledge and a better
understanding of the status of the resources, and the interactions among resource uses
and users that are important to consider in resource management. The local participants

were effective local resource persons, thus facilitating information dissemination and
community validation. Aside from the newly acquired skills and broadened perspective,
ownership of decisions based on information gathered with their participation is
enhanced. This also facilitates not only transparency but affords accountability in
conjunction with the participatory decision making process.
Informed Decision-Making
All technical assistance activities were designed to facilitate informed and

responsible decision making by the LGU and local community participants. A multi-
criteria framework that considers legal, ecological, socio-cultural/political, socio-
economic factors guided decision making in planning. The synthesis of the best
available primary and secondary information (i.e., local knowledge and technical inputs
provided by specialists (e.g., marine biologists, lawyers, economists) was the basis for
joint analysis of the situation and options (e.g., agreements on coastal zoning scheme;
MPA site and size selection, fisheries management options).
Community Feedback and Validation
Results of resource/resource use assessments, proposed management actions are

shared with the local communities for validation and enhancement and facilitate
agreement and support. The criteria for selection of participants for workshops and
community consultations are discussed to ensure meaningful discussion of major
stakeholders’ concerns and interests. This was particularly important in culturally/
politically heterogeneous communities. Indigenous peoples (IPs), former rebel groups
members, Muslims and other concerned groups were given importance and provided
opportunities to participate and articulate their concerns during the planning process.
Regular Review and Assessment of Progress
Orientation and leveling off on good governance principles, the overall process, key
activities and expected outputs with the TWG and other local partners at the start was
very important. Common knowledge and understanding facilitated regular review of what
have been accomplished and what remains to be done. The success of each activity and
constraints were evaluated so that the conduct of activities became more efficient with
time. The local partners were motivated by concrete progress attained through their
efforts.
Multi-level LGU Consensus Building and Conflict Management
Culturally sensitive, multi-sectoral participatory decision making coupled with

transparency and clear accountabilities reduced conflicts and promoted collective action
at the local level and facilitated legitimization and initial implementation of CRM, MPA
and fisheries management plans (see examples in Annex 1) in all the regions. Synergy
in LGU level initiatives in turn promoted inter-LGU and/or provincial level support and
facilitated co-management agreements (e.g., management and enforcement in IBRA 9
and Aurora).
Heightened CRM consciousness among political leaders, nurtured by regular briefing

and feedback on progress of activities by empowered TWG, support from the provincial
LGU and other national government agencies in the region sustained efforts despite

changes in political administration after the elections. Some LGUs have conflicts in
interest (e.g., operation of commercial fishing activities within municipal waters) or strong
political differences (i.e., between the local chief executive and SB, two adjacent LGUs)
that can only be managed through constituency building to strengthen demand for good
governance and effect a more permanent transformation in “business as usual”
practices.
MPA Establishment
It is well established that exposure trips are one of the most effective means to
heighten awareness and catalyze action for establishment of MPAs. Interaction with
fellow LGUs, POs and communities on site inspire exposure trip participants to attain the
same ecological and socio-economic benefits. Unfortunately this was not conducted in
Aurora and Central Visayas due to the budget cuts. However, some LGUs in Camotes
went to visit successful MPAs on their own.
Benchmarking is crucial in sustaining management and enhancing good governance

practices. Preliminary training on participatory MPA M&E in conjunction with technical
benchmarking for selected MPA managers in four LGUs was helpful but not sufficient.
Follow-up training and coaching is essential in the future to strengthen local MPA
groups.
Providing Opportunities to Put Good Governance into Practice
Attainment of a common understanding of the principles of good governance

principles of transparency, accountability and participatory decision-making in the
context of fisheries and coastal resources management among local partners was
embedded in approaches and processes in CRM, MPA, and fisheries planning and
implementation.
For instance, some of the tangible manifestations of the governance principles are
found in CRM zones determination, agreements on the location, area, and strategies for
protecting and managing MPAs and fisheries resources, agreements on various CTPs,
resolutions of conflicts among various stakeholders, enforcement of fisheries
regulations, among others. The agreements among local stakeholders to collaborate,
work together, and take collective actions in the protection and management of coastal
resources, especially their municipal waters were the first steps taken with Project
support. Consciously providing opportunities to put TAP into practice in all aspects of the
technical assistance was most effective in engaging local communities. This also
enhanced the credibility of the LGU. In some cases, the outputs provided leverage for
external sources of funding and technical support from other donor agencies, NGOs and
the local academic institutions.
Providing Grants
The grants expanded the Project impact area (e.g., MPA strengthening by CCEF)
and complemented technical assistance in sites where the Project was operating in the
case of the PO grantee (Pangalaran Environment and Livelihood Association or PELA)
in Tabina. However, in the case of Mediation Network (MedNet), differences in the
context, approach and timing of the intervention brought about some confusion at the
level of the LGUs. The LGUs were in the process of assessment and formulation of

CRM plans which included harmonization of various interest (e.g., consensus on zoning,
MPA site and size selection). Although the training on managing CRM based conflicts
was theoretically useful, the timetable and targets of the project technical assistance and
the grantee’s activities were not compatible.
What Did not Work
Several Project approaches and interventions did not work because of time or
resources constraints, capability limitations of the LGUs and LSPs, and political
interference. These were beyond the control of the technical Project staff, but were
managed as best possible.
Some Agreements on Municipal Water Boundary Delineation and Enforcement
In the EcoGov 1 training module, emphasis was given on municipal water delineation
as a tool for planning and a means to improve municipal fisheries management and
foster collaboration in enforcement among LGUs. The expectation that the size of the
municipal waters will someday be a basis for Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) kept
some LGU officials from coming to an agreement with adjacent LGUs because this
might reduce the area of the municipal waters they want to claim.
Despite all the possible technical inputs and assistance (e.g., mediation with
indigenous peoples (IPs), legal and mapping support), historical and deeply-rooted
conflicts in cadastral boundaries and differences in political affiliations of adjacent LGUs
or between the executive and legislative branches within the LGU, municipal water
delineation was not accomplished in the other LGUs .
Comprehensive TA to all LGUs
In Central Visayas, the TA modules were initially planned to be provided in a

sequential manner making municipal water delineation a prerequisite for all the other
modules. The long-drawn process in municipal water delineation, differences in level of
commitment of LGUs, coupled with the limited time and resources of the LGU and
project, resulted in considerable setbacks in the completion of technical assistance
activities. In some sites where TA for other project sectors (e.g,. Talibon, Toledo,
Lamitan, Isabela) were being provided simultaneously, the LGU had difficulty in keeping
up with the activities and allocating counterpart funds. In these cases, the TA was
terminated or reduced in scope.
Availability of Competent LSPs
The Project was designed with very few project staff with the assumption that
individual and institutional service providers can be mobilized efficiently for the delivery
of the technical assistance. In all regions, finding suitable LSPs was a major constraint.
Substantial efforts for capability building were required to get some LSPs up to speed.
Providing LSPs with guide materials were very useful but not sufficient. The LSPs like
the LGUs, needed substantial coaching on good governances in the context of CRM.
The Project’s initiatives to capacitate LSPs delayed the completion of several CRM
targets and deliverables. The approaches, process and scope of a technical assistance
modules, particularly the promotion of TAP principles and practices, are new to them
and even the project staff. These factors resulted in Project staff putting in a lot of time

and effort in improving the outputs of the LSP, while trying to keep up with direct
technical assistance commitments.
Collaboration with DENR and BFAR
Operationalizing collaboration with regional BFAR and DENR to provide joint TA to

LGUs was difficult to realize because of conflicts in schedules and differences in time
tables and key result areas. At best, DENR counterparts in some regions attended some
EcoGov 1 activities but did not have specific deliverables and outputs. In addition, focal
persons changed frequently and regular involvement in planning and implementation
activities was limited. There is no incentive for BFAR to fully engage as a partner since
this is a DENR project. In some cases it is feasible to engage Provincial Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources Office (PFARO) personnel from PAO. However, regional BFAR
personnel were dependable for deputation training for fish wardens and fish examiner
trainings.
A larger issue, however, looms as a result of EcoGov 1 initiatives: DENR and BFAR
have yet to fully realize and re-align resources in support of LGUs emerging as their new
clients, a different market to cater in which their institutions are only partly capable to
respond.
VII. Recommendations
Policy and Advocacy
• With the legitimized CRM, MPA and fisheries plans, EcoGov 2 should follow
through with initiatives to enhance and implement good governance
provisions in RA 8550. Initiatives should be combined with assistance to
strengthen the LGUs’s efforts to enact local policies and complemented by
national policies that are geared towards improving coastal and marine
tenure/access arrangements (including foreshore management) and other
appropriate incentive systems for communities, LGUs, and the private sector.
Both local and national policies should minimize opportunities for social
injustice and inequity to take place at the expense of the municipal fisher
folks.
• Implement comprehensive IEC and advocacy strategy to strengthen

partnership of communities and other local stakeholders to sustain and scale
up environmental governance initiatives in the CRM sector and to mobilize
collective actions for enforcement at bay or ecosystem levels. These efforts
should capitalize on the gains of EcoGov 1 in developing a broader mass
base support at the LGU and provincial levels. The IEC and advocacy in the
coastal areas should focus on strengthening political will for joint
enforcement, conduct of periodic monitoring and evaluation of key CRM
performance indicators to determine improvements of over time, resolutions
of conflicts, and sustained local actions against illegal and destructive fishing
practices.

• DENR, the leagues, BFAR, and civil society should continue supporting the
ongoing efforts to advance the National Coastal and Marine Policy
Framework and the development of the enabling legislation. The proposed
framework should incorporate incentives (and possible subsidies) into
certification of good practices and standards (e.g., MPA networks) and
standardization procedures for performance monitoring and management
effectiveness. Provide mechanisms and windows of opportunities where the
public and private sector could compensate for the community’s and LGU’s
efforts to protect and manage their MPAs and coastal resources.
Improving Regional TA Operations
• EcoGov 2 should continue supporting the EcoGov 1-assisted LGUs and set
realistic and strategic targets within available financial and human (including
LSPs) resources and develop criteria for selecting additional LGUs for
assistance . EcoGov 1 TA commitments to LGUs with existing MOAs should
be reviewed and evaluated. An affirmation from these LGUs is needed in the
form of SB and MDC resolutions, especially those from Illana Bay,
Zamboanga-Sibuguey, Basilan Island, Camotes Island, Northern Cebu, and
Baler Bay. TA could be provided as an incentive for LGUs with good track
records in governance and/or resource management. In evaluating additional
LGUs for EcoGov 2 assistance, consider biophysical criteria (e.g., extent and
condition of resources and habitats, entrainment and connectivity potential,
biodiversity) together with socio-cultural and political criteria (e.g., good track
record in governance and/or resources management).
• Assist the LGUs and communities to network and link for support and TA
(e.g., legal, livelihood development, sustainable financing) with local and
national institutions to sustain implementation of CRM, MPA, and fisheries
plans. Most LGUs are not able to provide sustained and adequate financing
for CRM enforcement, community livelihood and social infrastructure support,
periodic assessments, and information dissemination. The leagues, with the
local and national agencies, and the civil society groups, should facilitate a
wider use and application of the decision support tools (e.g., fisheries bio-
economic model) to promote complementation of efforts and alliance building,
stewardship and accountability across various accountability centers in CRM
management . These may include the LGUs, communities, private sector,
BFAR, enforcement agencies, social welfare institutions. Displacements of
fisher folks may result from the implementation of environmentally-sound
mechanisms and actions following the recommendations from the
bioeconomic model.
• Operationalize institutional and technological mechanisms to strengthen and

network MPAs in strategic biogeographic regions (e.g., Sibugay Bay, Illana
Bay, Basilan, Eastern Davao Gulf, Sibuyan Sea Passage, Aurora) to optimize
impacts and resources. Explore subsidy and non-traditional financing to
sustain the operation, coordination, and advocacy work of the networks.
• Develop capabilities of local individual and institutional LSPs through more

on-site training and mentoring by project specialists. Because institutional

LSPs do not have expertise for all the technical assistance activities required,
assistance to LGUs has to be complemented by direct project assistance and
engagement of resource persons. Mechanisms to streamline and make
procurement of LSPs more responsive to field operational concerns are
essential.
EcoGov 2 Small Grants Program
• Expand and rationalize small grants program to give priority to local

communities in partnership with the LGU. In the CRM sector, the
communities protecting and managing MPAs deserve higher priorities for
grants especially those proposals that support community enterprises that
lessen dependence on fishery resources, proposals that compensate for the
communities’ “no-take” in MPAs, proposals that strengthen their political and
organizational capacities to enforce and take collective actions against illegal
and destructive fishing. Different standards and more administrative support
should be provided to people’s organizations. Grants to institutionalize
support systems for local academic institutions to sustain effective delivery of
technical assistance (e.g., local institutional grants for good governance
training, start-up for establishing mechanisms for periodic biophysical and
socioeconomic assessments of CRM indicators, M&E database and decision
support systems) should be provided.
• Provide grants to selected coalitions or NGOs to promote, facilitate, and

stimulate the emergence of demand- and self-driven incentives for joint
partnerships in good environmental governance undertakings (e.g., Grants
for MPA networks to demonstrate complementary benefits, performance
monitoring and management effectiveness through standards and cross
leveraging mechanisms). At the regional and national levels, grants to
facilitate linkage and collaborative efforts among LGUs and communities that
form biologically-rich corridors must be supported to enhance sustainability of
coastal and fishery resources.
Overall implementation of CRM Governance
• Both DENR and BFAR should strengthen their institutionalized collaboration

in providing TA to LGUs on coastal and fisheries resources. This is an area of
opportunity for EcoGov 2 TA. For instance, efforts to link the database of
EcoGov to other databases (e.g., Coastal Resources Management Project or
CRMP, Fisheries Resources Management Project or FRMP) and its interface
with decision support tools will enhance CRM governance at the local,
regional and national levels.
• The national government should promote public-private partnerships in

research and development for sustainable fisheries and coastal resources
management (e.g., sustainable financing, livelihood development) coupled
with adoption of pertinent international good environmental governance
performance standards (e.g., code of conduct for responsible fisheries,
environmental certification systems).

References
Aliño, P.M., H.O. Arceo, N.E. Palomar and A.T. Uychiaoco. 2002. Challenges and
opportunities for marine protected area (MPA) management in the Philippines.
Proc. Ninth Int. Coral Reef Symp. 2: 635-640.
Alino, P.M. and G.Castillo. 2004. Policy Imperatives for fisheries management: insights
from decision support tools for good local governance.
Calumpong, H.P., Montebon,R.D. and Maxino, M.L. 2004. Tenure, access, shifter
investments, and incentives/disincentives: EcoGovernance Instruments as Used in
Four Municipalities in Central Visayas. Legal Environment and Advocacy Program.
College of Law, Silliman University
Castillo, Licuanan, Alino,Campos,Menez. 2004. A decision support model for local

fisheries management: the Tabina case study. II. Socio-economic consideration.
Licuanan, Campos, Alino, Castillo, Menez. 2004 A decision support model for local
fisheries management: the Tabina case study. III. Biophysical consideration.
LEAP. 2004. Proposed amendments to RA8550 and IRR.
Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the Republic
of the Philippines for the Protection of Productive and Life-Sustaining Natural
resources
MERF. Terminal Report on Marine Protected Area Monitoring and Evaluation.
The Philippine Environmental Governance Project (EcoGov) 2004 Implementation

Workplan
Phil Reefs Database
Russ, G.R. 2001. Marine reserves as fisheries management tools: Yet another review.
In: P.F. Sale (ed.). Coral reef fishes: new insights into their ecology. Academic
Press, USA.

ANNEX 1. HIGHLIGHTS OF OUTPUTS AND IMPACTS OF ECOGOV CRM TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE TO LGUS
1. Northern Luzon (refer to Map of LGUs)
Technical assistance was provided to four LGUs in the province of Aurora, i.e., San Luis, Baler,
Dipaculao and Dinalungan. All four received technical assistance in municipal water delineation
and the formulation of an inter-LGU fisheries management and enforcement plan. In addition,
Dinalungan was provided technical assistance in participatory municipal-wide CRM planning and
the establishment and management of marine protected areas.
Inter-LGU Fisheries Management Plan Adoption and Implementation
Orientations on municipal water delineation in relation to improved municipal fishery

management, field surveys, community consultations in boundary barangays, inter-LGU meetings
and workshops, and technical mapping on proposed coastal terminal points were conducted with
the TWGs of the four municipalities. Agreements were reached between Dingalan and San Luis
and Baler and Dipaculao. However, agreements could not be reached for the coastal CTPs
between San Luis and Baler because of contested cadastral boundaries confounded by the
ancestral domain claim of the Dibut tribe. The project facilitated multi-sectoral negotiation
meetings with inputs from lawyers on legal and jurisdictional issues pertinent to MW delineation,
and clarification of the indigenous people’s rights and claims by the National Commission for
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). However, the long standing cadastral dispute between Baler and
San Luis, and between Dipaculao and Dinalungan precluded agreement on the CTP between
these municipalities.
Despite the impasse in agreements in coastal terminal points, all LGUs agreed to forge
collaboration towards improving municipal fisheries management. An inter-LGU fisheries
management plan was formulated through joint inter-LGU training and planning workshops.
Community consultations were conducted by the respective TWGs as part of the legitimization
process. The inter-LGU fisheries management plan was adopted by all four LGUs. The scope of
the plan includes: implementation of registration, permit and licensing systems; color coding of
boats; monitoring, control and surveillance including a reporting system within each LGU and
among LGUs under the coordination of the provincial fisheries and agricultural officer (PFARO),
provision of incentives for law enforcement to barangays and ntay dagats, and eventual
development of unified fishery ordinances.
Aside from adoption of the inter-LGU plan by the respective SBs, each LGU initiated local level
implementation in accordance with the inter-LGU plan. Specifically, municipal fishery law
enforcement units in Baler and San Luis have been formed, BFARMCS and MFARMCs in
Dipaculao organized, fisheries ordinances have been drafted and in the process of legitimization
in Dinalungan and Baler. Deputation of fish wardens and fish examiners’ training were conducted
for all four LGUs in collaboration with BFAR region 3. This contributed in the enhancement of
patrolling and apprehension of illegal fishers in San Luis and Dinalungan and initiation of similar
activities in Baler. The organization of the inter-LGU committee for fishery enforcement has
started and agreed to solicit support from the provincial government for budget allocation and
appointment of the PFARO to coordinate the inter-LGU fishery enforcement activities identified in
the plan. While the pace and level of commitment of the different LGUs vary, it is significant to
note that this is the first time in the history of these LGUs to reach an agreement to work together
and collaborate to attain the same goals and objectives despite strong political differences.

Adoption and Implementation of CRM plan and MPAs in Dinalungan
The participatory process of formulating integrated municipal CRM plan and the operational plans
for the management of Dinalungan MPAs enhanced collective action and cooperation by the local
community. Local IEC and advocacy initiatives by the local community members and barangay
councils paved the way for the adoption and legitimization of the plans despite the politically
polarized Sangguniang Bayan members. Initial plan implementation activities focused on the
management strategies for the multi-fishery and protected zones. Technical benchmarking of the
two MPAs and initial training of the local MPA management group on participatory monitoring and
evaluation of MPA has been conducted. Regular patrolling of the two MPAs; Mabudo (49 ha) and
Ditanggol (23.5 ha) is being undertaken by the Bantay Dagat. In addition to the two fish
sanctuaries, a seagrass reserve, which is a critical feeding area for dugongs, has been identified
as part of the protection and conservation zone. Ordinances in support of the implementation of
the CRM and MPA plans are in the process of legitimization, fisher folk registry, boat coding per
barangay harmonized with the inter-LGU boat color coding are ongoing.
2. Central Visayas (refer to map of LGUs)
A total of 8 LGUs (7 in Cebu and 1 in Bohol) were provided technical assistance on coastal
resources management. All LGUs were provided assistance in municipal water delineation. Four
of the LGUs also were assisted in the establishment of marine protected areas, two of which were
also assisted in participatory municipal-wide CRM planning. Two of the LGUs were assisted in
formulation of operational plans to improve municipal fisheries management.
Inter-LGU Agreements on Municipal Water Boundary Delineation
Consensus on coastal terminal points were reached after a series of negotiations, as embodied in
resolutions and ordinances enacted to delineate the municipal water boundaries of five of the
eight LGUs. These resolutions on LGU agreements with adjacent LGUs have been submitted to
NAMRIA for verification. In Danao, agreement on the CTP was reached with Compostela but not
Carmen due to political differences between the LGUs. Similarly, Balambam reached an
agreement on the CTP with Toledo but not with Asturias although negotiations are still ongoing.
In the case of San Francisco, the Sangguniang Bayan representatives did not concur with the
agreement on CTPs between the Mayor of Poro and their Mayor. Consensus on coastal CTPs
and delineation of municipal waters in Talibon,Toledo and Compostela together with strategic
planning and review of enforcement have enhanced fishery law enforcement.
Adoption and initial implementation of CRM Plans in Camotes Islands
Lobbying by local participants for a special SB session and public hearings paved the way for
adoption of the municipal wide CRM plans in Poro and Tudela despite differences between the
mayors and vice mayors of the LGUs. In Tudela, where a new set of local officials were elected,
the orientation on the participatory planning process, the presentation of the situational analysis
and the zonal management strategies by the TWG gained the support of the new officials even if
the project was not initiated during their term. Both LGUs are actively sourcing external funding to
augment their local resources for plan implementation. Poro has launched their IEC CRM
program, including school based orientation and trainings such as the “little fish wardens”
program.

Adoption and Implementation of MPA plans
All three LGUs in Camotes have adopted the management plans and enacted ordinances for
their MPAs. Altogether four community validated MPA plans were adopted and legitimized in
Camotes. Two of these are in Tudela, in Villahermosa (69.3 ha) and Puertobello (39.1 ha). The
other two are in Consuelo, San Francisco (32 ha) and Esperanza, Poro (42 ha). The bantay
dagats and POs managing the MPAs have been provided training on enforcement by ELAC and
Plan International. For all these MPAs, community IEC activities are continuing and fund sourcing
for guard houses in collaboration with Plan International who has also provided co-funding for
some of the CRM TA activities in Camotes.
In Talibon, the management plan of the MPA in Sag (33.5 ha) is newly has been adopted by the
LGU and endorsed to the PAMB since it is within a protected seascape. The local community has
taken the initiative to deploy temporary markers to delineate the MPA. The MPA plan for Cataban
(19.8 ha) is still in the process of legitimization. Enforcement activities are continuing with support
from fisher’s organizations and coastal law enforcement team (CLET).
In addition, technical benchmarking of the MPAs in Esperanza, Poro and Cataban, Talibon, and
initial training on participatory monitoring and evaluation was provided to the local MPA
management groups. The project grant to CCEF also provided capability building for
enforcement, monitoring and IEC to strengthen MPA management of the MPAs in Cordova,
Dalanguete and Alcoy.
Adoption and implementation of fisheries management plans
The fisheries management plans of San Franciso and Danao were legitimized. In San Francisco,
Camotes, agreements on the zoning of municipal waters and the fisheries management plan for
the multi-fisheries management zone has been adopted. Notably it is the Association of Barangay
Captains who endorsed the fisheries management to the MDC for SB adoption, indicating strong
support from the ground for the adoption and implementation of the plan. In both LGUs, law
enforcement orientation for the Bantay Dagats, FARMCs and deputized wardens were conducted
as part of the capability building in support of implementation. The fisher folk registration is also
ongoing in both LGUs.
Interest in inter-LGU collaboration on fishery law enforcement activities have been expressed in a
memorandum of agreement among the LGUs of Camotes Island (i.e., Poro, Tudela, San
Francisco, Pilar). Similarly, initial discussions on inter-LGU collaboration between Danao and
Compostela have been conducted. Though these are encouraging developments, it should be
recognized that the Camotes Sea area and the municipality of Danao is home to a considerable
fleet of commercial fishing operators. It will be a major challenge to enjoin political support to limit
commercial fishing operations in the municipal waters in the area.
3. Western Mindanao (refer to map of LGUs)
Eight LGUs along Illana Bay (IBRA 9 members) were assisted in the province of Zamboanga del
Sur and 4 LGUs in Zamboanga Sibugay. All IBRA 9 LGUs were provided assistance in municipal
water delineation and the formulation of an inter-LGU fishery enforcement plan. Three LGUs in
strategic sections of the IBRA 9 area (i.e., Tabina on the east, Tukuran on the west and Dinas in
the middle) were assisted in participatory municipal-wide CRM planning. In addition, Tabina and
Tukuran were provided assistance in marine protected area and municipal fisheries management.
The assistance provided in IBRA 9 was strategic in strengthening the Alliance which was formed
through LGSP.
In Zamboanga Sibugay, four LGUs were assisted in MPA establishment and management. In
addition, Tungawan was provided assistance in participatory municipal-wide CRM planning and
fisheries management.

Inter-LGU Agreements on Municipal Water Delineation and Fisheries Enforcement in IBRA 9
The participatory and non-confrontational approach facilitated through technical inputs and close
coordination with the provincial TWG brought about agreements on eight out of nine coastal
terminal points among members of IBRA 9. These were formalized through the adoption of joint
Sangguniang Bayan resolutions. The coastal terminal point between Tukuran and Sultan Naga
Dimaporo requires inter provincial/regional negotiations to be pursued in the future. Tabina,
Dimataling, Dinas and San Pablo reached agreements on the seaward coordinates of their
municipal waters and enacted municipal ordinances delineating their respective municipal waters.
These agreements have improved inter-LGU relations and in part paved the way for the adoption
of the IBRA 9 council of the IBRA 9 fisheries enforcement plan. The plan includes operational
mechanisms and activities for joint local capability building, IEC, inter-agency and inter-LGU
collaboration on fishery law enforcement with budget allocation and personnel detail for the inter-
LGU enforcement unit of IBRA 9.
Although technical assistance for inter-LGU fisheries enforcement has not been provided in
Zamboanga Sibugay, the CRM initiatives in the four LGUs and the cross site visit to Zamboanga
del Sur (Tukuran) have paved the way for interest in formalizing a provincial TWG and the
formation of the Sibugay CRM Inter-LGU Alliance similar to IBRA 9. Through the efforts of the
PENRO, an initial budget of P100,000.00 has been allocated by the province. The training on
effective management of coastal resource based conflicts conducted by a project grantee
(MedNet), gained some interest from the provincial government to forge agreements on conflict
resolution mechanisms among LGUs in the province. Some of the conflicts identified are
operation of commercial fishing and use of destructive fishing methods within municipal waters,
and displacement of seaweed farmers due to the establishment of the MPA (e.g., RT Lim).
Adoption and implementation of CRM plans
Participatory municipal-wide coastal development plans in Tabina, Tukuran and Dinas were
formulated and adopted. The planning process provided opportunities for different sectors to work
together including representatives of different ethnic groups, former rebels, and the military. The
CRM plans of the three LGUs facilitated implementation of habitat rehabilitation and livelihood
fund from the Philippine Canadian Development Fund. In Tukuran and Tabina, the Coastal
Resource Management Office has been operationalized. In addition, Tukuran enacted an
ordinance establishing a livelihood assistance fund amounting to PhP 200T per year for poor
coastal and upland families.
In Zamboanga Sibugay, the CRM plan of Tungawan has been adopted and initial implementation
focuses on the establishment of the municipal MPA and improved enforcement of fishery laws.
Adoption and Implementation of MPA plans
Three MPAs were identified in the legitimized CRM plan of Tabina, and 2 each in the Tukuran
and Dinas CRM plans. Tabina and Tukuran have passed municipal ordinances establishing these
marine protected areas. Assistance was provided in the technical benchmarking and
development of the management plans of the Concepcion (28 ha) and Tambunan (98 ha) marine
protected areas in Tabina; and for the Panduma,Alindahaw, Lower Bayao, San Carlos (PALS)
(70 ha) and the Militar, Sugod, Tagulo (MiSSTa) (160 ha) marine protected areas in Tukuran. For
both LGUs, initial training on participatory monitoring and evaluation was also provided in
conjunction with the technical benchmarking activities. Technical assistance was provided in
zonation and preparation of the technical description of the municipal fish sanctuary in Taracan
(460 ha). Deployment of marker buoys and regular patrolling of these MPAs are conducted by the
enforcement groups. Co-management arrangements (i.e., sharing of financial and logistic
support) have been forged among the respective barangays where the MPAs are located and the
municipal government.

Several agencies and institutions including the Sibugay Valley Management Council, NEDA 9
and Zamboanga City LGU visited Tukuran for a 2-day exposure on MPA establishment and
management. As part of the community CRM IEC program, the Tabina TWG organized exposure
trips to the local MPAs for various barangay and local school officials and other local agencies.
The youth sector has been involved with the CRM IEC. In addition, PELA (Pangalaran
Environment and Livelihood Association), a PO grantee of the project is managing a 12 ha
mangrove reserve. The PO has entered into a MOA with the MPA fish wardens of Concepcion to
assist them in patrolling and conducting IEC activities. Coordination with the fish wardens of
Tambunan is also taking place. A number of illegal fishers including commercial fishers and
dynamite fisheries have been reported to the PNP leading to some apprehensions.
In Zamboanga Sibugay, technical assistance for the establishment, development of the

management plans and conduct of initial implementation activities in Tandu Balasan,Naga (115
ha), Takot Patumbok, Payao (220 ha), RT Lim (120 ha) and Bangaan Island, Tungawan (880 ha)
marine protected areas. All MPA management has been adopted and preparation of supporting
ordinances is underway. Marker buoys have been deployed and patrolling activities initiated in
Tungawan in conjunction with the implementation of the fisheries enforcement plan for the multi-
fisheries management zone. Bantay Dagat (CAFGU) personnel assigned by the 4th Infantry
Battalion are now stationed in Bangaan Island. Similar fishery and MPA enforcement
arrangements between the LGU and the military are being pursued between Payao and the 102nd
Brigade and the 4th Infantry Battalion; and in Naga, with the Coast Guard and the Special Forces
assigned in the area. In Payao, aside from MPA related activities, representatives of youth and
religious sectors have taken the initiative to bring forth a complaint on the rampant occurrence of
dynamite fishing in the coastal waters of Payao. Deputation of fish wardens in RT Lim and
Tungawan has enhanced enforcement activities leading to apprehension of illegal fishing
activities in the MPAs and in the municipal waters at large. In RT Lim, the mayor has agreed to
assist displaced seaweed farmers in the MPA area in relocating their farms and providing some
financial assistance in the form of small loans.
Adoption and Implementation of Fisheries management plans
In support of the implementation of priority activities for the management of the respective
fisheries management zones provided for in the CRM plan of Tabina, Tukuran and Tungawan,
operational plans were formulated and legitimized to facilitate implementation of fishery
management and coastal/fisheries law enforcement. In Tabina and Tukuran, the registry of fisher
folks and organizations are ongoing. In addition, Tukuran has enacted supplemental fishery
ordinances for granting exclusive fishery privileges and fees and for the institutionalization of the
fisheries registry. Tabina is in the process of amending its comprehensive municipal fisheries
ordinance to incorporate provisions in the adopted CRM, fisheries and MPA plans. Likewise, in
Tungawan, a number of arrests relating to poaching by commercial fisheries in municipal waters,
use of destructive fishing methods and cutting of mangrove trees have been made. This are
attributed to the enhanced capabilities of the deputized fish wardens and the collaboration with
the military. Two cases involving commercial fishers have been filed. Confiscated catch totaling
no less than 80 banyeras were distributed among provincial and municipal jails and the hospital in
Ipil. Penalties collected amounting to around P100,000.00 have been allocated as seed fund for
year 1 implementation activities for the multi-fisheries management zone.
4. Central Mindanao (refer to map of LGUs)
Adoption and implementation of fisheries management plans
The LGUs in Lebak and Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat were assisted in formulating their fisheries
management plans. Participatory fisheries profiling and review of the status of fisheries
management and policies were conducted and community validated. Both fishery management
plans were adopted by the respective Sangguniang Bayan and supporting municipal fisheries

ordinances have been drafted and in the process of legitimization. Deputation of fisheries warden
trainings were conducted with assistance from BFAR 12 and the municipal agriculture office
(MAO), and municipal fishery ordinances are being drafted. In addition, IEC campaign on the
registration of vessels, gears and fisher folk have been undertaken to facilitate implementation of
these activities.

Annex 2. CRM LGUs with Corresponding Coastline, Coastal Area and MPAs Under Management
(as of Nov 2004)
Coastal Area Coastal Area MPA Established

Km of Coastline
Under Under
Name of LGU EcoGov TA Interventions Under
Management
Management (in Management (in Number Area (Ha)
sq km)* ha)
Region 12 42.9 165 16,491 0 0
Sultan Kudarat 42.9 165 16,491 0 0
1. Lebak Fisheries management 18.6 57 5,698
2. Kalamansig Fisheries management 24.3 108 10,793
Total Central Mindanao 42.9 165 16,491 0 0
ARMM 0.0 0
Basilan 0.0 0
1. Lamitan For EcoGov 2
2. Isabela City For EcoGov 2
Region 9 179.7 592 59,231 8 1,634
Zamboanga del Sur 123.6 468 46,751 4 356
2. Dimataling Inter-LGU fisheries mgt; mun 12.5 47 4,742
water delineation
3. Dinas Inter-LGU fisheries mgt; CRM 19.7 63 6,333
planning; mun fishery mgt;
mun water delineation
4. Labangan Inter-LGU fisheries mgt 6.4 18 1,818
5. Pagadian City Inter-LGU fisheries mgt 14.7 40 3,984
6. Dumalinao Inter-LGU fisheries mgt 15.3 50 5,001
7. San Pablo Inter-LGU fisheries mgt; mun 15.0 81 8,141
water delineation
8. Tabina Inter-LGU fisheries mgt; CRM 31.0 151 15,138 2 126
planning, MPA estab; mun
fishery mgt
9. Tukuran Inter-LGU fisheries mgt; CRM 9.0 16 1,594 2 230
fishery mgt
Zambo Sibugay 56.1 125 12,480 4 1,278
10. Tungawan Inter-LGU fisheries mgt; CRM 56.1 125 12,480 1 880
fishery mgt
11. RT Lim MPA establishment 1 50
12. Naga MPA establishment 1 124
13. Payao MPA establishment 1 224
Total Western Mindanao 179.7 592 59,231 8 1,634
Bohol 98.9 0 0 2 53
1. Talibon Mun water delineation; MPA 98.9 2 53.3
estab
Cebu 176.9 174 17,433 4 182
2. Balamban PCRA and zoning
3. Toledo City Mun water delineation 27.0
4. Danao City Mun fisheries mgt 15.2 16 1,640
5. San Francisco Mun fisheries mgt; MPA 47.2 16 1,573 1 32
estab
6. Poro Mun water delineation; CRM 65.2 56 5,560 1 42
planning; MPA estab
7. Tudela Mun water delineation; CRM 15.4 87 8,660 2 108.4
planning; MPA estab
8. Compostela Mun water delineation 6.9
Total Central Visayas 275.8 174 17,433 6 236
Region 3 166.3 560 56,016 2 73

Aurora 166.3 560 56,016 2 73
1. San Luis 54.6 204 20,353
2. Baler 35.2 130 12,960
3. Dipaculao 49.5 161 16,073
4. Dinalungan 27.0 66 6,630 2 73

LAYING THE FOUNDATION OF A
GOVERNANCE-ORIENTED AND COLLABORATIVE
APPROACH TO FORESTS AND FOREST LANDS
MANAGEMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES
COMPLETION REPORT ON
FORESTS AND FOREST LANDS (FFM)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3
II. Scope of Work for the EcoGov 1: Technical Assistance on Forests and Forest
Lands (FFM)............................................................................................................................ 4
Targets and Deliverables.................................................................................................... 5
Key Strategies .................................................................................................................... 7
III. EcoGov 1 FFM sector Accomplishments.......................................................................... 11
Governance-Oriented Municipal Forest Land Use Planning (FLUP) and Co-
Management Agreements.......................................................................................... 11
Policy and Advocacy Support........................................................................................... 14
Technical and IEC Support............................................................................................... 16
Innovative Interventions.................................................................................................... 18
Collaborative Efforts ......................................................................................................... 20
IV. Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................. 23
What Worked .................................................................................................................... 23
What Didn't Work and Why............................................................................................... 27
V. Recommendations for Moving Forward............................................................................ 28
For EcoGov 2 Planning and Implementation.................................................................... 29
For the Overall Improvement of FFM Governance........................................................... 30
References ................................................................................................................................... 32
Laying the Foundation of a Governance-Oriented and Collaborative Approach

to Forests and Forest Lands Management In The Philippines I
ii Completion Report of the EcoGov Project Forests and Forest Lands Management Team
LAYING THE FOUNDATION OF A GOVERNANCE-ORIENTED
AND COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO FORESTS AND
FOREST LANDS MANAGEMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES1
COMPLETION REPORT ON FORESTS AND FOREST LANDS (FFM)
I. Introduction
The Philippine forest statistics present a bleak picture: only 18 percent of the country has
forest cover; about 44,000 ha of natural forests are lost each year in Mindanao alone; over one-
third of the country’s endemic 12,000 plant species that are globally important are near
extinction. Food and Agriculture (FAO) data indicate that in the Asia-Pacific region, the
Philippines had the highest rate of deforestation at 3.5 percent annually and one of countries
with the lowest forest cover of 0.1 per capita (FAO 2001). The degradation of the country’s
forests has impacted productivity and local people’s well being; majority of the 20 million forest
dwellers depend on these natural resources for their livelihoods.
Although the rate of forest loss has declined in the last 10 years or so, the country’s forests
are still under threat from illegal cutting and conversion of remaining forests into other uses.
Beginning in the 1980s, the Philippines started experiencing the consequences of misallocating
and unsustainable use of forests and forest lands. The Ormoc tragedy, where at least 7,000
people died; and the most recent disaster that hit the provinces of Aurora and Quezon, where
hundreds were killed and thousands rendered homeless, were but grim manifestations of how
degraded our forests and forest lands are. Records show that more than 60 percent of the
country’s land area suffers from soil erosion ranging from 74 to 81 million tons of soil lost
annually. As a result, the total area of irrigated agricultural lands during the dry months is
reduced by about 20-30 percent. Deforestation has indirectly decreased rural incomes, supply
of food and fiber, and germplasm reserves.
The Philippine Environmental Governance Project Phase 1 (EcoGov 1) believes that weak
environmental governance in the forestry sector is the root cause of continued deforestation and
degradation of the country’s forests and forest lands. EcoGov’s premise is that despite the
availability and widespread adoption of adequate and technically-sound solutions and
approaches, forest resources will continue to decline if good governance principles
(transparency, accountability and participatory decision-making or TAP) are not applied in all
transactions and actions related to managing the country’s environment.
It has been observed that key decisions on forests and forest lands management (FFM) are
still made by a few—technocrats and politicians—based on the influence of vested interest
groups rather than on sound analysis, professional judgment and participation of key
stakeholders. Constituents of forests and forest lands are neither organized nor in a position to
1
Written by ES Guiang, B Dolom, C Olvida, and R Aragon based on field reports and observations, relevant memos
from assisting professionals, reports of local service providers and short term technical assistants (STTAs), and
USAID and DENR assessments. The authors are the Chief of Party and regional forestry specialists, respectively, of
the Philippine Environmental Governance Project (EcoGov). Copies of the report may be requested from:
[email protected].
Lying the Foundation of a Governance-Oriented and Collaborative Approach

to Forests and Forest Lands Management In The Philippines 3
assert their rights and hold government and private agencies accountable for their actions and
decisions, which are still centrally executed without clear accountability, instead of devolving
these functions to the most responsible and capable entities at the local level. These entities
include local government units (LGUs) as well as organized communities, who are where the
resource is and who often take the brunt of environmental disasters.
It is within this context that EcoGov 1 collaborated with key partners, such as the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), LGUs and local service providers
(LSPs), to improve their strategic decision making processes by pursuing options and action
areas where good governance and technical solutions converge to make a difference. This
perspective was applied in developing and implementing the strategic direction of the FFM
sector of EcoGov 1, in particular the implementation of governance-oriented municipal forest
land use planning (FLUP) and the co-management agreements between DENR and the LGUs.
Throughout the implementation of EcoGov 1 (December 1, 2001 to November 30, 2004) the
FFM sector supported interventions that involved TAP-enhanced planning, allocation,
management, utilization and monitoring of forests and forest lands. To promote good
governance in the sector, the Project advocated the participation of local stakeholders in
allocating forests and forest lands, strengthening property rights, improving incentives for
stakeholders, enforcing regulations based on sound information, endorsing subsidiarity and
partnership, supporting allocations for indigenous peoples (IPs).
It should be noted that members of the EcoGov 1 FFM Team have been part of many
forestry sector projects in the Philippines, including foreign-assisted projects, such as those
funded by the United States Agency for Intenrational Development (USAID), like the Rainfed
Resourced Development Project (RRDP) and the Natural Resources Management Project
(NRMP 1 and 2); and the World Bank-funded Regional Resources Management Project
(RRMP). Many Team members were also engaged in the implementation of the USAID-funded
Governance and Local Democracy Project (GOLD). These various exposures provided a rich
background and experience for the EcoGov 1 FFM Team.
II. Scope of Work for Technical Assistance on Forests and Forest Lands
(FFM)
EcoGov 1 is designed to support GOP’s and USAID’s goal of revitalizing the economy by
fostering improved management of the environment and natural resources that provide key
inputs to the long-term economic development of the country. The Project aims to address
critical threats to the country’s coastal resources and forests, primarily overfishing and use of
destructive fishing practices, and illegal cutting and conversion of natural forests. It was also
designed to respond to the increasing need to address unmanaged solid waste at the local level
and address issues on public health and environmental hazard.
As shown in Figure 1, the FFM sector supports the goal of the Strategic Objectives (SO4) of
the Philippine Environmental Program. The key outcome indicator is:
• Hectares of forest cover maintained.
Supplementary indicators are:
4 Completion Report of the EcoGov Project Forests and Forest Lands Management Team
• Hectares of open access forests and forest lands (FFL) that are closed; and
• Reduction in number of illegal logging hotspots.
These outcome indicators were defined in the context of:
• Legitimized and approved municipal FLUPs with LGUs’ initial budget during the first year
of implementation; and
• Signed co-management agreements between DENR and the LGU for specific area of
forests and forest lands.
FLUP approval involves DENR signing a joint implementation memorandum of agreement

(MOA) with the LGU based on DENR-DILG Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2003-01
(Strengthening and Institutionalizing the DENR-DILG-LGU Partnership on Devolved and Other
Forest Management Functions). The MOA commits both parties to “close open access forests
and forest lands within the municipality” through the appropriate issuance of tenure/allocation
instruments as outlined in the approved FLUP, organization and deployment of multi-sectoral
forest protection teams, as well as enforcement of forests and forest lands management
regulations and policies among existing holders of tenure or allocation instruments. The MOA
also calls for facilitating the resolution of conflicts among local/
community stakeholders or holders of tenure instruments,
Focus on TAP principles
encouraging public and private investments in forests and forest
EcoGov-sponsored activities lands, and installing and establishing LGU-based FLUP monitoring
in the FFM sector aimed to system.
strengthen the capacities of local
DENR, LGUs and communities to The FFM Team worked with various agencies and
adopt TAP processes in making organizations, such as the DENR; LGUs; the Autonomous Region
decisions and taking actions in in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM); leagues of LGUs; and LSPs to
the protection and management analyze, formulate and advocate responsive and governance-
of their forests, and develop, oriented policies and practices to reduce illegal cutting and
protect, and manage their bare conversion of forests.
forest lands.
Targets and Deliverables
EcoGov 1 strategies and activities are designed to contribute to achieving the overall targets
set in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines (GRP) and the USAID. The overall MOU targets in the FFM sector are:
• Maintain 360,000 ha of forest cover with 75 percent of these placed under community-
based forest management (CBFM);
• Put in place relevant policies in place for improving FFM governance;
• Make available and test effective governance tools, techniques, practices, instruments,
training modules that will help LGUs, DENR, and community organizations in making
informed decisions;

• Update information on forests and forest lands available at the local level (LGUs and
DENR field offices); and
• Strengthen LSPs and community groups that are able to articulate “demands” for sound
governance in the forestry sector.
EcoGov 1 targetted a total area of 400,000 ha of forest lands2 to be placed under

legitimized and approved municipal FLUPs It was assumed that of these, only 25% ha would
have existing cover; the rest will be forest lands that will be developed or rehabilitated under
various commitments of DENR, LGU, private sector, and communities. Thus, the target of
100,000 ha of forest cover.
At least 35 percent of EcoGov 1 resources was allocated for the FFM sector, broken down
as follows: 60 percent in Central and Western Mindanao, 35 percent in Central Visayas, and 15
percent in Northern Luzon.
In the Project Monitoring Plan and the 2003 EcoGov 1 Work Plan, forest cover maintained
was redefined as those forest areas under legitimized and approved FLUPs. FLUPs are
considered legitimized when these are reviewed and approved by the SBs (legislative) and
MDCs (executive) of LGUs. The SBs (headed by vice-mayors) allocate funding support for the
legitimized FLUPs while the MDCs (headed by the mayors) implement the plans. DENR has to
technically approve the FLUPs through the signing of a FLUP implementation MOA with the
LGU, consistent with the provision of DENR-DILG JMC 2003-01. The MOAs must include LGU
commitments for budgetary support during the FLUP implementation, with technical assistance
and guidance coming from DENR.
To achieve the target of 100,000 ha of forest cover, the Project committed to assist 30 LGUs
prepare their municipal FLUPs and facilitate the signing of at least 3 co-management
agreements on forests and forest lands. These commitments were part of the USAID-approved
EcoGov 1 Work Plans for 2003 and 2004. Other targets in FFM include policies, tools and
techniques, training modules, IEC materials, updated information, and capacitation of DENR,
LSPs and other partners. Please see Annex 1 for the list and status of these targets.
.
III. Key Strategies
The EcoGov 1 Team adopted a two-pronged approach in implementing its technical

assistance strategies:
• First, the Team improved certain approaches, good practices, and tools for FLUP and for
assisting partners (e.g., DENR, LGUs) and facilitating co-management agreements by
incorporating lessons learned from previous initiatives for increased efficiency, doability,
simplicity, and applicability.
• Second, the Team identified, tested, and piloted potential interventions to “innovate and
generate” approaches that may have a greater application in other LGUs.
2
The estimated area of forest lands in the initially identified FLUP LGUs were used in deriving the 400,000 figure.

Demand-driven approach. The EcoGov 1 FFM strategy for providing technical assistance
in improving governance policies at the local and national was anticipatory, demand-driven, and
opportunistic.
This demand-driven approach was evident in the use of interactive assemblies (IAs), which
were conducted in Central and Western Mindanao, Central Visayas and Northern Luzon. During
these assemblies, the Team discussed how the LGUs could avail of EcoGov 1 Project
assistance in FFM, coastal resourcemanagement and solid waste management. If they are
interested, the LGUs have to submit a letter of intent (LOI) or a resolution from the Municipal
Development Councils (MDCs) or Sangguniang Bayan (SB). The FFM Regional Team then
facilitated meetings between the concerned LGU, DENR field officials, other local stakeholders
to confirm/affirm LGU interest, craft a simple action plan, discuss key provisions of the draft
MOA for collaboration between DENR, LGU, and the EcoGov Project, and conduct a more
detailed orientation on how to improve FFM governance at the local level.
Clustering municipalities. In addition to a “demand-driven” approach in providing

assistance to LGUs, the FFM Team also proactively identified contiguous LGUs with the largest
remaining forest cover. Clustering interested municipalities or cities (such as those near and
inside protected areas and those providing key environmental services like domestic water) was
employed in strategically located LGUs, such as those in Quirino province, Kidapawan City and
Makilala in North Cotabato, LGUs in Negros Oriental, the adjacent LGUs of Maasim and Maitum
in Sarangani and Lebak and Kalamansig in Sultan Kudarat.
The Team took full advantage of existing formal means for involving other agencies in the
planning, preparation, validation and legitimization of the municipal FLUPs. The Team assisted
the LGUs to organize the FLUP technical work groups (TWGs) to spearhead collaboration with
other LGUs and national technical agencies; find and implement common strategies for data
gathering, analysis, and option identification; consensus building; and FLUP drafting and
legitimization. The national and regional specialists, in collaboration with local DENR field staff
and with assistance from assisting professionals (APs) and/or local service providers(LSPs),
organized and conducted various FFM training, provided on-site assistance, mentored and
coached members of the TWGs, and helped analyze forests and forst lands data of participating
LGUs.
Providing clear and needed products. EcoGov 1 offered two major FFM product lines or
services: (a) assistance in preparing, validating, drafting, legitimizing, and getting DENR
approval for their municipal FLUPs; and (2) assistance by facilitating co-management
agreement for specific forests and forest lands.
An overview of the governance-oriented municipal FLUP process is shown in Figure 2. The

FFM assistance to LGUs is anchored on the rationale that with legitimized and approved plans,
the DENR and the LGUs could now:
• Jointly process and issue tenure/allocation instruments in identified “open access” or

unallocated forests and forest lands as contained in the LGU’s FLUP. Prospective tenure
and/or allocation instruments in unallocated forests and forest lands are initially identified
and included in the approved FLUPs.
Forest Land Use Planning Process
Data and Map Collection
Situational Analysis
Participatory Prioritization
of Sub-Watersheds and
Allocation of FFL
Plan Preparation
Legitimization
Implementation of FLUP Approval of plan by

DENR Region
• DENR-LGU implementation:
9 co-management agreement on
selected watersheds
9 issuance of tenure instruments
9 formation & training of MFPCs
9 investment promotion
9 Monitoring on-site FFL mgt of
tenure/allocation holders
Figure 2. An overview of the governance-oriented FLUP process
• Jointly carry out activities to help existing tenure or allocation holders of FFL areas adopt
effective on-site management of remaining forests and manage the the area tenured to
them through preparation, submission, and obtaining approval for their FFL
management plans (with budget); organize and put in place an active forest protection
team; identify and assess legitimate claimants in their FFL areas for possible issuance of
sub-allocation instruments or individual property rights instruments; and carry out joint
LGU-DENR multi-sectoral monitoring of their FFM performance.
• Help resolve local conflicts among stakeholders in the allocation or protection,
development, and management of FFL within the political jurisdiction of LGUs.
• Strengthen the LGUs Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office (MENRO) or
equivalent local office for FLUP implementation.
• Promote and facilitate public-private sector partnerships, joint ventures, or other relevant
social enterprises in agroforestry, micro-finance, outgrowers contracts, eco-tourism, high
value perennial crops, tree farms, marketing and processing, or tree plantations.
• Sign or enter into co-management agreements for protection, development, and
management of specific forests and forest lands for production, protection, or ecotourism
purposes.

Filling the policy gaps. In consultation with several stakeholders, the policy team identified
several gaps in local and national policies for improving FFM governance. Some examples of
key EcoGov efforts to leverage and refine current institutional options for increasing LGU
participation in FFL governance include:
• RSFMA. The Team worked with DENR/ARMM to draft and enact a Regional
Sustainable Forest Management Act (RSFMA). This was the first law in the region that
undewent thorough consultations.
• Co-management of Forest Resources. EcoGov 1 worked with DENR field offices and
concerned members of the League of Municipalities to take advantage of under-utilized
management and investment opportunities provided in the national CBFM program and
the Local Government Code of 1991.
• Effective Implementation of Existing Procedures and Regulations. EcoGov worked
for achieving official affirmation and implementation of EO 263 and its IRR (CBFM as
forest management strategy) and DILG-DENR MC 98-01 (co-management agreement
for forests and forest lands).
• Improved Transparency, Accountability, and Participation in the Application of
several FFM Guidelines and Implementing Rules. EcoGov helped in the analysis and
crafting of recommendations for improving the governance provisions (transparency,
accountability, and participation) of existing national FFM guidelines and implementing
rules and regulations on the allocation of public forests and forest lands, CBFM, co-
management agreements of forests and forest lands.
• Generated Demand for Improved EcoGovernance. The Team worked with the
leagues, community organizations and their federations, and other “constituents” in
identifying and reinforcing pent-up "demand" for sound FFL governance. and timely
provision of environmental services. 3
• Encouraging innovations. The EcoGov Team adopted a strategy of piloting and

testing promising innovative and “doable”governance interventions in policy, advocacy
and LGU-focused FFL management. The Team also supported, networked and
collaborated with regional and national federations of people's organizations (POs), LGU
leagues, civil society and media groups for joint capacity building activities, spreading
EcoGov best practices (especially some FLUP tools and approaches), reinforcing timely
and appropriate environmental regulations through the LGUs in partnership with DENR
and other national agencies.
• Practicing decentralization. Field responsibility for EcoGov FFM activities was

decentralized to four offices supported by national teams for Policy Advocacy and for
Technical and Analytical Support. Three regional forestry specialists were assisted by
two regional team leaders and several national specialists, on a part time basis. Several
APs and LSPs (individuals and institutions) were also engaged to beef up delivery of
technical assistance to various LGUs, update forest cover information for the whole of
3
EcoGov collaborated with various leagues (municipalities and cities) to facilitate and advocate support from DENR for co-
management of forests and coastal resources, enforcement of environmental regulations, strengthen capabilities of community
organizations holding CBFMA/CADC/CADT to enable them to manage their organizations better, take collective actions, improve
revenue-generating enterprises, and support advocacy and networking initiatives.
Mindanao, update settlements and tenure maps in selected provinces in Mindanao,
digitize completed thematic maps in Mindanao and Central Visayas, and facilitate FLUP
training, drafting, and legitimization processes.
• Using small grants to expand reach. Towards the end of 2003, the EcoGov 1 Small
Grants Program was started. The two cycles of invitations for grant proposals provided
opportunities for CBFM organizations, NGOs, and other organizations to take part in
improving governance of FFL.
III. EcoGov 1 FFM sector Accomplishments
The EcoGov FFM sector achieved most of the planned biophysical, technical support and
analyses, and policy advocacy targets. It was able to translate “intentions” and concepts of
“legitimizing and approval of municipal FLUPs” into realities based on the guidelines provided
under JMC 2003-01. It has enlisted more LGUs to actively participate and get engaged in FFL
protection and management. The FFM Team was able to build on previous approaches and
experiences in crafting and refining the different FLUP training modules. Towards the end of
EcoGov 1, several LGUs adjacent to EcoGov 1-assisted LGUs expressed interest to avail of
similar technical assistance.
At the policy, analysis, and technical support arena, the FFM sector was able to respond in
a timely manner to requests and expressed needs of various clients and partners, in particular
DENR, DENR/ARMM, PO federations, tree farmers association in Mindanao, other USAID-
funded projects such as SUCCESS (implemented by ACDI-VOCA), and other foreign-assisted
projects such as the World Bank-financed CBRMP and WRDP.
The details on the FFM sector’s accomplishments are discussed below.
Governance-Oriented Municipal Forest Land Use Planning (FLUP) and Co-

Management Agreements
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the process, and approach to achieving SO4’s Outcome 2
were through the governance-oriented municipal FLUP.4 Under EcoGov 1, municipal FLUP
became the centerpiece of governance in the forestry sector (Guiang 2002). The seven-step
FLUP process has helped LGUs, local stakeholders, and DENR in planning and generating a
blueprint for collective actions, especially in closing “open access” forest lands, in enforcing and
monitoring effective on-site management of FFL by holders of tenure and allocation instruments,
and in resolving boundary, claim, and resource use rights conflicts.
At the local level, the FLUP process evolved as a major tool for informing, educating,
advocating, and rallying local stakeholders for collective actions towards forest protection and
management. Several training modules increased local awareness as to the benefits and costs
of each accountability center for improving FFL governance. IEC materials and advocacy
strategies based on transparent, accountable, and participatory processes were developed to
4
It should be noted that the technical approach for FLUP initially emerged in the implementation of USAID-funded
NRMP Phase 2.

enable local stakeholders to agree and arrive at consensus for “allocating open access forests
and forest lands”, for developing actions plans to put in place effective on-site FFL management
in allocated areas, and for prioritizing sub-watersheds. IEC and local advocacies also focused
on the legitimization and approval of FLUPs and crafting and organizing public hearings for
proposed ordinances that will support FLUP implementation activities.
As mentioned earlier, 29 LGUs were targeted for FLUP legitimization and approval in
EcoGov 1. Annex 2 provides the status of these LGUs. Table 1 below summarizes the overall
status of the FFM sector as of November 30, 2004 and compares accomplishments with targets
set out in the approved EcoGov 2004 Workplan.
As Table 1 indicates, the Project exceeded most of the FFM key performance indicators.
Twenty LGUs were able to complete and legitimize their municipal FLUPs. The only shortfall is
in the number of DENR-approved FLUPs (89 percent completion). This shows that despite the
participatory, collaborative, and transparent processes used, the decision to technically approve
FLUPs is highly dependent on actions of DENR regional offices. This is outside the control of
the FFM Team. Local interests and response to the implementation of Joint DENR-DILG
Memorandum Circular 2003-01 continued to be high as shown by the 12 signed co-
management agreements, which covered a total area of 59,637 ha.
Forest cover in the 20 LGUs with legitimized FLUPs total 282,200 ha. Region 2 has the
biggest contribution to this: 157,349 ha while Central Mindanao has 82,141 ha. The Central
Visayas region contributed 10 percent (29,790 ha). See Annex 3. In terms of the number of
signed co-management agreements, however, Central Visayas was able to facilitate more
agreements (8) compared with Central and Western Mindanao (3). This shows that LGUs and
DENR in Region 7 have a deeper understanding and commitment to partnership and
collaboration in the protection and management of FFL , especially in areas where there are
multiple stakeholders and higher density of forest occupants.
The total FFL area of the 20 LGUs (see Table 2) that have legitimized their FLUPs is
491,773 ha, out of which comes the 282,200 ha of forest cover. Table 2 further shows that
92,879 ha or 19% of the forest cover of the 20 LGUs are “open access” or without tenure. These
areas will be the target of issuance of appropriate tenure or allocation instruments during FLUP
implementation. The LGUs and DENR will also have to enforce regulations and monitor
performance of tenure and allocation holders of the 189,321 ha of forests (81% of total forest
cover) so these will be placed under effective protection and management. The issuance of
appropriate tenure/allocation instruments to legitimate applicants or stakeholders in open
access areas and the joint efforts of LGUs and DENR in enforcing and monitoring FFL
management performance. of existing tenure holders are expected to strengthen property right,
enhance forest protection, minimize illegal cutting and forest conversion activities, and hasten
public and private investments in priority sub-watersheds.
As shown in Table 3, the total area of FFL under co-management agreement is 67,715 ha.
Of this, 10,678 ha (16 percent) have forests and 57,037 ha (84 percent) are considered bare
forest lands, which could be developed into tree farms, high value perennial tree crops,
agroforestry systems and other permanent cropping regimes.
.
The 29 LGUs assisted by EcoGov 1 have a total forest lands of 653,221 ha (Annex 4).
Table 1. Status of EcoGov 1 FLUP assistance to LGUs as of November 30, 2004
EcoGov Percent Percent

Program EcoGov Contribu- Status of Accomplish-
Targets. 1 Total tion of EcoGov 1 ment of
FFM Performance Indicator (per Targets EcoGov 1 Assistance EcoGov 1
MOU) (2004 Project to to LGUs Project
WP) Program
Targets
1. Number of LGUs with completed
and approved thematic maps 27 28 104%
2. Number of LGUs with
consensus/ agreements on priority 25 27 108%
sub-watersheds and forest lands
allocation
3. Number of LGU- legitimized
FLUPs (with approved action plan 19 20 105%
and budget for initial
implementation)
4. Number of signed DENR-LGU
MOA for joint implementation of 19 17 89%
approved FLUP
5. Number of signed co-
management agreements for LGU- 3 12 400%
managed forest lands under JMC
2003-01
6. Hectares of forest cover
maintained (in LGU-legitimized 360,000 100,000 28% 282,200 282%
and/or DENR approved FLUPs)
Source: EcoGov 1 Annual Report for FY 2004. 2004.
Table 2. Forests in FFL areas that will be protected and managed in the 20 LGU-legitimized FLUPs
Categories of FFL Area is hectares Percent of

Total Area
1. Total FFL 491,773 100%
2. Total forest in FFL 282,200 57%
3. Total forest in FFL that are open access* 92,879 19%
4. Total forest in FFL that are covered with 189,321 81%
tenure/allocation instruments*
Source: Legitimized FLUPs of 20 LGUs. 2004.
Note: Estimates based on manually produced maps. Analysis based on digitized data still ongoing..

Table 3. Total FFL and forest cover in the 12 co-managed areas
Co-managed FFL Total Area Area with Forest

(in ha) (in ha)
Western Mindanao
1. Isabela city,Basilan 343 314
Central Mindanao
2. Lebak, Sultan Kudarat 2,043 1,080
3. Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat 5,692 3,300
Central Visayas
4. Bayawan city 14,434 295
5. Sta. Catalina 15,000 0
6. La Libertad 5,042 578
7. Bais city 5,665 3,128
8. Tanjay city 8,555 587
9. Toledo city 5,000 430
10. Dalaguete 3,592 300
11. Alcoy 1,769 391
12. Talibon 580 275
TOTAL 67,715 10,678
Source: EcoGov Regional Reports 2004
Policy and Advocacy Support
Over the period of EcoGov 1 implementation, the Policy and Advocacy Support Team
responded to several requests for improving various environmental governance policies in the
FFM sector. These work plan targets, however, have almost become “moving targets” because
of their high dependence on the continuing interest of champions at DENR, leagues, and
DENR/ARMM. Advocacy for policy initiatives at the national level was initiated with the League
of Municipalities of the Philippines, Society of Filipino Foresters, Inc., UPLB Forest Development
Center, federation of CBFM People’s Organizations (POs), and various civil society
organizations.
In the regions, the teams organized regional interactive assemblies, small meetings, and
round table discussions with various stakeholders to discuss several policy concerns. The Team
engaged key local institutional service providers (LSPs) to perform analysis, drafting, advocacy,
and facilitating consultations and revisions of proposed policies. This approach was adopted for
revising various policies in the FFM sector, especially those affecting allocations and resource
use rights. Thus, the MSU King Faisal Center for Islamic Studies and the UPLB Forest
Development Center were contracted to prepare the proposed ARMM RSFMA and the revisions
to various FFM sector DENR administrative policies, respectively.
For some national policies, the Team collaborated closely with DILG and the leagues of
LGUs in the issuance of DENR-DILG JMC on promoting co-management of forests and forest
lands (JMC 2003-01). The Team also worked closely with the DENR/Forest Management
Bureau (FMB) in organizing consultation meetings and workshops with national agencies, civil
society organizations, and academic institutions in drafting and finalizing the recently signed
Presidential Executive Order No. 318 (Promoting Sustainable Forest Management in the
Philippines).
At least 10 key policy instruments were issued, enacted, or passed with EcoGov 1
assistance. These are:
• DAO 2003-28 (“Code of Conduct for Good Environmental Governance”) was issued
on May 7, 2003 by the DENR Secretary. This administrative order provided the basis
for EcoGov 1 to design and conduct a nationwide orientation and training workshop
for DENR central and field managers on environmental governance.
• JMC 2003-01 (“Strengthening and Institutionalizing the DENR-DILG-LGU

Partnership on Devolved and other Forest Management Functions”) was signed in
May 2003 by the Secretaries of DILG and DENR and witnessed by the President of
the leagues of municipalities, cities and provinces. The policy opens the door for joint
implementation of LGU-legitimized and DENR-approved municipal FLUPs and
issuance of co-management agreements for specific area of forests and forest lands.
• DENR Memorandum Order 2003-09 (“Recognizing the Tree for Legacy Program in
Nueva Vizcaya and Authorizing the Concerned DENR Regional Field Officials to
Issue Appropriate Permits for the Harvesting and Transport of Products Under the
Program”) was signed by the DENR Secretary on September 12, 2003. This policy
is a milestone in terms of decentralizing decision making in DENR with respect to
issuance of resource use rights—harvesting and transport permits—to communities
in the province of Nueva Vizcaya.
• Memorandum of Agreement among the Supreme Court, the DENR and the
Department of Justice (for the inventory, monitoring and establishment of database
of pending environment and natural resources-related cases nationwide and the
creation of the “Joint Environment Monitoring Team” for these and for expeditious
resolution of these pending cases). This agreement was signed in October 2003 by
Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., DENR Sec. Elisea Gozun and DOJ Sec. Simeon
Datumanong and witnessed by the Integrated Bar of the Phillipines President and
the Chancellor of the Philippine Judicial Academy
• In March 2004, the ARMM Regional Legislative Assembly (RLA) passed the
Regional Sustainable Forest Management Act, otherwise known as the Muslim
Mindanao Autonomous Act (MMAA) No. 161 or the “People’s Bill”. The law was
signed in May by the ARMM Regional Governor, incorporating provisions respecting
Shariah and Adat laws (customary laws) in sustainable forest management. The law
provides for a decentralized, devolved and deregulated framework in protecting,
developing and managing the forests and forest lands in ARMM. It also provides
opportunities to craft IRRs that are consistent with indigenous and customary laws
and are responsive to the needs of communities and local government units.
• Tree for Legacy supplementary guidelines in Nueva Vizcaya signed by the DENR 2
Regional Executive Director in January 2004. The guidelines provide simplified

mechanisms for LGUs (province and municipalities) to assist participants in
developing (and thus, benefit from) high value tree crops and orchards in public
forest lands. It also outlines practical support and sharing mechanisms between and
among communities, LGUs, DENR and the private sector.
• Executive Order (EO) No. 318 (“Promoting Sustainable Forest Management in the
Philippines”) was signed by the President of the Philippines in June 2004. The EO
provides for a framework for integrating protection and management of forests and
forest lands in the Philippines in the absence of a national law. It creates
opportunities for collaborative partnerships and decentralized approaches to the
development, protection, and management of forests in the context of existing laws,
such as NIPAS, IPRA, Local Government Code, Clean Water Act, Revised Forestry
Code under PD 705, and EO 263 on Community-Based Forest Management
Strategy.
• DENR Secretary issued DAO 2004-35 ("Revised Rules and Regulations Governing
the Administration, Management, Development and Disposition of Forest lands for
Grazing Purposes”) on August 31, 2004. This administrative policy supports the
ongoing governance-oriented municipal forest land use planning.
• DENR Secretary issued DAO 2004-29 (“Revised rules and regulations for the
implementation of Executive Order 263, otherwise known as the Community-based
Forest Management Strategy”) on August 25, 2004. This administrative policy
supports the ongoing governance-oriented municipal forest land use planning.
• DENR Secretary issued DAO 2004-30 (“Revised rules and regulations governing the
Socialized Industrial Forest Management Program”) on August 25, 2004. This
administrative policy supports the ongoing governance-oriented municipal forest land
use planning.
Technical and IEC Support
The EcoGov 1 technical and IEC group supported the FFM sector through various
mechanisms. These include technical analysis in support of proposed policies, updating and
analyzing Mindanao forest cover and tenure and settlements information of selected provinces
in Mindanao, digitization of FLUP thematic maps, as well as sub-contracting policy analysis and
consultation processes. The group also assisted the FFM Team in designing and carrying out
training modules, mentoring support to the regional specialists and APs, facilitating print and
media exposures, publication of manuals and resource materials, and linkaging with other
national partners and counterparts.
Over the period of three years, the FFM sector has completed 15 technical reports and
analysis as basis of policy recommendations, revisions of administrative orders, crafting
proposed bills, improving training materials, establishing or strengthening or creating institutions
. These represent at least 68 percent of total completed studies and technical reports under
EcoGov 1. The FFM Team has also contracted the services of 12 institutional LSPs to provide
analysis, information update, or mapping services to EcoGov 1 FFM work plan activities. This is
about 63 percent of the total number of sub-contracts that were entered into under EcoGov 1
over a period of three years.
Some of the key technical and IEC support to the FFM sector are:
• The interstitials (2-minuter) of environmental governance efforts of Wao, Lanao del

Sur on governance-oriented FLUP and the LGU’s initiatives on forest protection
activities, aired over the ANC Channel. The ANC Channel and the ABS-CBN
Network also aired a TV plug (30-seconder) on the “Other War in Mindanao” (war on
illegal logging, war on illegal fishing activities, war on wastes).
• The FFM tenure resource book as well as the pamphlet on Allocating Forest Lands,
extensively used in FLUP training and orientation activities of the FFM Team.
• The Mindanao mapping services that updated forest cover information and analyzed
changes over the last 16 years (1988-2004). The updated forest cover information
has proven to be useful in the ongoing FLUP mapping activities of LGUs, in policy
and planning work of DENR and regional planning bodies, and in crafting forest
protection and development activities in some areas of Mindanao. In the last 16
years, Mindanao has lost an average of 44,000 ha of natural forest annually, but
increased its area of forest plantations and perennial crops by 77,000 ha per year. It
has also increased its mangrove areas by 2.5 times since 1988.
• The services of two institutional LSPs in digitizing an average of 12-14 thematic

maps per LGU for 17 LGUs in Central Visayas, Central and Western Mindanao.
• The compilation of all the relevant reference materials, training design, curricula, and
workshop exercises for the 5-Day Certificate Course on Governance-Oriented FLUP.
This was offered four times to DENR field staff, LGUs, academic institutions, and
LSPs (two in Central Visayas, one in Eastern Visayas, and one in Northern Luzon).
• The design and conduct of the national conference of all regional CBFM PO
federations in 2003. In February 2004, the National CBFM PO federation, through
Project assistance, was registered as a non-profit organization with SEC. The
national CBFM PO federation represents all the holders of CBFM agreements in the
Philippines, totaling more than 400 community organizations, and occupying almost
3 million ha of FFL area.
• The activities with USAID, DENR, Department of Finance, and the interim Board for
the Tropical Forest Conservation Fund (TFCF) to prepare necessary analysis and
operational requirements in handling and managing proceeds from more than $8
million of TFCF funds. Preparations are underway for registering the Tropical Forest
Conservation Foundation with the SEC to manage small grants from the TFCF
proceeds and finance forest conservation initiatives of civil society organizations in
the Philippines.

Innovative Interventions
As mentioned earlier, the EcoGov 1 Team introduced several innovations in the delivery of
technical assistance services. In the FFM sector, several of these innovative interventions were
introduced with LGUs, namely: public-private partnership in investments and enterprises in co-
managed FFL areas, co-management of mangrove forests, institutionalizing water user’s fee as
a mechanism of environmental financing scheme, direct assistance for capacity building to IPs
and CBFMA holders via small grants. The following dicusses some of these innovations:
Tapping Public-Private Sector Investments in Co-Managed FFL
EcoGov 1 envisioned the FFL areas within the political jurisdiction of LGUs to support local
development, both at the level of environmental and economic sustainability perspectives.
Presently, private sector investments in FFL area are so limited because of uncertainty in tenure
and resource use rights in addition to various transaction costs involved in dealing with the
government, community occupants, and insurgents. EcoGov 1’s initiative to explore the
potential of FFL as an asset of the LGU to address environmental and economic concerns
would somehow be realized if the co-managed FFL area could provide the certainty and stability
in terms of property rights issues and linkage with communities and DENR. The co-managed
areas have been assumed to be a major source of local revenues while serving the economic
and environmental needs of local communities.
To get investors participation, the EcoGov FFM Public-private sector investments in co-
Team decided to conduct an investor forum in the managed areas
Lower Magat Forest Reserve where the provincial
government of Nueva Vizcaya has a co- Encouraging public-private sector
management agreement with the DENR over a investments in co-managed area was a result of
24,000-ha forest lands. At the end of October 2004, completed studies and analysis on potential
two investment fora were undertaken in Region 2 – investments in Lower Magat Magat Forest
one in the Lower Magat Co-Management Project and Reserve.
the other one in Nagtipunan, Quirino. Thirty-four
potential investors attended the first forum; 14 Earlier, the Team provided assistance to
DENR and the Province of Nueva Vizcaya in
attended the second. identifying business and investment
opportunities in the co-managed area. The
The results of of the fora are very encouraging; Team also helped in drafting model contracts
more than 15 investors (as of November 30, 2004) that may be used by the Chairman of the
have signified interest to invest in their areas. In Steering Committee and by the holder of Agro-
Lower Magat for instance, Globe Philippines wanted forestry Land Management Agreements
to set up a cell site in one of the agroforestry land (ALMAs) in the co-managed area to enter into
management agreement areas and is willing to pay business partnership arrangements, joint
the fee that may be imposed by the Steering venture, outgrowers arrangement, or marketing
Committee. In Nagtipunan, the ECARMA Group of agreements with the private sector, NGOs,
individuals, or government agencies.
Companies is interested to develop narra plantations
and establish a processing plant for pulverizing narra
twigs and branches for manufacture as food
supplement.
• The investment fora were organized after a series of meetings with the LGUs
concerned, DENR, EcoGov, other government agencies, LSP and members of the
TWG. The meetings resulted in the identification of potential investment areas and
the needed support services. An investment primer was then prepared and
distributed to potential investors together with the invitation to invest on forest-based
enterprises in the LGU’s forests and forest lands. In the case of Lower Magat, the
invitation was also published in local and national papers.
• During the forum, business opportunities in the LGU’s FFL were discussed. At the
same time, the investors were requested in a workshop to identify other potential
investment areas, contracting arrangements, incentives needed and the issues and
concerns and their recommended actions. The major concerns of investors that
cropped up during the workshops were related to policy stability, potential delays in
processing of applications and the issuance of necessary permits, and the
improvement of access roads, among others. Accordingly, they need assistance in
facilitating the signing of investment contracts, resource use permits, the issuance of
environmental compliance certificates (ECCs) and the free and prior informed
consent (FPIC) in the case of CADC/CADT covered areas. The ECC and FPIC were
identified as potential source of delays in private sector investment in forests and
forest lands development.
Co-Management of Mangrove Forest in Talibon, Bohol
Competition for access and use of mangrove and foreshore areas has been a major issue in
Talibon, Bohol. Conflicting interests between and among local fishers, fishpond operators and
settlers have wrought havoc on the LGU’s coastal resources.
Since the mangrove area is part of the forest lands, the FFM Team, in collaboration with the
CRM staff, took the lead in facilitating the signing of a co-management agreement covering a
580-ha mangrove area in Talibon, Bohol. The agreement, signed by the DENR and the LGU,
was the first of its kind in the Philippines to cover magroves. It is expected to help harmonize the
various interests of stakeholders while making sure that the area is placed under sustainable
management.
The co-management agreement of the mangrove in Talibon puts in place a mechanism

for resolving conflicts among resource users, who actually share a common concern: that of
ensuring the long-term sustainability of the fisheries of the LGU. It also provides a venue for
strengthening property rights and enforcing these rights based on agreements, opens up
opportunities for public-private sector investments, installation of performance monitoring
system, collective enforcement and protection activities. The co-management agreement
highlights the political will of the local government and other stakeholders, with guidance from
the national agencies, to confront the complex issues that deal with “de-facto” and existing uses
within the mangrove and foreshore areas. These are dealt with within the context of
conservation, equity, the rule of law, and sustainability of both the natural and fishery resources.

Institutionalizing Water User’s Fee with Metro Kidapawan Water District
The science of economic valuation of indirect environmental and economic benefits of

sound watershed management has been demonstrated to be feasible, acceptable, and
defensible. In the Philippines, the indirect economic values of “well-managed” forests -- natural
and planted -- are almost equivalent to 30-40% of the total economic benefits (Francisco 2004,
Bautista 2004). Making the off-site beneficiaries pay for the protection, development and
management of the upper watershed from which they get their supply of water is emerging as a
sound approach to environmental financing. The challenge, however, is putting the institutional
mechanism to make this concept and approach work.
Based on series of meetings with the different stakeholders in Kidapawan City, Makilala and
Metro Kidapawan Water District, a draft MOA between the LGUs, Protected Area Management
Board (PAMB) of Mt. Apo, and the Metro Kidapawan Water District for pilot testing and
institutionalizing water users’ fees was completed for review and consideration by the
concerned parties. The LGU of Kidapawan has taken the initiative to facilitate forthcoming
meetings as there were concerns raised by the Water Disrtict on some of the provisions of the
MOA.. The Water District only wanted to focus its efforts on the protection, management and
development of the portion of the Saquing watershed, which is under MOA with DENR, not the
whole upper watershed.
It will take another round of meetings, consultations and discussions on the MOA and the
overall concept of water users’ fee, environmental benefits, externalities of off- and on-site costs
and benefits, among others, before a workable intervention could take off the ground.
Collaborative Efforts
EcoGov 1 has had productive collaborative efforts at the local, provincial, regional, and
national levels on various forestry-related projects over the past three years. At the LGU level,
the major strategy in gathering, organizing, and performing collective actions among key
stakeholders is through collaborative efforts – active participation, cooperation, and engagement
of representatives of FFM stakeholders. The mechanism for collaboration at the local level has
been through Technical Working Groups (TWGs). This kind of arrangement worked because of
common agenda for action (joint process of developing, monitoring, and holding each other
accountable for the action plans), mandates from each of the agency or institution heads
(through Special Orders or Executive Orders), adequate interest on FFM as one of the
environmental sub-sectors, and support from EcoGov 1 and the LGUs.
The EcoGov 1 FFM Team championed the process of encouraging stakeholders’

participation in FFL management. Representatives of major stakeholders were included as
members of the FLUP TWGs. As the different FLUP modules progressed, the interactions
among the stakeholders led to the development of a strong sense of camaraderie that was
crucial in information sharing and in building consensus in FFL allocation and sub-watershed
prioritization.
At the regional and national levels, most of the collaborative efforts were manifested in joint
planning and conducting workshops, carrying out training activities, analysis, and/or advocacy
and information dissemination efforts. The most tangible positive benefits from these past
collaborations included:
• Better understanding of what each partner has been doing and sharing lessons
learned, best practices, and coping mechanisms in response to certain challenges;
• Co-funding certain activites such as training, cross visits, or preparation of training
and IEC materials;
• Sharing each other’s expertise; and
• Establishing an active network of information sharing and referrals through the e-mail
or web systems.
Over the past three years, EcoGov 1 had active collaborative efforts with the following
projects, organizations, and initiatives. Some of the significant collaborative efforts are listed
below.
• Support to the Federation of Smallholder Tree Farmers Association in Mindanao.

During the 2002 and 2003 national conferences held in Butuan City and Davao City,
respectively, the EcoGov 1 Project provided support and shared experiences and
recommendations for improving investments in the forestry sector in Mindanao.
EcoGov 1 specialists articulated the need to “deregulate and simplify” the processes
and systems in harvesting and transporting trees from plantations in private lands.
Eventually, DENR issued an order deregulating and simplifying procedures using
Eastern Mindanao as the pilot area..
• Collaboration with the DENR/FMB, the World Bank-financed Water Resources

Development Project, USAEP/PADCO, LMP, and LCP in designing, organizing, and
holding the “Governance-Oriented Watershed Management Workshop” in mid-2003.
This workshop provided a venue for the discussion of the newly-signed DENR-DILG
JMC 2003-01 meant to strengthen the partnership between DENR and LGUs in
protecting and managing forests and forest lands. Attended by DENR field officials,
NGOs, and members of the leagues of LGUs, the workshop elevated the level of
participants’ awareness on the importance of co-managing forests and forest lands
at the LGU level. The workshop became one of the launching pads in promoting the
concept and approach of co-management.
• Under ACDI-VOCA’s SUCCESS Project, the EcoGov 1 FFM sector assisted in

designing, conducting, and funding the three training activities on cacao-based
agroforestry systems for selected LGU, DA, and NGO technicians in Western
Mindanao, ARMM, and Central Mindanao.
• Through the EcoGov 1 Small Grants Program, collaborative assistance to CBFM

constituents was enhanced through civil society organizations. As shown in Annex 6,
four grant awards were given to NGOs to assist upland and/or indigenous
communities for capacity building, tenure processing, livelihood and microfinance
activities; two grants were given to PO federations to help their member
organizations; and four grants went to POs to strengthen their community
organizations.

• The Project also provided expertise and guidance in designing, conducting, and
funding FLUP certificate training courses for DENR field technicians in Regions 2, 3,
5, 7, 8, 12, and 13; for key academic institutions in Region 2, 12, and 7; and LSPs.
The World Bank-financed Community-Based Resource Management Project funded
the FLUP training courses for DENR 5, 7, 8, and 13 while those in Regions 2 and 7
were organized and conducted with academic institutions (University of Southern
Philippines in Cebu City and Nueva Vizcaya State University in Bayombong). These
collaborative activities have raised the forestry schools’ and DENR field foresters’
level of awareness on the need for governance-oriented FLUP among LGUs, with
forestry schools, and DENR field foresters.
• In May 2004, the EcoGov 1 collaborated with Associates in Rural Development,

USAID/Manila, DENR, and the Asia Foundation in designing, organizing and
conducting a pioneering workshop on resolving (?) natural resources conflicts in the
Philippines and in Asia. A major component of the discussions and workshop on
natural resource conflicts dealt with the governance of FFL resources. The workshop
underscored the necessity for proactive actions in resolving FFL-related conflicts as
well as stressed the need to promote, carry out and implement governance-oriented
FLUPs with the LGUs.
• EcoGov 1 collaborated with GEM through USAID/Manila in providing technical

support in analyzing environmental and forest impacts, and corresponding mitigating
measures, of proposed social infrastructures in Mindanao LGUs, particularly
Bumbaran and some other LGUs in Lanao del Sur, Kidapawan City, and several
LGUs in Lanao del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur and Maguindanao. EcoGov 1’s
information on the updated forest cover in Mindanao, which was combined with
existing data base on drainage systems, locations of protected areas and watershed
reservations, helped in predicting potential environmental impacts of the proposed
infrastructures.
• EcoGov 1 collaborated with Haribon Foundation and DENR, with funding support
from various partners and organizations including the European Union, in designing
and conducting the “National Conference: Integrating Forest Conservation with
Local Governance” on November 9-12, 2004. The Team shared some of the
lessons learned and insights from EcoGov 1 on how the Philippines should move
forward in protecting and managing its forests and forest lands with the strong
participation of LGUs and communities.
Other linkages with related programs in the regions were established. In Northern Luzon,
close collaboration was maintained with the EU-CASCADE Project, Enterprise Works
Worldwide, RP-German Forestry Project, Sierra Madre Biodiversity Conservation (SMBC)
Project and the Community Forestry Project – Quirino (CFP-Q) in providing assistance to CBFM
organizations. Collaborative efforts resulted in local community organizations being linked with
the suppliers of services and markets for their products. The RP-GERMAN and CFP-Q projects
were particularly helpful in providing the necessary maps in Quirino. The EU-CASCADE
provided some training funds to start FLUP activities in additional sites in Nueva Vizcaya, while
the SMBC project volunteered their community maps in some barangays in Quirino including
maps on biodiversity areas.
IV. Lessons Learned
EcoGov 1 provided opportunities for translating into action sound governance principles and
practices at the LGU and community levels – community participation in planning activities,
consensus building, sharing of information gathered during assessment activities, etc. These
principles and practices were applied in the forestry sector with the governance-oriented FLUP
activities and promotion of co-management agreements as entry points. The EcoGov 1 FFM
sector started with strategies that build on previous lessons learned and current best practices
for the purpose of improving efficiency. Eventually, it started to innovate and tested other
approaches and infuse “governance perspective” in the highly technical and legalistic approach
to FLUP and co-management agreements. The following are some of the lessons the FFM
sector learned in implementing EcoGov 1:
What Worked
1. The generation and analysis of LGU-specific thematic maps on forests and forest lands
provided updated and useful information to DENR, LGUs, NCIP, PAMB and other
stakeholders as basis in governance-oriented and informed decision making processes.
For example, the PAMB/PASu in Quirino and the LGUs, are awaiting completion of
FLUP maps of the five municipalities in Quirino that will be used as basis for identifying
the different zones in the Quirino Protected Landscape. The DENR regional office is also
requesting copies of the FLUP thematic maps to update their GIS. Likewise, the LGUs
are using the FLUP data to update their Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) and
identify watershed areas for investment that will protect vital infrastructures of the
municipality.
Focusing on watershed as the unit of analysis, the thematic maps have helped in
integrating the various concerns of different stakeholders of forests and forest lands.
Thematic mapping also opened up opportunities for public-private sector investments,
and self-initiated asset building activities. Analysis of thematic maps approach in the
context of off-site and on-site impacts (watersheds) delivers the “message” that FFL is
not just an economic asset; but part of the environment that determines the future,
development, and survival of local economies (Brown, 2001). It highlights the contention
that while “economists see the environment as a subset of the economy, the ecologists
see the economy as a subset of the environment,” of which FFL is a major part. This
contention, however, will only be meaninful and relevant at the LGU level if local
stakeholders realize the direct and indirect economic values of FFL and the potential of
these assets to generate users’ fees for development (Francisco 2004, Bautista 2004).
2. Use of consensus building processes combined with transparent and participatory

techniques to arrive at consensus, promoted accountability, commitment and strong

collaboration among stakeholders in FFL allocation, management, monitoring and
evaluation.
Ensuring the transparent and participatory process in all phases of FLUP activities
has encouraged greater participation and built confidence of stakeholders. Confidence
building requires serious and consistent adoption of good governance practices by both
DENR and LGUs. These institutions need to show solid proof of good governance to
generate wider participation not only in FLUP and implementation but even in other
areas.
With slight modification and focus, the Project has proven the value and utilitiy of
existing techniques and tools in FLUP such as Rural Rapid Appraisal (RRA), key
informant interviews (KII), focus group discussions (FGDs), walk throughs, transects,
and community mapping for validation and generating field information, resolving
conflicts, understanding the nature of conflicts,situation analysis and arriving at
consensus on where to go and how to get there. These techniques promoted
transparency and participation and facilitated consensus building, commitment and
strong collaboration among stakeholders. The use of “consensus building processes”
particularly facilitated agreements on FFL allocation, actions to put effective on-site FFM
in allocated areas, and sub-watershed prioritization for public and private investments.
3. LGUs can provide resources to effectively manage existing forests and forest lands if
they realize the benefits from FFL and if given clear roles and accountabilities.
With limited maintenance and operating expenses, DENR can enjoin LGUs to enter
into co-management agreements in the conservation, development, and management of
forests and forest lands, enforcement, and monitoring and evaluation. The co-
management agreements will enable local and national governments to combined their
resources (such as manpower and funds) for joint management of FFL. The funding
allocations provided by the LGUs in the formulation, validation, legitimization and
approval of FLUPs as well as their budgetary commitments for joint MFLUP
implementation are clear indications that LGUs are willing to commit resources in FFM.
The interactive assemblies undertaken prior to EcoGov assistance and the training
modules that followed where SB members and other LGU officials participated, helped a
lot in making LGUs realize the value of their forests and forest lands and the need for
them to actively participate in managing their FFL. However, it is necessary that LGUs
and DENR clearly understand their roles, authority, and accountabilities in FFM.
4. Investment forum is a good approach to trigger the interest of public and private sectors
to invest in the management of forests and forest lands.
The two investment fora conducted in Northern Luzon have demonstrated that there
are private companies and individuals who are interested to develop portions of forest
lands into plantations. The ECARMA Group of Companies, for instance, which
manufactures the ECARMA food supplement, is looking at Nagtipunan, Quirino as a
potential area for narra plantation. A firm has expressed interest in developing
plantations for some medicinal plants in the Lower Magat area. Local private sector
groups have been simply waiting for investment opportunities in “service centers” in
Lower Magat Forest Reserve, which has emerged to be another eco-tourism area.
5. The FLUP Trainers’ Training can potentially expand DENR’s technical assistance to
LGUs in the formulation of municipal forest land use plans.
The implementation of a “Certificate Course on Governance-Oriented Municipal

Forest Land Use Planning” has been seen by DENR as an opportunity to expand its
assistance to other LGUs in the formulation of TAP-enhanced FLUP. Recognizing the
necessity of forest land use planning as a mechanism for promoting good governance in
FFM, other municipalities are now being considered for assistance in FLUP formulation.
Considering this demand, DENR regions 2 and 7, plan to conduct more training for its
CENRO personnel. The EcoGov 1-trained DENR staff and LSPs in these regions will be
tapped as resource persons during the training activities. Based on LGU interests, the
DENR-trained personnel will then provide assistance in the formulation, legitimization,
and approval of FLUPs.
6. With proper guidance and coaching, the engagement of technically capable local
individual and institutional LSPs can facilitate the formulation of municipal FLUP and
increase the number of warm bodies that have the capability to assist LGUs.
Hiring institutional LSPs is cost-effective. In addition, they require less supervision

and can deliver the needed FLUP outputs in shorter time (as long as they are provided
with proper guidance). But LSPs must be properly selected. LSPs with adequate
administrative support and experienced technical staff proved to be effective in helping
LGUs complete their governance-oriented FLUPs. Individual LSPs have been observed
to be more effective in performing more “defined tasks” under FLUP and in maintaining
good relations with LGU leaders.
In general, most LSPs – individuals, institutions, NGOs, small consulting firms – need to
catch up with the times as this pool of local resources will serve as the future source of local
expertise, in addition to government technical line offices. Based on EcoGov experience,
many LSPs require a lot of coaching, which took up most of the time of TAs.
7. Putting verbal agreements into orders or memos and existing written policy statements
into “agreements” ---MOAs between DENR and LGUs, creation of TWGs, FLUP MOAs,
co-management agreements – provides a mechanism for highlighting and holding the
parties to practice accountability, participation, transparency, cooperation and
collaboration.
EcoGov 1 has maximized the use of “MOAs” to obtain commitments, legitimization, and
agreements from different parties. In FFM, the following were the MOAs initiated:
• MOAs among the LGU, DENR, and EcoGov 1 Project for the preparation,
legitimization and approval of FLUP. These MOAs ensured that the LGUs allocated
funds and the DENR was committed to the FLUP process.
• Joint MOAs between DENR and the LGUs for the implementation of the approved
FLUPs – to carry out the FLUP recommendations in the next five years.

• Co-management agreement between the LGU and DENR for the protection,
development, and management of specific area of forests and forest lands. These
co-management agreements act as “an LGU tenure” because they give life to the co-
management initiative for 25 years, renewable for another 25 years. They also allow
the LGU, through the Steering Committees, to enter into contracts with public and
private sector, sign sub-agreements, and other business transactions.
8. The FLUP’s focus on strengthening FFM “accountability centers” at the local level
through the consensus processes, prioritization of watersheds and agreeing on
collective actions to enforce rules on effective on-site management has highlighted
“gaps” and “practices” in both policy and administrative policies of DENR in particular,
and the State, in general.
The FLUP process challenges DENR and the LGU to practice the principle of
subsidiarity and decentralization in the protection and management of FFL through the
holders of “tenure and allocation instruments” – the communities, private sector, LGUs,
NGAs, holders of military and civil reservations, and DENR for the protected and
watershed areas. The approved FLUPs provide the baseline to enable the LGUs and
DENR to establish and operationalize an LGU-based monitoring and evaluation system
for tracking reduction in “open access” situations in FFL, on-site management of
tenure/allocation holders, enforcement, investments, forest cover improvement, and
other key indicators. The FLUPs could also become the center piece by which other
local stakeholders can participate in governing FFL assets.
The approved FLUPs, with the LGU-based M&E system, will start the process of
moving away from “compliance (rule-based) governance to results-based governance in
the FFM sector. The FLUP M&E system could be set up to monitor hectares of forest
cover, co-management agreement signed, etc. This is where the approach to identifying
and agreeing on KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS in the FFM sector is crucial in the
FLUP implementation
9. The FLUP highlights opportunities for social enterprises at the LGU level
FFL assets, following the watershed management perspective, could become major
‘centerpoints” for the emergence of LGU-based “social enterprises” – ventures that
“involve the promotion and building of enterprises or organizations that ‘create wealth,
with the intention of benefiting not just a person or a family, but a defined constituency,
sector, or community, usually involving the public at large or the marginalized sector or
society ….” (Dacanay 2004). The FFL assets could be gradually managed away from
the “traditional business enterprise,” which has a “clear bottom line: profit.” The FFL
assets have to be managed as enterprises “with a double or triple bottom line” --
generate surplus or profits, achieve social objectives such as capacitation, local
employment, empowerment of a sector or group or the improvement of the quality of life,
and achieve environmental sustainability objective or the preservation of cultural
integrity. Given that FFLs are natural resource assets, these resources when managed
properly and sustainably with the least “transaction costs,” could generate adequate
economic activities that are more dependent on local capacities, traditional knowledge,
and where communities can strengthen social relationships.
10. The Project has realized that in facilitating governance-oriented FLUPs and co-
management agreements, the TWG needs a combination of 4 Cs—character,
competence, and chemistry fit for collaboration—in preparing, validating, legitimizing and
facilitating approval of FLUPs.
The credibility of the TWG members, their willingness to work together as a team
and personality complementation spelled the difference in facilitating FLUPs and co-
management agreements. Accordingly, putting together a good team whose members
are carefully selected, providing them direction, and guiding them through the different
processes are the key in the successful conduct of governance-oriented FLUPs. There
is simply no place for sloppiness as each step of the process requires validation,
consultation with stakeholders, willingness to consider each other’s point of view, and
accepting shortcomings or inadequacies.
What Didn't Work and Why
1. “One size fits all” approach in FLUP
The Project adopted a generic SOW and training modules for implementing the FFM
assistance to LGUs. However, these generic approaches only provided guidance,
standards, protocol, and perspectives to the regional specialists, APs, team leaders,
partners and LSPs. The “one size fits all” approach didn’t work at the LGU level as there
have been many internal and external variables to contend with – commitment of LGUs,
politics, competence of LSPs, participation of local DENR and CSOs, vested interests,
interplay of statutory and customary laws, and capacities of EcoGov 1 specialists. At the
end of the day, the Team settled down to the minimum requirements of a legitimized,
approved FLUP, which was prepared following sound governance processes.
2. Zero sum game approach in FFL allocation and sub-watershed prioritization
Based on few experiences from legitimized FLUPs, the straightforward application

and imposition of national policies in FFL allocation and in sub-watershed prioritization
do not work. In many of the LGUs that EcoGov 1 assisted, particularly in Quirino, Negros
Oriental, and Sultan Kudarat, previous allocations of forests and forest lands have
revealed that local stakeholders felt that their rights were violated. The FLUP processes
were used to “tone down” disappointments and potentially explosive counter actions.
Many LGU stakeholders agreed to “compromise” with DENR on how best to allocate
FFL areas, how existing allocations could still serve local interests, and how prioritizing
sub-watershed could help the LGUs and the local stakeholders determine their
environmental services.

3. “Throwing the baby with the bath water”
This was a major issue with the CBFM approach sometime in 2003. Everybody
supported CBFM; however, the issue of resource use rights to communities became a
divisive concern. Some people were willing to throw away CBFM as an approach in
favor of “private sector”-led FFL management or even LGU-managed FFL through co-
management. The FLUP processes pointed out a combination of “accountable tenure
and allocation holders” to effectively close open access, protect, develop, and manage
these areas that are considered public lands.
4. Traditional PPP in FFL management no longer works
With the governance-oriented FLUP process, it was shown that the “protect, prohibit,
punish” approach can no longer be effective in managing the remaining forests in the
country. Greater awareness on the 3 Ps. (“protect, participate, and profit”) was gained..
This is clearly manifested by the recent increased in demand from LGUs to enter into co-
management agreement with DENR. Obviously, partnership, collaboration, and
complementation for the benefit of many will continue to trigger forest management
approaches in governance-focused LGUs.
5. “Institutionalizing a water user’s fee system” is easier said than done. Although
stakeholders agree that there is a cost involved in environmental management; nobody
wants to pay the cost if it will minimize profit.
Some local water districts, for instance, were hesitant to show their financial records
since results of studies showed that paying water user’s fee could potentially reduce
their profits.
6. The fragmentation of institutional mandates is partly blamed for the “protect-the-turf”

mentality that is prevailing among our institutions in protecting and managing FFL. The
FLUP process could only highlight the affected areas, but could not effectively respond
to resolving the potential conflicts and issues.
The governance-oriented FLUP processes provided mechanisms for organizing the

concerns and interests of local stakeholders, especially on FFL boundary conflicts,
conflicts in legal and institutional mandates, and conflicts arising from customary and
statutory laws. However, the FLUP’s effectiveness in resolving these issues remains
dependent on the political will and commitment of LGU leaders and DENR to carry out
the agreed actions in the FLUP.
V. Recommendations for Moving Forward
EcoGov 1 has continued efforts to lay down the foundation of collaborative and governance-
oriented approach to FFM in the Philippines. The gradual shift from timber-oriented, state-driven
to multiple-product, community-oriented and stakeholders-driven processes has been causing a
lot of “birth pains” – internally and externally, public and private, off- and on-site costs.
However, government’s indecisivess is allowing “forest mercenaries” to buy more time and
continue with their “illegal activities”, especially in open access forests and forest lands. Without
taking proactive actions at the LGU level, the Philippines will continue losing its remaining
natural forests, delay entry of investments in production FFL, and lose the interest of community
stakeholders in protecting and managing their natural assets – forests and forest lands; and
even lose the domestic market in exchange for cheap imports.
What the EcoGov 1 FFM sector has shown is that there is no reason for institutional
stagnation and that we should not throw away the future of Philippine forestry by not doing
anything at the LGU and community levels. The FFL assets can both serve local and national
economic interests; however, these resources have to be managed at the lowest level where
capacity and responsibility exist – LGUs, communities, and local private sector. These
stakeholders will determine the long-term sustainability of the country’s forests and forest lands.
This is the perspective in crafting the recommendations arising from EcoGov 1 with respect to
protecting and managing FFL based on sound governance principles.
For EcoGov 2 Planning and Implementation
• Implement legitimized and approved FLUP with MOAs (JMC 2003-01) – facilitate
issuance of tenure and other property rights instruments, resolve conflicts, train local
stakeholders to monitor and enforce requirements for effective on-site FFL management
of existing tenure and allocation holders, and facilitate investments in priority sub-
watersheds. With the legitimized FLUP, EcoGov 2 can start by closing open access in
forests and forest lands combined with strategies that could (a) conserve existing natural
forests under the stewardship of various tenure and allocation holders, (b) resolve
conflicts among claimants, (c) collectively enforce forestry rules and regulations, and (d)
promote public-private and private investments in developing the forests and forest
lands.
• Complete the FLUPs of LGUs in the pipeline – complete assistance to other LGUs
undergoing FLUP especially in finishing and digitizing thematic maps, consensus on FFL
and priority sub-watersheds, legitimization, and FLUP MOA signing.
• For EcoGov 2 FFM expansion areas, target LGUs in and near highly stressed Protected
Areas and watersheds using the “social enterprise” perspective, especially in shifting the
conservation strategy to “Protect, Participate, Profit” from the traditional “Protect,
Prohibit, and Punish” approach. These areas may include Mt. Apo, LGUs near the
Lanao Lake watersheds, Zamboanga City watersheds, Quirino protected landscapes,
among others. Non-traditional environmental financing schemes in these areas may
have the potential to flourish and get institutionalized over the EcoGov 2 Project life
span.
• Complete IRRs of EO 318 and MMAA 161. There is a need to organize and develop
work plans for continuing assistance to ARMM/DENR and DENR/FMB for completing
the IRRs of these newly issued policies.
• Train a cadre of Trainers of Trainors (TOT) to institutionalize the governance-oriented
FLUP. Participants should come from DENR, LGUs (province) and institutional LSPs
(academe, key NGOs, etc). This will enable EcoGov 2 to expand legitimizations of
FLUPs and accelerate their implementation. Expand the TOT of FLUPs among LGUs,

DENR field staff, LSPs, and NGOs by helping the participants apply their skills and
knowledge using EcoGov 2 Project resources.
• Strengthen CBFM federations and regional association of POs to become self-financing
while servicing the needs of their members and organizing for collective actions and
policy advocacy.
• Continue piloting different approaches of environmental financing --- identify the kinks
and make them work even at demonstration level.
• Promote public-private social enterprises in co-managed areas and CBFM/CADCs,
especially in Nueva Vizcaya and in the newly-signed 11 co-management agreement
areas.
• Support more local advocacy initiatives and encourage LGUs to adopt extension system
to FLUP tenure and allocation holders. This should be part of assisting the LGUs
implement their FLUPs to capacitate tenure and allocation holders with extension, IPR,
and public-private enterprises.
• Pilot, test, learn, and refine the LGU-based “Performance Monitoring System” using the
FFM tenure and allocation holders as accountability centers. This may be tested in
selected provinces, such as Quirino, Nueva Vizcaya, North Cotabato, Negros Oriental.
Assistance may be in developing institutional mechanisms for effective collaboration with
DENR in providing provincial level monitoring and enforcement of FFL, and strengthen
capacities for partnership with the private sector.
For the Overall Improvement of FFM Governance
• Moving away FFL management from non-point to point sources approach through
defined accountability centers, individual property rights, and use of results-based
performance indicator system and governance mechanism with incentives. This can be
institutionalized through the DENR National Technical Working Group that is
implementing the JMC 2003-01 and using the legitimized FLUPs as the entry points.
• Assist DENR senior management in region-based strategic thinking and re-engineering

the forestry sector institutions to become relevant so that they start moving away from
“rule-based to results-based” of forestry governance, managing tenure and allocation
holders of FFL areas as accountability centers, and adopting participation and
transparency in decision making and actions, especially in allocation resource use rights
and tenurial instruments. Establish LGU-based systems to monitor FFM accountability
centers with the use of key performance indicator – state, public-private enterprises,
private enterprises, communities, other government agencies, LGUs
• Explore the use of social enterprise approach in protecting and conserving protected
areas and watersheds to address imbalances in PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COSTS and
BENEFITS.
• Allow NGOs to have their “cakes and eat them too” by providing opportunities for them
to become “accountability centers” – holders of tenure or co-management forms of
instruments -- in FFL management under approved FLUPs. These NGOs can prepare
proposals for the protection, development, and management of specific area of FFL
based on approved FLUPs.
• Respond to demands for secure, stable, and predictable collective and individual
PROPERTY RIGHTS in FFL areas to control illegal logging and minimize forest
conversion – because “NO ONE KILLS THE GOOSE THAT LAYS THE GOLDEN EGG,
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS HIS GOOSE”.
• Select pilot provinces and regions to institute the approach of “WALKING OUR TALK” in
FFL management by helping them align their BUDGET AND POLICES (CONSISTENT
AND FOCUSED IN SUPPORT of FFL PRIORITIES) in the implementation of FLUPs.
• Assist LGUs to recruit/train/capacitate/link and network MENROs and their staff with
national line agencies, NGOs, private sector associations, donor agencies, and other
support systems. Explore the possibility of seconding DENR staff to LGUs with DILG
and the leagues.

References
Brown, L. 2001. Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth. New York: W.W. Norton
and Company, 2001.
Dacanay, M. 2004. Creating a space in the market: social enterprise stories in Asia. Asian
Institute of Management and Conference of Asian Foundations and Organizations. Makati
City: AIM, 2004.
Bautista, G. 2004. The Requirements for the institution of a user fee system in a watershed
context. DAI EcoGov 1 Project Technical Report, Quezon City.
Bisson, J., E. Guiang, P. Walpole, and D. Tolentino. 2003. Better governance critical to
reversing forest degradation in Southeast Asia. OEM, USAID, Asia, Washington, D.C.
USA.
Francisco, H. 2004. Economics of forestry project under alternative land use rights. DAI
EcoGov 1 Project Technical Report, Quezon City.
FAO. 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, Main Report. Rome: FAO.
Guiang, E. 2002. Why LGUs should get involved in municipal forest land use planning. DAI
EcoGov 1 Project Technical Notes. Quezon City.
Annex 1A. Status of Policy, Legal and Institutional Support
Output/Deliverable Status
EO on Promoting Sustainable Forest • Completed (EO No. 318 Series of 2004 signed)
Management Policy • EcoGov is supporting drafting of Action Plan/IRR
ARMM Regional Sustainable Forest • Completed
Management Act • Signed into law in May 2004 as Muslim Mindanao
Autonomy Act (MMAA) No. 161 or the “People’s
Bill”
• Assistance in the preparation of the IRR may be
considered in EcoGov 2
Manual of Forestry Regulatory • Completed
Procedures • Recommendations from the UPLB FDC study were
inputted in finalizing the three administrative orders
(DAO 2004-35 on grazing; DAO 2004-29 on CBFM;
DAO 2004-30 on SIFMA) signed by DENR
Secretary Gozun in August
Documentation of Nueva Vizcaya’s • Completed (as part of the FDC sub-contract)
experience in co-management (as part • FDC completed the sub-report “Review and
of continuing support to implementation Analysis of Co-management Schemes in the
of DENR-DILG JMC 2003-01) Philippine Forest Lands”; Nueva Vizcaya was one
study site. Three models of co-management were
reported: the DENR-LGUs-Stakeholders Co-
management of the Lower Magat Forest Reserve;
TREE for Legacy, Education and Enterprise; and
the Devolved Small Watershed.
Securitization of Forest Plantation • Deferred (needs more in-depth analysis before next
steps)
• Two meetings held, first with FMB and second, with
FASPO and PNB Trust Banking Group Corporation
to explore the feasibility and design of the forest
securitization strategy.
• May be considered as a policy agenda item in
EcoGov 2.
Support to the DENR-DILG JMC 2003- • EcoGov 1 initiatives completed; DENR has
01/98-01 Operationalization continued activities in support of the
operationalization of the JMC
• Provided technical support to NTWG
• IEC materials (pamphlets on DENR-DILG JMC
2003-1 and FLUP) for distribution to DENR and
LGUs
• Updates and conduct of orientation with DENR
counterparts in Central Mindanao and Central
Visayas
• Provided talking points for the preparation of a
strategic partnership plan
• Prepared guidelines for operationalization of
DENR-LGU co-management of forest lands
• Continuing activity up to EcoGov 2
Annex 1A, Page 1 of 2

Output/Deliverable Status
Support to the “Paralegal and Forest • Completed (Part of 2003 work plan)
Law Enforcement Training for DENR • Training module may be refined for use in EcoGov
Forest Protection and Law 2; training should combine enforcement and topics
Enforcement Officers” on strengthening property rights issues in forests
and forest lands and mangrove areas.
Implementation of Investment Program • EcoGov 1 commitments completed; other follow-up
for Lower Magat activities may be carried through EcoGov Phase 2
(Part of 2003 work plan)
• Finalized TOR, business contracts/MOAs and
eligibility criteria for investors
• Investment program primer finalized
• Advertized need for investors
• Held Investors’ Forum
• Evaluation of investment proposals received on-
going
• To be continued in EcoGov 2

Annex 1B. Status of Technical, Analytical and IEC Support
Workplan Target Outputs Status

Compilation of FFM training modules • Completed
FLUP training for DENR • Completed 4 training held in Cebu City, Nueva
Vizcaya and Tacloban.
Pilot-testing of water users fee • Discussions and negotiations among Kidapawan
LGU, water district and DENR halted.
Pilot test co-management in upland • The first co-management agreement signed in
mangroves Talibon (mangroves) and Lebak, Kalamansig and
Isabala City (upland) are under implementation.
Eleven co-management agreement signed in
Central Visayas. Completed work on the detailed
co-management guidelines.
Sourcebook on Tenure Instruments • Printed 500 copies and turned over to DENR-FMB
in August 2004.
TAP enhanced FLUP guidelines • Integrated into the training modules, item # above.
Case studies (use rights, consensus • Case studies on property rights conflicts in the co-
building in forest land allocation, co- management area of Nueva Vizcaya and on tenure
management agreements, water user and resource use conflicts in a watershed in North
fees) Cotabato were prepared for the USAID-funded
workshop on resource management conflicts.
Additional case documentation have been prepared
on tenure issues (pasture leases and ancestral
lands) in Maasim, Saranggani, and on the forest
protection network of Makilala, North Cotabato.
Production of IEC materials • Allocation and Tenure Instruments on Forest
Lands: A Source Book
• Allocating Forest Lands: Commonly Issued
Allocation Instruments
• Primer on DENR-DILG-LGU Partnership in Forest
Management
• Primer on the Proposed Regional Sustainable
Forest Management Act (RSFMA)-RLA Bill No. 91
Collaboration with Bantay Kalikasan • Completed
Foundation for the production of
interstitial on Wao FLUP
Annex 1B, Page 1 of 1

Annex 2. Status of LGUs with Technical Assistance on FLUP
MOA Signed
Region/ Province Municipality/ City Sector Status of FLUP
(Date)
Western Mindanao
ARMM
Basilan 1. Lamitan 11/19/02 CRM, FFM, SWM FLUP legitimized; LGU-DENR MOA signed.
2. Sumisip 11/19/02 CRM, FFM Phase 1 TA suspended in 2003 due to orgnization and staffing issue.
Resumption of TA in EcoGov 2 will be explored with the LGU.
3. Tipo-tipo 11/19/02 CRM, FFM Phase 1 TA suspended in 2003 due to orgnization and staffing issue.
Resumption of TA in EcoGov 2 will be explored with the LGU.
Region 9
Basilan 1. Isabela City 11/19/02 CRM, FFM, SWM FLUP legitimized; DENR-LGU MOA and co-mgt agreement signed.
Region 9
2. Zamboanga City 02/26/04 FFM Ongoing discussions on proposed co-management etween
DENR and LGU.
Central Mindanao
ARMM
Lanao del Sur 3. Wao 7/31/2002; FFM; SWM FLUP legitimized, DENR-LGU MOA signed.
10/23/03
Region 12
Sultan Kudarat 4. Kalamansig 10/1/02; FFM; CRM FLUP legitimized; DENR-LGU MOA and co-management
9/25/03 agreement signed.
5. Lebak 10/01/02 FFM; CRM FLUP legitimized; DENR-LGU MOA and co-management
agreement signed.
North Cotabato 6. Kidapawan City 09/26/02; SWM; FFM FLUP for legitimization
10/3/2003
7. Makilala 10/02/03 FFM FLUP for legitimization
Sarangani 8. Maitum 08/28/03 FFM FLUP legitimized; DENR-LGU MOA signed.
9. Maasim 11/14/03 FFM FLUP legitimized; DENR-LGU MOA signed
10. Kiamba 11/29/03 FFM Phase 1 TA suspended after elections.TA has been resumed
with LGU orientation held in November.
Central Visayas - Region 7
Bohol 11. Talibon 12/04/02 CRM, FFM FLUP legitimized, co-management agreement signed.
12. San Miguel 12/04/02 FFM FLUP legitimized.
13. Toledo City 04/30/03 CRM; FFM; SWM FLUP legitimized; LGU-DENR MOA signed; co-management
agreement signed.
Bohol Province 12/03/02 CRM; FFM; SWM
Negros Oriental 14. Sta. Catalina 03/20/03 FFM; SWM FLUP legimitimized; DENR-LGU MOA and co-mgt agreement
signed.
15. Bayawan City 03/20/03 FFM; SWM FLUP legimitimized; DENR-LGU MOA and co-mgt agreement
signed.
16. Dauin 03/20/03 FFM; SWM FLUP legitimized.
17. Bais City 03/20/03 FFM; SWM FLUP legimitimized; DENR-LGU MOA and co-mgt agreement
signed.
18. Tanjay 03/20/03 FFM; SWM FLUP legimitimized; DENR-LGU MOA and co-mgt agreement
signed.
19. La Libertad 03/20/03 FFM FLUP legimitimized; DENR-LGU MOA and co-mgt agreement
signed.
20. Alcoy 04/10/03 FFM FLUP legimitimized; DENR-LGU MOA and co-mgt agreement
signed.
21. Dalaguete 04/10/03 FFM FLUP legimitimized; DENR-LGU MOA and co-mgt agreement
signed.
Northern Luzon
Nueva Vizcaya 22. Dupax Sur 08/25/03 FFM FLUP being drafted.
23. Quezon 05/30/03 FFM; SWM FLUP for legitimization (SB approval pending)
Quirino 24. Cabarroguis 04/29/03 FFM; SWM Thematic mapping completed.
25. Diffun 04/29/03 FFM; SWM FLUP for legitimization.

26. Aglipay 04/29/03 FFM FLUP for legitimization.
27. Maddela 04/29/03 FFM; SWM FLUP legitimized; DENR-LGU MOA signed
28. Nagtipunan 04/29/03 FFM FLUP legitimized; DENR-LGU MOA signed
Province of Quirino 04/29/03 FFF, SWM
Central Luzon
29. Baler 07/22/03 CRM; FFM FLUP for legitimization (SB approval pending)
30. Ma. Aurora 7/22/03 FFM; SWM Phase 1 TA limited to GIS training so LGU can build on spatial
database from various projects. TA in EcoGov 2 will be
explored with the LGU.
Annex 2, Page 1 of 1
Annex 3. Summary of Forests and Forest Lands in LGUs with Legitimized FLUPS
Total Forest in FL area
Total Forest in FL area that are covered with
Total FL area Total Forest in FL area
Total Area of that are Open Access tenure/allocation
Local Government instruments
No LGU in
Unit/Region
hectares Total FL
Open % FL to Area in % of Total Area in % of Total Area in % of Total
Allocated Area
Access Total Area hectares Area hectares Area hectares Area
(hectares)
Western Mindanao 48,871 8,155 7,380 15,520 32% 12,920 83% 6,080 75% 6,840 93%
1 Lamitan,Basilan 26,226 1,255 2,980 4,240 16% 3,733 88% 753 60% 2,980 100%
2 Isabela City,Basilan 22,645 6,900 4,400 11,280 50% 9,188 81% 5,327 77% 3,860 88%
Southern Mindanao 209,943 76,154 75,456 151,570 72% 82,141 54% 41,928 55% 40,213 53%
4 Wao,Lanao del Sur 35,460 - 19,820 19,820 56% 12,720 64% - 12,720 64%
5 Lebak,Sultan Kudarat 45,001 18,264 4,936 23,200 52% 11,161 48% 9,088 50% 2,073 42%
6 Kalamansig,Sultan Kudarat 45,940 25,800 14,400 40,160 87% 24,860 62% 15,660 61% 9,200 64%
7 Maitum,Sarangani 32,435 10,870 10,900 21,770 67% 18,500 85% 9,280 85% 9,220 85%
8 Maasim,Sarangani 51,107 21,220 25,400 46,620 91% 14,900 32% 7,900 37% 7,000 28%
Central Visayas 70,646 55,387 126,073 29,790 24% 8,291 12% 21,499 39%
12 Bayawan City,Negros Oriental 14,434 5,811 20,245 2,937 15% 295 2% 2,642 45%
13 Sta Catalina,Negros Oriental 19,974 21,533 41,507 4,458 11% - 4,458 21%
14 Dauin,Negros Oriental - 5,279 5,279 4,016 76% 625 3,391 64%
15 La Libertad,Negros Oriental 5,042 553 5,595 728 13% 578 11% 150 27%
16 Bais City,Negros Oriental 9,623 3,632 13,295 6,376 48% 3,839 40% 2,537 70%
17 Tanjay City,Negros Oriental 8,555 5,999 14,554 3,680 25% 587 7% 3,093 52%
18 Toledo City,Cebu 3,714 2,280 5,994 1,050 18% 430 12% 620 27%
19 Dalaguete,Cebu 4,132 3,099 7,231 2,057 28% 909 22% 1,148 37%
20 Alcoy,Cebu 1,649 3,324 4,973 2,355 47% 391 24% 1,964 59%
21 Talibon,Bohol 3,488 3,327 6,815 2,109 31% 637 18% 1,472 44%
22 San Miguel,Bohol 35 550 585 24 4% - 24 4%
Northern Luzon 231,624 29,251 169,359 198,610 86% 157,349 79% 21,763 74% 135,586 80%
26 Maddela,Quirino 155,892 29,251 30,041 59,292 38% 47,621 80% 21,763 74% 25,858 86%
27 Nagtipunan,Quirino 75,732 - 139,318 139,318 184% 109,728 79% - 109,728 79%
Total Area Hectares 490,438 184,206 307,582 491,773 282,200 57% 78,062 42% 204,138 66%
Annex 4. Summary of Forests and Forest Lands Data of FLUP-assisted LGUs
% of % of Natural
Forest Open Forest
Total Forestlan Forestlan Forest in Signed Co-
Local Government Lands with Access Land with Date of FLUP
No Forest ds that ds with Areas w Mgt
Unit/Region Existing Forest Forest legitimization
Lands are Open Natural Forest Agreement
Tenure Lands Cover
Access Cover Cover
Western Mindanao 18,129 7,380 8,155 15,529 7,651
1 Lamitan,Basilan 4,240 2,980 1,255 30% 13% 3,733 560 6/9/2004
2 Isabela City,Basilan 11,280 4,400 6,900 61% 44% 9,188 4,922 7/29/2004 4/24/2004
3 Zamboanga City 2,609 83% 2,609 2,169
Southern Mindanao 202,299 75,456 76,154 116,447 79,269
4 Wao,Lanao del Sur 19,820 19,820 - 63% 12,720 12,529 2/17/2003
5 Lebak,Sultan Kudarat 23,200 4,936 18,264 79% 30% 11,161 6,927 12/29/2003 3/30/2004
6 Kalamansig,Sultan Kudarat 40,160 14,400 25,800 64% 27% 24,860 10,809 10/22/2003 3/30/2004
7 Maitum,Sarangani 21,770 10,900 10,870 50% 77% 18,500 16,804 4/13/2004
8 Maasim,Sarangani 46,620 25,400 21,220 46% 10% 14,900 4,433 9/23/2004
9 Makilala,Cotabato 10,886 39% 5,695 4267
10 Kidapawan,Cotabato 9,000 - 47% 2,782 4,271
11 Kiamba,Cotabato 30,843 62% 25,829 19,229
Central Visayas 126,073 55,387 70,646 29,790 16,812
12 Bayawan City,Negros Oriental 20,245 5,811 14,434 71% 2% 2,937 474 12/11/2003 6/8/2004
13 Sta Catalina,Negros Oriental 41,507 21,533 19,974 48% 9% 4,458 3,679 4/6/2004 9/8/2004
14 Dauin,Negros Oriental 5,279 5,279 54% 4,016 2,846 5/24/2004
15 La Libertad,Negros Oriental 5,595 553 5,042 90% 2% 728 123 12/12/2003 6/9/2004
16 Bais City,Negros Oriental 13,295 3,632 9,623 72% 32% 6,376 4,271 3/11/2004 9/9/2004
17 Tanjay City,Negros Oriental 14,554 5,999 8,555 59% 8% 3,680 1,230 2/24/2004 9/9/2004
18 Toledo City,Cebu 5,994 2,280 3,714 62% 36% 1,050 2,169 9/14/2004 9/14/2004
19 Dalaguete,Cebu 7,231 3,099 4,132 57% 8% 2,057 548 2/26/2004 8/25/2004
20 Alcoy,Cebu 4,973 3,324 1,649 33% 17% 2,355 844 3/29/2004 8/16/2004
21 Talibon,Bohol 6,815 3,327 3,488 51% 8% 2,109 568 2/16/2004 3/11/2004
22 San Miguel,Bohol 585 550 35 6% 10% 24 60 6/15/2004
Northern Luzon 306,720 173,604 38,934 211,200 173,200
23 Aglipay,Quirino 13,622 1% 10,923 123
24 Cabarrguis,Quirino 16,364 9,349 57% 42% 7,063 6,831
25 Diffun,Quirino 19,506 15% 7,484 2,846
26 Maddela,Quirino 59,292 30,041 29,251 49% 74% 47,621 44,163 9/20/2004
27 Nagtipunan,Quirino 139,318 139,318 - 75% 109,728 103,848 9/23/2004
28 Baler,Aurora 4,579 4,245 334 7% 92% 4,020 4,192
29 Maria Aurora, Aurora
30 Quezon,Nueva Vizcaya 17,467 43% 7,518 7,518
31 Dupax del Sur,Nueva Vizcaya 36,572 10% 16,843 3,679
Total Area Hectares 653,221 311,827 193,889 372,966 276,932
HELPING LGUS IMPLEMENT RA 9003:
THE ECOLOGICAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT
COMPLETION REPORT OF THE ECOGOV PROJECT
INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
(ISWM) TEAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
II. Scope of Work (SOW)............................................................................................................ 2
Targets and Deliverables.................................................................................................... 3
III. Key Strategies ........................................................................................................................ 5
Conduct of IAs .................................................................................................................... 5
Review of past efforts ......................................................................................................... 6
Offering improved ISWM TA............................................................................................... 6
Clustering LGUs ................................................................................................................. 7
Responding to policy needs ............................................................................................... 7
Networking.......................................................................................................................... 7
IV. Sector Accomplishments...................................................................................................... 8
Governance enhanced ISWM planning.............................................................................. 8
Policy and Advocacy Support........................................................................................... 12
Technical and IEC support ............................................................................................... 13
Innovative Interventions.................................................................................................... 14
Collaborative Efforts ......................................................................................................... 14
V. Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................. 16
What Worked .................................................................................................................... 16
What Did not Work ........................................................................................................... 17
VI. Recommendations............................................................................................................... 18
For EcoGov 2 Planning and Implementation.................................................................... 18
For DENR/NSWMC .......................................................................................................... 19
For LGUs .......................................................................................................................... 19
Helping LGUs Implement RA 9003 i

ii Completion Report of the EcoGov Project ISWM Team
HELPING LGUS IMPLEMENT RA 9003:
THE ECOLOGICAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT
COMPLETION REPORT OF THE ECOGOV PROJECT
INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT (ISWM) TEAM1
I. Introduction
The experience and lessons learned in “Smokey Mountain”, an infamous open dump
site in Manila—where garbage taller than many high-rise buildings used to pile up—
showed the continuing struggle and chaos in managing solid waste in the Philippines.
The tragedy that happened in Payatas dumpsite in Quezon City in July 20002 served as
a wake-up call to the people, especially to the national legislators, on the hazards and
dangers posed by improper management of solid waste. The event facilitated the
passage into law of RA 9003, known as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of
2000. This provided the blueprint for local government units (LGUs), the national
government, the private sector, and the civil society organizations to chart the direction,
strategies, and action plans for managing solid waste in the country.
The law mandates LGUs to carry out segregation at source, collection, and disposal
of garbage to managed dump sites starting in 2004 and shift to landfill in 2007. The law
also requires reduction/diversion of recyclables and biodegradables up to 25 percent
after 5 years of implementation, organization of Ecological Solid Waste Management
(ESWM) boards, submission and approval of ISWM plans, among others. While many
LGUs mull on how these new requirements could be met, they continued to contend with
the challenges of daily garbage collection and where to dispose the wastes collected.
Without the support and assistance from the national government, the LGUs face a
dilemma on how to carry out the provisions of the law.
Although the problems of unmanaged solid waste in other LGUs are not as severe
as in Metro Manila, existing situations still pose significant negative impacts on public
health and environmental safety. There are as many open dumps as there are LGUs. As
a rule, these dumps are located wherever land is available, without regard for public
safety, health and environmental hazards as well as aesthetics. In many areas, these
garbage dumps are continuously burning—further putting at risk the earth’s ozone layer
—either because of continuous methane generation or these piles were set on fire to
reduce volume. Practically no management interventions exist at these dumps.
Scavengers abound and animals roam around, increasing the chances of diseases
being transmitted from dump sites where germ- and virus-carrying insects thrive.
These sites are not only hosts to waste coming from households and business
establishments. Even industrial, hospital and other toxic and special wastes find their
way to these dumps, posing graver danger to the public and the environment.
1
Written by Dr. Vic Luis, Jr., EcoGov 1 National Solid Waste Management Specialist, with inputs from the
regional solid waste management specialists (R Kintanar, R Vergara) and Assisting Professionals.
2
The tragedy was caused by the collapse of piles of garbage after heavy rainfall, burying hundreds of
homes and killing scores of people.
Helping LGUs Implement RA 9003 1

Just like in Metro Manila, the SWM system in many parts of the country is primarily a
collection-and-disposal method. And, most often than not, only the central business
districts and the urban barangays are usually served. Most LGUs in the country spend a
measly 3 to 4 percent of their budget for SWM. This pales in comparison to the towns
and cities in developed countries like Singapore, which allocates at least 30 percent of
their budget for SWM. Marikina City which is the cleanest in the metropolis spends about
15 percent of its budget for solid waste management.
Inadequate budget support for SWM is only one part of the problem. Pinpointing
which office or unit of the local government is really responsible and accountable to meet
SWM demand is another. Most LGUs have at least three offices engaged in the service,
such as the General Services Office (GSO), which usually provides the manpower
requirements; the City/Municipal Engineer’s Office, which controls the equipment; and
the Treasurer’s Office, which collects the service fees (mostly from business
establishments only). Hence, when there are lapses in the service, these offices start to
point their fingers at one another.
Also, most LGUs have solid waste and solid Factors contributing to SWM problem
waste-related ordinances, but most of these are
just legal ornaments rather than instruments in There are other factors that contribute to
the implementation of the LGUs SWM programs. the worsening SWM condition in the
country. One is the increase in population.
The EcoGov 1 Project which started in The average increase of 2.36 percent in
December 2001, provided technical assistance to Philippine population has resulted in the
generation of more and more waste each
LGUs to improve their governance and delivery
year. Outside of Metro Manila, the estimated
of SWM service to their constituents and also to solid waste generation rate ranges from
assist them comply with the requirements of RA 0.30 to about 0.45kg/capita/day.
9003. While the focus of the assistance was on The fast changing lifestyles and
the governance-enhanced formulation of the consumption patterns of Filipinos have also
ISWM plans of the LGUs, the clamor of some exacerbated the problem, as consumers
LGUs to proceed with some doable activities was buy disposable goods using lightweight but
also supported and promoted. At the national bulky packaging materials.
and regional levels, policy, technical and IEC And last is public apathy. The people
support were also provided, gearied towards see the LGU as the sole responsible entity
that will provide them free SWM service.
improved capacity for SWM implementation,
enforcement and advocacy.
II. Scope of Work (SOW)
The Environmental Governance (EcoGov) Project3 supports the GOP’s and USAID’s
goal of revitalizing the economy by fostering improved management of natural resources
that provide key inputs to the long term economic development of the country. The
Project aims to address critical threats to the country’s coastal resources and forests,
primarily overfishing and use of destructive fishing practices, and illegal cutting and
conversion of natural forests. It was also designed to urgently respond to the increasing
need to address unmanaged solid waste at the local level to address issues on public
health and environmental hazard.
3
2 Completion Report of the EcoGov Project ISWM Team

Figure 1 shows the scope of work for the ISWM sector which supports the SO4 goal.
The key outcome indicator is:
• LGUs diverting at least 15% of waste stream through recovery and recycling.
A supplemental indicator, LGUs with privatized SWM services, was proposed but this
was not pursued since no direct intervention could be provided by the project to
accomplish this indicator .
EcoGov 1 was to provide technical assistance to interested LGUs in Regions 9, 12,

7, 2 and 3, and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) to improve their
delivery of ISWM services. The EcoGov 1 ISWM Team was to link with national
government agencies (NGAs) like the DENR, ARMM, leagues of LGUs and local service
providers (LSP) in formulating and promoting responsive governance oriented policies
and practices to make more effective and efficient SWM at the LGU level.
Targets and Deliverables
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the GOP and the USAID,
contained the following initial targets for the ISWM sector:
• At least 100 LGUs diverting 15 percent of waste stream from disposal facilities
through waste recovery and recycling techniques;
• Effective procurement instrument for SWM services;
• Appropriate policies formulated and implemented for improving ISWM service;
• User friendly and validated governance tools, techniques, practices, instruments,
and training modules that will assist LGUs, DENR and community organizations
to make informed decisions;
• Updated and validated information base on SWM of LGUs; and
• Strengthened LSPs and more organized community groups who are able to
articulate “demands” for sound governance in the ISWM sector.
EcoGov 1 implementation in ISWM focused on how the Project could support the
initiatives of LGUs to carry out the provisions of RA 9003. It was designed to assist the
LGUs to comply with the provisions of RA 9003, rather than to carry out the spirit of the
law by focusing on what can immediately be done with respect to segregation at source,
establishment of materials recovery facilities (MRFs), social awareness campaigns, etc.
The Project’s perspective included helping the LGUs lay down the sound foundation for
the long-term management of their solid wastes; hence, the investments on assessment,
analysis, strategic direction, and performing “doables” within the context of good
environmental governance. Accordingly, the Project used “interim indicators,” such as
“legitimized ISWM plans” and initial implementation activities to show progress towards
the MOU targets.

Figure 1

EcoGov 1 assisted 44 LGUs, helping them assess and analyze their solid waste
generation and SWM practices and local policies; pinpoint areas for immediate
implementation such as effective IEC campaigns and collaborative efforts; formulate and
legitimize their 10-year ISWM plans as required by RA 9003, organize and strengthen
their ESWM Boards, and meet DENR’s requirement of shifting from open to close
dumps and for landfills (See Annex 1 for the list of these LGUs and their status as of
end of November 2004).
The Project developed a sample-based system for assessing waste generation of

different sources as the basis in establishing baselines, identifying strategic
interventions, and formulating ISWM plans. Techniques for assessing and analyzing
wastes at source and at the disposal site (end-of-pipe) were developed. The Project
initially targeted at least 9 LGUs where the diversion of 15 percent of waste away from
disposal by source reduction, recovery and recycling would be measured.
EcoGov 1 earmarked at least 30 percent of its resources for the ISWM sector.
Furthermore, these resources were allocated per region as follows: 60 percent in Central
and Western Mindanao, 35 percent in Central Visayas, and 15 percent in Northern
Luzon.
Most of the Project resources were devoted to LGU assistance and support for local
and national efforts on policy and advocacy, generating tools and techniques, carrying
out training modules, database development, and capacity building of LSPs and other
partners.
III. Key Strategies
The EcoGov 1 Team intentionally adopted a two-pronged approach in implementing

its technical assistance strategies. First, it built on lessons learned, good practices, and
acceptable and doable approaches and tools in assisting LGUs and communities and in
collaboration with DENR and other partners at the national and local levels. The Team
tried to refine and improve on certain approaches, practices, and tools and incorporated
lessons learned from previous initiatives in the delivery of technical assistance with the
purpose of making them more efficient, doable, simple, and easy to apply. Second, the
Team identified, tested, and piloted potential interventions that could improve
environmental governance in the sector with the purpose of generating an “innovation”
that may have a greater application in other LGUs. This perspective combined with
flexibility was used in EcoGov 1 annual work planning preparation and implementation.
Conduct of IAs
In all the sectors (CRM, FFM, and ISWM), the EcoGov 1 Team carried out several
interactive assemblies (IAs) in different locations in Central and Western Mindanao,
Central Visayas and Northern Luzon. These assemblies were designed to “interest”
LGUs and other local partners to collaborate with the EcoGov 1 Project in helping
address governance issues in the ISWM sector. The LGUs and the local partners
(community groups, local DENR, or local service providers) express their interest for
ISWM technical assistance through a letter or resolution from their respective MDCs and
SBs. The Project’s ISWM regional team facilitated meetings through roundtable

discussions among the concerned LGU, DENR field officials, other local stakeholders to
confirm the LGU’s interest, craft a simple action plan, discuss the key provisions of the
draft MOA for collaboration between DENR, LGU, and the EcoGov Project. They
conducted a more detailed orientation on how to improve ISWM governance at the local
level.
Review of past efforts
The EcoGov 1 ISWM Team reviewed previous efforts and means in providing TA to
LGUs for the preparation, formulation and legitimization of ISWM plans. The Team
assisted the LGUs establish their ESWM Boards and their Technical Working Groups
(TWGs), which served as the workhorse of the Board. To ensure that the Project would
provide LGU partners with the best possible TA, the Team reviewed and enhanced the
processes followed and methods used for ISWM TA by ARD-GOLD, a USAID-funded
project. Although the Project adopted the process flow, a lot of innovations and
improvements were incorporated to make the process more realistic and reliable as
basis for the formulation of the ISWM plans of target LGUs.
The improved training modules were applied in collaboration with local DENR initially
in one LGU, Tacurong City. Further refinements were incorporated until a workable,
easy-to-replicate process was achieved. To enable the TWG and ESWMB to internalize
the whole process, on-site assistance as well as mentoring and coaching were done
until a draft ISWM plan for the LGU was crafted.
Offering improved ISWM TA
EcoGov 1’s product line in ISWM sector is the TA for the preparation, validation,
drafting and legitimization of LGUs’ 10-year ISWM plans. The improved process flow in
developing governance-enhanced ISWM plan is shown in Figure 2. The rationale
behind the ISWM assistance to LGUs on governance-enhanced ISWM plans, that
include the legitimization process, are:
• The plans will be assured of sustainability on the basis of LGU’s legitimization

process (where both the legislative and executive branches of the LGUs endorse
and approve the ISWM plans). Even if there will be changes in LGU leadership,
the next mayor is bound to support and continue implementing the plan because
of support from the constituents, especially the barangays, civil society
organizations, and elected officials.
• The plan is assured of financial support for the duration of the plan
implementation. As part of the legitimization, the LGUs allocate and budget
support for the ISWM implementation on an annual basis..
• It facilitates and promotes private sector participation through partnerships, joint

ventures and other forms of enterprises related to SWM.
• The legitimized plans help the LGUs comply with at least the minimum
requirements and targets of RA 9003.

• It facilitates the establishment of a single entity that is solely responsible and
accountable to the service.
• It provides the framework for the formulation of a comprehensive support

ordinance that is also in consonance to RA 9003 and its IRR.
Although the Project is demand driven, the ISWM Team took the initiative to
formulate a set of criteria for LGUs that will be invited to the IAs. One of the criteria was
that the LGU must be at least a 3rd class municipality. This is to ensure that those who
will participate can actually afford to meet the resource requirements of coming up with
and implementing ISWM plans.
Clustering LGUs
Once the LGU is selected and a MOA for TA is signed, the beneficiary LGU can be
used as a spring board to expand to adjacent LGUs which did not earlier qualify, but
indicated a strong commitment and willingness to pursue governance enhanced-ISWM.
The adjacent LGUs could be part of a cluster. Such was the case of the LGU clusters in
Negros Oriental and in Bohol. This way, shared goals in ISWM were also pursued,
especially on joint management of disposal facilities. In the case of the Metro Tagbilaran,
a cluster made up of eight LGUs, the municipality of Alburquerque offered to host a
common sanitary landfill. Clustering also promoted efficient use of TA resources as most
of the ISWM training modules were conducted by cluster.
Responding to policy needs
The Project ISWM strategy included providing TA for improving governance policies
at the local and national levels. These policies at the local level were primarily focused
on supporting the implementation of the ISWM plans of LGUs – decision making
processes that are more participatory, transparent, and accountable. At the national
level, the focus was on the clarification of the IRR of the Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act. An expatriate consultant was engaged to look at the technical gaps of
the IRR. He recommended ways and the conduct of some studies to fill these gaps. The
National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC) and other civil society
organizations and the LGU leagues assisted the Team in identifying other gaps and
provisions in the IRR that need clarification. Demands and requests from these groups
and other advocates were considered in the Team’s preparation of the sector’s annual
work plans.
Networking
The ISWM Team supported, networked and collaborated with NSWMC, DENR-EMB,
academe, LGU leagues for joint conduct of capacity building activities. It also partnered
with media groups for the popularization of EcoGov 1’s ISWM tools and approaches.
The Project designed and supported several ISWM Certificate Courses with institutional
service providers such as the University of the Philippines (UP) Cebu Campus and
Ateneo de Davao University.
Ground level responsibility for the Project’s ISWM activities was distributed to four
field offices, which were supported by the national teams for Technical and Analytical
support and the Policy and Advocacy support. Two regional specialists and one

associate were engaged full-time by the Project. They were ably assisted by five national
specialists on a part time basis, five assisting professionals and several local service
providers for the delivery of ISWM TA to client LGUs.
IV. Sector Accomplishments
The Team was able to accomplish 18 of the target number of LGU legitimized ISWM
plans, and conducted 6 second-round end-of-pipe (EOP) waste characterization to
determine the waste diversion improvement from the LGU baselines. The Team was
able to build on lessons learned and traditional approaches, tools and techniques
developed and established by previous projects like GOLD, by enriching these with
governance attributes. Methods and tools were made more realistic and effective to
ensure that the outcomes are appropriate, defensible and usable. The key decision and
action areas for improving the governance of solid waste emerged as a result of
assisting the LGUs respond to the challenge of managing their waste.
The EcoGov 1 training modules for the formulation of the 10-year ISWM plans of
LGUs are the results of these enrichments and refinements. The EcoGov ISWM Team
was also able to respond to immediate needs and requests of the client LGUs and its
partners. The Technical Support Group of the Project ably supported the ISWM Sector
by formulating simple computer programs that facilitated data analysis and interpretation
of results. Technical requests from LGUs to comply with the requirements of the
regulatory agency were quickly and appropriately addressed. The Policy Support Group
formulated governance-oriented working protocols for the ESWM Boards and integrated
them into the ISWM training module. Guidance was also provided in the analysis,
formulation and updating of local SWM ordinances. The details of the ISWM sector
accomplishments are presented in the following sections.
Governance enhanced ISWM planning.
Shown in Figure 1 are the results framework for the Project. To achieve Outcome
No. 4 (more effective SWM), the technical assistance to LGUs included as outputs the
legitimized plans that are supported with ordinances and budget allocations at least for
the first year of implementation. The Project used the ISWM training modules (shown
functionally and sequentially in Figure 2) for LGUs, in collaboration with DENR partners,
to facilitate the LGUs’ formulation and obtain legitimization of their respective ISWM
plans. In all the training modules, post training, on-site support and coaching were
provided so that agreements during the training sessions were carried out.
The following are the description of these modules:
1. Module 1 – Orientation of the LGU ESWMB and TWG members on

Environmental Governance and Ecological Solid Waste Management, including a
governance-oriented planning process that puts premium to transparency,
accountability and participatory decision making. The result of the orientation is
an action plan that contains agreements on how to move forward.
2. Module 2 – SWM Assessment, which establishes the SWM database. It includes

a survey of SWM practices, the characterization of wastes generated by various

sources, and the review and analysis of local initiatives and ordinances. This
module establishes the baseline, and provides the basis for informed decision-
making, and focus of IEC activities.
3. Module 3 - Study Tour and Cross Visits, to expose members of the Board and
TWG of the LGUs to good SWM practices in selected LGUs. The study tour
expands the menu of SWM options that the LGU may consider in preparing their
plans.
4. Module 4 - Options Analysis

and Strategic Planning. Orientation on
Vision and goals are Governance in SWM/TWG Formation
formulated, ISWM options
are evaluated and key ESWM Board Formation,
components of the plan Reconstitution and Orientation
(engineering, policy/
ordinance and IEC) are Solid Waste Assessment
developed. The institutional (Situational Analysis)
• Geographic and Physical
arrangements for imple- Characteristics of LGU
mentation are defined and a • Socio-Economic Features & Trends
• SWM Organizations & Resources
financing plan is worked out. • SWM Awareness & Practices
• Waste Generation Disposal Study
5. Module 5 - Legitimization Tour
Process, which entails public
Vision and Strategy Formulation
consultations and delibera-
tions at the Board and MDC
leveks, prior to its submis- Formulation of ISWM Components
• Engineering
sion for apprval by the • IEC
SB/SP. levels. The final • Policy Support
• Economic Enterprises
ISWM plan is then endorsed
by the LGU to the provincial
LGU and to the NSWMC for Formulation of Management &
Financing Arrangements
approval.
Using these modules, the Drafting of Plan

Project was able to assist the 18
LGUs formulate and obtain
Board Review of Draft
legitimization of their ISWM plans. Plan/Endorsement to MDC/SB
This represents 72 percent achieve- Module 1
ment of the 25 LGUs targetted in
Refinement & Legitimization of Plan Module 2
the EcoGov 2004 workplan. The • Public Hearing
other LGUs are in various stages of • MDC Review and Endorsement Module 3
• SB Review and Approval
completing their respective plans.
Module 4
Table 1 below summarizes the
overall status of EcoGov 1 Implementation of ISWM Actions Module 5
assistance to LGUs in the ISWM

sector.
Figure 2. ISWM Planning Process

Table 1. Status of EcoGov 1 ISWM assistance to LGUs as of November 30, 2004
Percent
EcoGov Contribution Percent
Program EcoGov 1 of EcoGov 1 Accomplishment
ISWM Targets Targets Project to Completed as of EcoGov 1
Performance Under the (2004 Program of Nov 2004 Project
Indicator MOU Workplan) Targets
No. of LGUs 100 25 25% 18 72%
With approved
ISWM plans
No. of LGUs 13 9 69% Measurements
Diverting in 6 LGUs
15% of their showed an
solid wastes average
diversion of
11%
Source: EcoGov 1 Annual Report for FY 2004
Another Project deliverable is the LOP’s target of waste diversion away from the
disposal by at least 15 percent in all 42 LGUs. The Project was only able to assist 6
LGUs with this target and the results of the 2nd EOP waste characterization and
analysis in 6 LGUs showed an average of only 11 percent waste diversion or 73 percent
of the targeted diversion. Only 6 LGUs out of 42 were assisted (or 14 percent of the total
target). The Project’s ISWM target deliverable with this key performance indicator did not
perform well. As noted, the Project’s focus on assessment, development of LGU system,
ISWM plan formulation, and analysis simply did not allow enough time to perform more
EOP measurements. It should be noted, however, that all 44 of the LGUs assisted were
able to establish their baselines with respect to their potential for waste diversion. This
will facilitate future monitoring of actual diversion.
The relatively low Project performance in ISWM is largely attributed to the magnitude
of data analysis and requirements in preparing acceptable ISWM plans under RA 9003,
the limited capacities of LSPs and APs, and delays in legitimization activities which
resulted from the national and local elections. The Project was not able to completely
anticipate the complexity of assisting the LGUs with RA 9003 and its IRR as the main
framework and direction for assistance.
The Project performed an aggregated analysis of 19 LGUs with respect to their solid
waste generation. Results are tabulated in Tables 2 and 3. It is clear that at the LGU
level, the focus of information dissemination, operations, collection, reduction and
recycling efforts should be the “residential, public market and general stores” as these
are the major sources of waste. These sources capture more than 90 percent of waste in
the collection area and contain at least 80 percent biodegradables and recyclables. With
this information, other LGUs may now be able to craft ordinances and local actions that
could effectively divert their recyclables and biodegradables and meet the target waste
diversion required by the law. Also, LGU strategies for waste reduction—working with
organized junk shops, and promoting composting facilities at various levels—could
easily be re-directed.

The aggregated and individual LGU data also reveal that the volume of residual
waste generated by a single LGU may not warrant individual investments in sanitary
land fill facilities (SLFs) or large materials recovery facilities (MRFs). Clustering of LGUs
and having a central SLF where client LGUs are charged appropriate tipping fees may
be the more viable option. Lastly, the volume of wastes (especially those of residuals
and/or recyclables) have direct implications on estimating LGU-specific capacities of
equipment, MRFs and landfills, which are relevant in preparing LGU ISWM plans.
Table 2. Average Percent Composition of Waste Generated in 19 LGUs (9 Cities and 10

Municipalities)
Average Percent Average Percent
Waste Type (9 Cities) (10 Municipalities)
1. Biodegradable 62% 61%
2. Recyclable 18% 20%
3. Residual 18% 17%
4. Special Waste 2% 2%
Total 100% 100%
Source: EcoGov Waste Assessment Summaries (19 LGUs), 2003
Table 3. Waste Generation By Major Sources in 9 Cities and 10 Municipalities, in kg/day
Major Sources of Waste Cities (9) Municipalities10)

1. Food Establishments 672 324
2. General Stores 2,979 730
3. Industries 16 105
4. Institutions 507 127
5. Public Market 3,913 1,315
6. Recreation Centers 15 21
7. Residential 24,137 7,408
8. Service Centers 542 77
9. Slaughterhouse 55 18
10. Special Waste 155 100
Total 32,992 10,225
Source: EcoGov Waste Assessment Summaries (19 LGUs), 2003
The Project collaborated with six LGUs in carrying out end-of-pipe (i.e., at disposal
sites) measurements to determine improvements in LGU diversion of solid wastes in
2004, with 2003 data as the baseline. The details of the method and the comparative
results of the 2003 and 2004 measurements are shown in Annex 2. The total
percentage of biodegradables plus recyclables was used as the key indicator in
determining the percentage of diversion after one year.
Table 4 shows that the average diversion of wastes is only 11 percent (84 percent
minus 73 percent), which is below the EcoGov 1 Project LOP target of 15 percent. It
should be noted, however, that most of the EcoGov-assisted LGUs have only started
planning their solid waste diversion and management approaches late in 2003 and early
2004. Most activities in several LGUs were disrupted by the national and local elections.
The LGUs will have to meet the requirement of RA 9003 to divert at least 25 percent of
biodegradables and recyclables by early 2005. At 11 percent diversion now, the six
LGUs could easily meet the 25 percent target if they would assist sitios and barangays

to compost most of their biodegradables, which constitute more than 60 percent of the
total wastes dumped in the disposal sites.
Table 4. Average Percent Composition of Biodegradable and Recyclables in Waste

Disposal in 6 LGUs: 2003 and 2004
2003 2004
LGU
Biodegradables Recyclables Biodegradables Recyclables
Jagna 77% 6% 71% 7%
Bayawan 79% 8% 84% 0%
Isabela City 75% 9% 62% 5%
Tacurong City 39% 44% 71% 4%
Kidapawan City 63% 30% 73% 9%
Maddela 65% 9% 46% 7%
Average of 6
66% 18% 68% 5%
LGUs
Total 84 Total 73%
Source: EcoGov End-of-Pipe Waste Assessments in Selected LGUs, 2003 and 2004
Policy and Advocacy Support
The focus of policy support in the ISWM sector is the review of LGU SWM and SWM
related ordinances. Most of the existing LGU ordinances were found to be “piecemeal”
and lack compliance with the national law. Hence, most of the LGUs with legitimized
plans are crafting their respective SWM ordinances for the implementation of their plans
and for consistency with the provisions of the Act. The EcoGov 1 Project provided
assistance in these efforts of the LGUs to have comprehensive and RA 9003 compliant
ordinances.
EcoGov 1 reviewed the RA 9003 IRR. Recommendations are summarized in

Annex 3. These key recommendations for improving and simplifying the IRR of RA 9003
were mostly based on experiences and lessons learned in assisting LGUs, from the
cursory evaluation of some potential disposal sites, and efforts to identify gaps and gray
areas for effective implementation.
In response to the request of LGUs for assistance in identifying suitable sites for
SWM facilities, a Memorandum Circular (MC) for NSWMC-DENR was drafted by the
project for the joint selection of sites for SWM facilities in LGUs. This was identified as a
critical stage in the search for appropriate sites for SWM facilities especially for waste
disposal. Although the drafting of the MC was closely collaborated with the NSWMC
secretariat, the draft is yet to be included in the meeting of the NSWMC commissioners
for deliberation and possible adoption.
The Team also responded to a recent request from the League of Municipalities in
the Philippines (LMP) about the rationale for extending the closure deadline of open
dumps and the early preparation and development of controlled dumps. The request
came after the DENR-NSWMC released to the regions an MC reiterating the deadlines
and requiring the LGUs for early preparation of controlled dumps that will be operational
by early 2005. Many LGUs find it difficult to comply because of resource constraints and
unavailability of suitable sites. They are requesting for an extension on the use of open

dumps while sourcing funds and other resources needed to develop controlled dumps.
The project provided assistance in improving the draft resolution made by the LMP
secretariat during its directorate and national assembly meetings in Cebu City and
Manila, respectively.
On advocacy, the Project oriented the members of the LMP on environmental

governance during the LMP’s 2003 Annual conference. A breakout session of interested
mayors on SWM was conducted to orient them specifically on ISWM TA provided by the
Project. As a result, some mayors even outside of the service regions of the Project
requested that their LGUs be included in the SWM trainings to capacitate their SWM
staff.
The Project also briefed the DENR-NSWMC on the present progress of the
EcoGov 1 ISWM technical assistance to LGUs. It also provided resource persons to the
SWAPP in promoting ISWM among LGUs.
Technical and IEC support
The Technical and IEC support group of the Project provided the ISWM sector with
assistance on the refinements of the training modules especially on solid waste
assessment; review of the organizational, economic and financial aspects of the draft
ISWM plans of LGUs; production of instruments and publications necessary for the
implementation of LGU plans ; and the sharing and popularization of EcoGov ISWM TA
through media.
A user-friendly guidebook on Full Cost Accounting (FCA) for SWM with a case study
on Tacurong City was produced by the Project to guide LGUs in determining the
appropriate user fees, tipping fees and other fees from the use of SWM services and
facilities. At present, most of the fees charged by LGUs in using the SWM service are
determined arbitrarily or patterned after the fees charged by other LGUs. With the
guidebook, the LGU can adjust its users’ fees to be either within the break even point or
with a mark up to provide surplus for service improvement and upgrade.
Two ISWM sourcebooks were also produced by the Project to help the LGUs
implement their respective ISWM plans. The first sourcebook (Volume 1) lists local and
foreign funding agencies for ISWM projects. The volume contains information on
available credit/loan portfolios and grants from international funding agencies and local
financing institutions. It also includes information on the requirements of LGUs to access
these funding facilities. The second sourcebook (Volume 2) is on organizations offering
ISWM training. This volume is aimed at assisting LGUs on local capability building by
providing a list and description of available training programs offered by various
organizations all over the country.
A TV plug on the ISWM program of Tacurong City featuring the governance-

enhanced ISWM process developed by the Project was produced with ABS-CBN
Foundation’s Bantay Kalikasan. It was shown repeatedly on the ANC channel of the
Network. This provided an advocacy mileage for the Project, particularly on the ISWM
TA.

Innovative Interventions
EcoGov 1 introduced several innovations in the delivery of technical assistance. In

the ISWM Sector, the innovations are mainly on the improvement of training modules
presented earlier. The Team incorporated the key governance principles to improve
decision making systems and processes at the LGU in the different training modules and
on-site assistance activities.
The governance-oriented formulation of working protocols for the ESWM Board is

instrumental in making the Boards accountable and responsible to their mandated
functions. The working protocols , formulated and adopted by consensus among the
members of the board, define the work ethic of the board. This made the boards pro-
active and participatory in any decision making process. This innovation on working
protocols for the ESWM Board was shared by the Project in one of the sharing meetings
with foreign assisted projects on ISWM, and it was greatly appreciated.
Another innovation was in the conduct of waste assessment. The previous

approaches on waste assessment were anchored on rapid appraisal and, basically,
waste characteristics were based on grab samples. There were no statistical designs to
generate a representative database for planning. The Project’s innovation in using whole
trucks as samples at EOP and conducting a seven-day waste characterization from
randomly selected waste generators proved to be better basis for establishing a
database for planning. The use of popular and LGU-friendly Excel-based program in
collating and analyzing compiled data and in producing reports from the analysis of data
was another improvement to waste assessment. Although these methods could only
capture weekly or bi-weekly variations in waste generation, they provided acceptable
estimates in projecting volume and type of wastes generated. The information has been
useful in formulating plans, determining effective and efficient options at the LGUs,
designs of equipment and facilities, social awareness campaigns, monitoring and
evaluation. Over time and on a periodic basis, seasonal variation, within a year, may be
established or a pattern may be determined.
Although it is not yet tested and validated in other LGUs except Tacurong City, the
simplified user friendly Full-Cost Accounting for SWM could prove to be a good
instrument for SWM fee determination for LGUs.
Collaborative Efforts
The EcoGov 1 Project had several collaborative activities with its partners at the
local, regional and national levels. These were conducted towards complementation of
efforts in delivering ISWM TA to LGUs and in sharing lessons learned, innovative
approaches, instruments and processes for the mutual benefit of the partners and the
project.
At the local level, the multi-sectoral ESWMB and the TWG are the prime movers of
collaboration. The DENR–EMB point person in Region 12 for instance is a member of
the ESWMB of Tacurong city. This facilitated the mutual access of information between
the LGU and DENR which in turn enhanced the compliance of the city to some
requirements of the Act.

At the national and regional levels collaboration is focused on joint conduct of
activities, trainings and workshops, advocacy for and in the sharing of information and
databases. The following are some of the collaborative involvement of the project on the
ISWM sector.
• EcoGov 1 closely coordinated with DENR in practically all of the activities

conducted by the Project. In the SWM sector, exchange of information among
and between the project and NSWMC was a regular activity. Every time there is
an activity at the national or regional level, the DENR EcoGov point person is
always notified and invited to participate.
• SWAPP, an NGO, collaborated with the Project in the conduct of study tours of
LGUs in sites with exemplary practices on ISWM. SWAPP has a compilation of
sites with good SWM practices which they readily shared to the client LGUs of
the Project planning for a study tour. The Project on the other hand provided
resource speakers in the annual conferences conducted by the organization to
share and promote the governance oriented approaches developed and
conducted on ISWM.
• The Institute of Small Farms and Industries, also an NGO, assisted the Project
conduct simultaneous study tours for 3 LGUs from Region 9. The results of the
study tour were processed and packaged as additional input in the options
analysis of the concerned LGUs. For this study tour activity, the same directory
produced by SWAPP was used in the selection of the LGU of sites to be visited.
• In Northern Luzon, the Caraballo and Southern Cordillera Agricultural

Development Program (CASCADE) was providing TA on SWM to LGUs in
Region 2 before the EcoGov Project was launched in the area. A number of
coordination meetings were conducted to ensure the complementation of TA to
common LGUs served by both projects. The governance-enhanced ISWM
planning process was shared by the Project with CASCADE to upgrade their
method in assisting their LGUs formulate ISWM plans.
• The Local Government Support Project (LGSP) of the Canada International

Development Agency was also providing TA on SWM in Mindanao before the
start of the EcoGov 1 Project in Regions 9,12 and ARMM. Three coordination
meetings with LGSP ARMM and 2 coordination meetings with LGSP Region 12
were conducted to ensure that common target LGUs can freely select the TA
provider for them. In the case of Isulan and Tacurong City, they chose the
EcoGov Project to provide them the ISWM TA.
• The Project awarded a grant to Cebu Mediation Foundation, Inc. to study the
mediation of cases including a few SWM cases submitted to Environmental
Management Bureau in Region 7. The mediation process was part of the project
to pilot a conflict mediation system with the DENR-EMB utilizing trained
mediators from the private sector. These few SWM cases were resolved
successfully by mediation.

V. Lessons Learned
The EcoGov 1 ISWM Sector continued to build on previous lessons learned and
current good practices for the purpose of improving effectiveness and efficiency.
Governance-enhanced innovations were added to ensure that transparency,
accountability and participatory decision making become integrated in the processes to
generate a mass base ownership of plans, activities and other endeavors. This section
provides a summary of lessons learned that may help improve ISWM practices in other
LGUs.
What Worked
a) Interactive assembly – This activity introduced the Project to potential LGU

clients. It generated interest among LGUs to avail of the Project’s TA on
ISWM. It highlighted the importance of “demand-driven” approach in
providing TA to LGUs, especially on solid wastes. The response was positive.
In fact, there were more LGUs that sought to avail of the TA than what the
Project can afford(this happened in Central Visayas).
b) The adoption of working protocols together with the initial leveling off and
formulation of the vision, mission and goals of the ISWM program of the LGU
have made the ESWMB functional and active. The Tacurong City’s
implementation of their ISWM went full steam because the ESWMB and its
TWG took active lead roles in the implementation of their plan.
c) Consensus building processes in combination with the governance attributes

of transparency, accountability and participatory decision making
strengthened the ownership of decisions made and promoted active
participation of all stakeholders as these build confidence among them.
Identifying key areas for making joint decisions and action are important.
These are also the areas where good governance principles may be pursued
and implemented with local stakeholders.
d) The demand driven mode of the Project ensured deep commitment on the
part of the LGUs requesting for the TA. Because of this commitment, it was
easy for the LGUs to allocate counterpart resources for the conduct of ISWM
activities.
e) The governance-oriented legitimization process, which was included as part

of the MOAs entered into by the LGU, EcoGov 1 and DENR, specified key
roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the conduct of TA to LGUs.
The MOA, followed up by the conduct of round table discussions, further
generated support for of EcoGov TA. The thorough and comprehensive
presentation of draft ISWM plans to the ESWMBs, MDCs and SBs provided
opportunities for clarifications and refinements.
f) The ISWM training for DENR, academe and other local SWM service
providers can expand the resource pool for providing ISWM TA to the LGUs
even after the life of the project. These trained personnel can also become
trainers to further multiply the human resources for ISWM TA providers. The

two training activities conducted in Davao City for the Mindanao area, and in
Cebu City, for the Visayas provided a good but modest start for the
expansion of human resource pool for ISWM TA.
g) The clustering of LGUs enhanced the sharing of experiences and ideas

among cluster members towards a common goal like sharing a common
disposal facility. It also promoted efficient use of TA resources as training
programs are conducted by cluster.
h) With proper mentoring and coaching, the institutional LSPs can facilitate the
formulation of ISWM plans and other ISWM related activities in LGUs. This
also increases the resource pool for ISWM TA providers.
i) Partnership and collaboration with the DENR, provincial LGUs and other local
institutions and organizations in delivering TA to LGUs have enhanced
institutional capacity building and fostered complementation rather than
competition.
j) In all the EcoGov 1-assisted LGUs, the use of study tour and cross visits for
members of ESWM Boards and TWGs and sometimes with the participation
of the mayor and SB members, has broadened their perspectives. These
purposive site visits helped the local decision makers think “out of the box”
and explore possibilities. These visits have also revealed that many of the
existing “best practices” in SWM have yet to capture the “integration of solid
waste management” that is being promoted in the law. Many of these sites
were also inspired by local leadership with assistance from donor agencies
and expertise.
What Did not Work
a) The traditional approaches in developing ISWM plans are fundamentally

flawed. The steps are superficial and the databases are quite weak. For
instance, these do not consider the variability of waste generation and waste
quality among waste sources and with respect to time. In addition to technical
considerations, there are variations in socio-economic, cultural and political
conditions that must be factored in. There are also limitations in the use of
Metro Manila data on waste generation because of variables in disposable
income, population density, inadequate opportunities to do household
composting and recycling, access, ISWM services, and kinds of consumable
goods in the market. Thus, the Project ISWM team invested in developing
waste assessment techniques that are more adaptable to rural and semi-
urbanized LGUs. It has adopted the process flow based on training modules
with on-site practicum and assistance, with each step radically changed to at
least satisfy the minimum requirements of an ISWM plan anchored on a
realistic, dependable and scientifically sound database.
b) Many ISWM LSPs, whether individuals, institutions, NGOs and even

consulting firms, are not properly equipped to deliver ISWM TA to LGUs.
They lacked training and tools to cope with the varying situations in LGUs
that request for TA. It will take more time before the training institutions,

consulting industry, and civil society organizations to fully equip themselves
to provide adequate assistance to LGUs in their effort to implement RA 9003.
Many of the LSPs, however, have the capacity to use computers for database
development, analysis, and simulation. There are also civil society
organizations and private sector groups that may able to adapt social
marketing strategies and fit these to ISWM awareness campaigns.
VI. Recommendations
EcoGov 1 ISWM Team’s work for the past 2 ½ years focused on strengthening
collaborative and governance-enhanced approaches on ISWM in the country. The shift
from the traditional technician’s TA approach to a participatory approach resulted in
sustained SWM activities in LGUs. As basis for moving forward towards EcoGov 2, the
following are recommended:
For EcoGov 2 Planning and Implementation
a) EcoGov 2 should continue providing TA to LGUs who were not able to finish
their plans under EcoGov 1 if these LGUs indicate continued demand for
such TA. Also upon demand, the Project should continue assisting the LGUs
implement their legitimized plans. In helping the LGUs implement their plans,
focus should be on effective public advocacy and social awareness
campaigns targeting changes in behavior at the household level, public
market, and commercial areas. Accompanying local ordinances to strengthen
incentives, enforcement, and penalties should also be enacted and carried
out.
b) For new LGUs who will be availing of ISWM TA, they should be subjected to
the screening criteria and entry point requirements to gauge their willingness
and commitment to go into a partnership with EcoGov 2. Although the TA is
demand-driven, priorities should be given to LGUs who expressed willingness
and interest, those near existing clusters of EcoGov 1 LGUs, those in highly
urbanized areas where efforts on waste water assistance may be provided,
those who are willing to enter into public-private partnership in managing their
wastes.
c) Continue and sustain the capacity building of the Project partners to cope
with the increased number of LGUs demanding SWM assistance. The local
DENR, LSPs, provincial LGUs, and civil society should be part of the
partnership program on capacity building. Collaborations with the leagues,
other donor agencies such as CIDA’s LGSP, and private sector should be
encouraged and pursued.
d) Re-design the ISWM planning cycle and shorten the process without
sacrificing effectiveness and efficiency. The training modules must be re-
evaluated and even re-designed to facilitate the completion of the plans in a
shorter period of time. The fielding of more LSPs/APs properly equipped in
providing ISWM TA to the LGUs is another solution to break through the long
planning cycle.

e) Continue with more vigor and strength the fostering of partnership and
collaboration with the NGAs, NGOs, academe and other organizations in
providing TA to the LGUs and in building capacity to these partners and
collaboratorsto deliver TA.
f) Promote private sector participation, especially in the establishment and

management of SWM/UEM related enterprises. This could be done by
conducting activities such as investment fora.
For DENR/NSWMC
a) Support the policy and advocacy initiatives of DENR/NSWMC in addressing

issues raised by various stakeholders and organizations on the clarifications
of the provisions of the Act and its IRR, especially the mandated prescriptions
of the Act to which the LGUs must comply. Assistance in filling the gaps and
clarification of the gray areas of the IRR must be pursued. For instance, there
are needs to (a) develop and install systems for monitoring EOP
measurements to determine improvements of waste diversion over time; (b)
craft guidelines for LGU collection and disposal of toxic and hazardous
wastes; (c) develop guidelines for reviewing, evaluating, and approving ISWM
plans; and (d) improve capacities of DENR field staff to respond to LGUs
demand.
The EMB and Mines and Geo-science Bureau (MGB) and the DENR regional
offices must be assisted with capacity building and development and
installation of systems for effective monitoring, response mechanisms to
request for permits/assessments/approvals, and linkages with providers of
technical assistance and technologies.
b) Establish a governance-oriented LGU-based M&E system where the local

DENR and civil society organization (CSO) members can participate in
monitoring compliance and improvements of solid waste management at the
LGU level.
For LGUs
a) Implement organizational development to have one office (preferably the

MENRO) solely responsible and accountable to the environmental services of
the LGU.
b) Capacitate and strengthen the ESWMB/TWG and the MENRO to fully

accomplish their respective mandates.
c) Allocate, budget, and provide adequate support for the implementation,

monitoring, and annual evaluation of the LGU’s ISWM plan. The LGU
through, the ESWM Boards, should provide feedback on its budget and
expenditures in support of the implementation of the solid waste
management.

Annex 1. EcoGov 1 Partner LGUs for ISWM: Status as of November 30, 2004
MOA Signed
Region/ Province Municipality/ City Sector
(Date)
ISWM
Western Mindanao
ARMM
Basilan 1. Lamitan 11/19/02 CRM, FFM, SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
Region 9
Basilan 2. Isabela City 11/19/02 CRM, FFM, SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
Zamboanga del Sur 3. Pagadian City 07/23/03 SWM (CRM ISWM plan for legitimization; with initial implementation
covered by MOA
wirh Province)
Zambo Sibugay 4. Ipil 03/19/03 SWM ISWM plan for legitimization; with initial implementation
5. Buug 03/18/03 SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
Central Mindanao
ARMM
Lanao del Sur 6. Wao 7/31/2002; FFM; SWM SWM assessment completed.
10/23/03
Maguindanao 7. Sultan Kudarat 09/05/02 SWM SWM assessment completed.
8. Parang 12/08/03 SWM Phase 1 TA put on hold after local elections due to political
instability. TA may be resumed in EcoGov 2.
Region 12
Sultan Kudarat 9. Kalaansig 10/1/02; 9/25/03 CRM; FFM; SWM SWM assessment completed.
10. Lebak 10/01/02 CRM; FFM; SWM SWM assessment completed.
11. Tacurong 10/14/02 SWM ISWM plan legitimized; implementation ongoing.
12. Isulan 11/08/02 SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
North Cotabato 13. Kidapawan City 09/26/02; SWM; FFM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
10/3/2003
S. Cotabato 14. Koronadal City 12/04/02 SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
Bohol 15. Tagbilaran City 04/04/03 SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
16. Talibon 12/04/02 CRM; FFM; SWM ISWM plan being drafted.
17. Dauis 04/04/03 SWM ISWM plan being drafted.
18. Alburquerque 04/04/03 SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
19. Corella 04/04/03 SWM ISWM plan being drafted.
20. Maribojoc 04/04/03 SWM ISWM plan being drafted.
21. Cortes 04/04/03 SWM ISWM plan being drafted.

22. Panglao 04/04/03 SWM Phase 1 TA not pursued after local elections due to changes
in direction of new set of LGU officials. TA will be resumed in
EcoGov 2.
23. Jagna 09/30/02 SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
24. Duero 09/30/02 SWM Drafting of plan ongoing.
Province of Bohol 12/03/02 CRM; FFM; SWM
Cebu 25. Toledo City 04/30/03 CRM; FFM; SWM Phase 1 TA suspended after elections due to organization
and staffing issues. Resumption of TA in EcoGov 2 will be
explored with the LGU.
26. Danao City 03/17/03 CRM; SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
27. Compostela 03/17/03 CRM; SWM Plan preparation ongoing.
Negros Oriental 28. Sta. Catalina 03/20/03 FFM; SWM SWM assessment completed.
29. Bayawan City 03/20/03 FFM; SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
30. Dauin 03/20/03 FFM; SWM SWM assessment completed.
31. Bais City 03/20/03 FFM; SWM Legitimization in process; with initial implementation
32. Tanjay 03/20/03 FFM; SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
33. Amlan 03/20/03 SWM SWM assessment completed.
34. San Jose 03/20/03 SWM SWM assessment completed.
35. Pamplona 03/20/03 SWM SWM assessment completed.
Annex 1. EcoGov 1 Partner LGUs for ISWM: Status as of November 30, 2004
MOA Signed
Region/ Province Municipality/ City Sector
(Date)
ISWM
Northern Luzon
Nueva Vizcaya 36. Quezon 05/30/03 FFM; SWM SWM assessment completed.
37. Bayombong 07/07/03 SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
38. Bambang 07/07/03 SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
39. Dupax del Norte 06/02/03 SWM SWM assessment completed.
40. Bagabag 05/30/03 SWM SWM assessment completed.
41. Solano 07/07/03 SWM SWM assessment completed.
Province of N. 07/07/03 SWM
Vizcaya
Quirino 42. Cabarroguis 04/29/03 FFM; SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
43. Diffun 04/29/03 FFM; SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
44. Maddela 04/29/03 FFM; SWM ISWM plan legitimized; with initial implementation..
Province of Quirino 04/29/03 FFF, SWM
Isabela 45. Cauayan City 12/03/03 SWM SWM assessment completed.
Central Luzon
Aurora 46. Ma. Aurora 7/22/03 FFM; SWM SWM assessment completed.
Annex 2. Assessment of Waste Diversion of Six EcoGov-Assisted Local
Government Units (LGUs)
One approach to evaluate the compliance of LGUs with the RA 9003 requirement of 25%
diversion of waste from the disposal facility, is to establish a baseline by which to measure any
progress or improvement. In 2003, pilot LGUs assessed their waste generation and disposal.
These waste disposal data were collected to meet two objectives:
(1) To provide information for estimating size and number of equipment, vehicles and
infrastructures needed for effective waste management, and
(2) To establish baseline information to evaluate the progress (milestones) of
implementing the solid waste management action plans.
By the end of year 2003, EcoGov completed waste assessments for 42 LGUs, six of
which completed second measurement of waste disposal in 2004. This includes four cities
(Tacurong, Kidapawan, Bayawan and Isabela) and two municipalities (Maddela and Jagna).
Table 1 provides a summary of waste disposal data for 2003. These estimates were
based on a seven-day collection of waste (one- truck daily sample; in some cases, 2 trucks per
day). The average proportion of biodegradable wastes for the six LGUs was 66%, with the
highest at 79% and lowest at 39%.
Table 1. Summary of waste disposal composition in 6 EcoGov-Assisted LGUs in 2003 in

% of total weight of samples
Waste Disposal Composition, %, in 2003
LGU
Biodegradables Recyclables Residuals Special Wastes
Jagna 77% 6% 16% 1%
Bayawan 79% 8% 13% 0.3%
Isabela 75% 9% 14% 2%
Tacurong 39% 44% 16% 1%
Kidapawan 63% 30% 6% 1%
Maddela 65% 9% 25% 1%
Average for 6
66% 18% 15% 1%
LGUs
In 2003, only the cities of Kidapawan and Tacurong showed double digit-proportions of
recyclable waste disposed, which demonstrates that any large-scale operations at the LGU level
for recyclables may not generate sufficient revenue. Thus, it might be sufficient to have only
small-scale operations by the private groups such as junk shops, with little investments on
infrastructure. Summing the total percentage of the biodegradable and recyclables in 2003, the
average total percentage of waste that could be diverted or reduced in the six LGUs is 84%.
Table 2 summarizes the second measurement of waste disposal in six LGUs using the
same method in 2003 with little modifications; the sampling area remains the same. The average
proportion of biodegradable wastes was 68%, an increase of 2% from the previous year. This
information shows that the LGUs have not given significant attention to composting activities and
are therefore still collecting and disposing these biodegradable wastes at the dumpsite. However,
the proportion of recyclables for all LGUs was substantially reduced from an average of 17% in
2003 to 5% in 2004.
Table 2. Summary of waste disposal composition in 6 EcoGov-Assisted LGUs in 2004 in
% of total weight of samples
Waste Disposal Composition in 2004, in %
LGU
Biodegradables Recyclables Residuals Special Wastes
Jagna 71% 7% 21% 1%
Bayawan 84% 0% 15% 0%
Isabela 62% 5% 33% 1%
Tacurong 71% 4% 22% 3%
Kidapawan 73% 9% 18% 0.1%
Maddela 46% 7% 47% 0.2%
Average for 6 68% 5% 26% 1%
LGUs
The municipalities of Jagna, Bohol and Maddela, Quirino, and Isabela City in Basilan
showed reduced proportions of bio-degradable wastes dumped in disposal facilities with 6%, 19%
and 14% reduction, respectively. Recyclables in all six LGU were reduced except for Jagna,
which increased the amount of recyclables disposed by 1%. Tacurong City showed the highest
reduction, 40%, in the proportion of recyclables dumped in waste disposal.
The average diversion of wastes among the six LGUs is only 11% (84% minus 73%).
This means that these LGUs except for Tacurong City, need to further increase their diversion
efforts next year to meet the 25% diversion requirement. It should be noted, however, that most of
the EcoGov-assisted LGUs have only started planning their solid waste diversion and
management approaches late in 2003 and early in 2004, and these efforts were even disrupted
by the national and local elections.
Annex 3. Policy Recommendations for RA 9003 and its IRR
Policy Recommendations for Improving the Implementation of Republic Act (RA) 9003
and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
INTRODUCTION
The specific issues that need to be addressed are presented first and followed by suggestions on
how to mitigate if not resolve these issues. As most of these issues concern the lack of guidelines
and standardized procedures for carrying out the requirements of the law, the recommendations
are mostly directed towards the National Solid Waste Management Commission, the multisectoral
body mandated under RA 9003 with the management of the country’s solid wastes.
These recommendations were products of consultations with local government units (LGUs),
communities, private sector and civil society organizations, and the field observations and
experiences during Phase 1 of the EcoGov Project.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Need for guidelines and procedure in evaluating the 10-year Integrated Solid Waste
Management (ISWM) plans of LGUs, resulting in the lack of a systematic process of
evaluating the plans submitted by LGUs.
Section 16 of Article 1 of the law specifies that “all local government solid waste management
plans shall be subjected to the approval of the Commission” (National Solid Waste
Management Commission)
The process of evaluating and approving the plan is not provided for even in the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the law.
2. Need for guidelines and procedure in identifying sites for SWM facility
One of the causes of conflicts between the LGU and Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) is the way solid waste management (SWM) sites especially for disposal
facilities are selected and consequently acquired. Normally, the LGUs are left to do their own
selection of the site. Very often, when the site is selected, acquired and referred to the DENR
for validation, the acquired site fall short of the siting criteria. This now becomes an irritant
between the LGUs and DENR which could possibly delay and reduce the interest of the
LGUs to comply with the requirements of RA 9003.
Sections 39 and 40 of Article 6 of the law specifies some siting criteria for controlled dump
and sanitary landfill facility (SLF). For the controlled dump, nine (9) of the ten (10)
requirements can be accomplished by the LGU. However the last requirement,
hydrogeological siting, needs technical input which can be provided only by the Mines and
Geoscience Bureau (MGB) of DENR or any accredited entity. Much more requirements are
needed for the siting of the sanitary landfill. Even the IRR does not provide a clear and easy
to implement process for the conduct of proper site assessment, hence this recommendation.
3. Need for systematic guidelines and procedures in closing and rehabilitating open dumps;
conversion of qualified open dumps into controlled dumps; siting, establishment, operation
and closure of controlled dumps; and siting, establishment, operation, closure, post-closure
care and after-use of SLFs-
The LGUs are technically handicapped to do these activities unless assistance and clear
guidelines are provided by the government.
Section 37 of the law specifies the closure of open dumps. However closure procedures are
not specified even in the IRR. Conversion of open dumps into controlled dump is subject to
the last requirement mentioned in item two. If the present open dump is not eligible for
conversion to controlled dump because of hydrogeological siting limitations, then the open
dump must be closed and rehabilitated for other uses. Again, rehabilitation procedures are
not provided for. Closure and rehabilitation procedures for controlled dump are also not
provided for. Finally there are still a number of provisions that need development and
clarification on the establishment, operation, closure, post-closure care and after use of SLFs.
4. Need for guidelines and procedures for an LGU to avail of small facility exemption except
when the number of adjacent LGUs to meet the minimum combined volume of solid waste to
qualify for assistance to put up SLF.
This has yet to be developed in the IRR of RA 9003. At a certain disposal rate (to be
established by DENR) the LGU may be exempted from the strict requirements of a SLF. It is
even possible that the LGU can continue to use the controlled dump for as long as it does not
go beyond the cut-off disposal rate.
Rule XIV Section 1z of DAO 2001-34 states that there will be exemptions from the specific
standards of this section (Section 1-Minimum Considerations for Siting and Designing
Sanitary Landfills). This is stipulated to be developed 1 year after the approval of the IRR. It is
therefore recommended that the rate of disposal could be one of the major criteria in
establishing exemptions. It is also possible that through this section of the IRR, LGUs with
small amount (e.g, <20 tons/day) of residual disposable waste could continue to use
controlled dump as their disposal facility. This could be a driving force for LGUs to truly make
big strides in maximizing recovery of recyclables and conversion of biodegradables.
5. Need for guidelines and procedures for clustering of LGUs that would be sharing a common
SWM facility especially a disposal facility
This is not clear yet in the IRR. Clustering is an effective and efficient mechanism to pool the
resources of cluster members in establishing and sharing a common SWM facility especially
for facilities like a SLF which an individual LGU may find difficulty in establishing.
Although Sections 43 and 44 of Article 7 on Local Government Solid Waste Management of

RA 9003 do not explicitly mention clustering of LGUs for common SWM facility, it is
nevertheless implied. Clustering of LGUs for common SWM goals and facilities will overcome
the barrier of non-compliance to the requirements of the law especially on the establishment
of SLF. The high initial investment and similarly high operating and maintenance cost of SLF
cannot be borne singly by an LGU. The pooling of resources of adjacent LGUs that are
committed to share and use a common SLF will overcome this obstacle. Further, it promotes
exchanges of information and experiences for the benefit of each cluster member. Hence, a
clear and doable guideline should be formulated to facilitate the clustering of LGUs for a
common purpose.
6. Need for guidelines and procedures for determining waste diversion of the LGU
The law specifies the target waste diversion (25% for the first five years upon the effectivity of
the law) but it does not provide a process or methodology for such determination.
Basically Section 20 of Article 1- General Provisions of the law and Section 7 of Rule 7-
Planning and Programming Policy for Solid Waste Management, of the IRR are the same in
content. There is no clear and user friendly procedure in establishing the diversion
performance of the LGU. The procedure developed and implemented by the EcoGov Project
during Phase 1 for estimating the potential waste diversion of LGUs could be further refined
as a tool for such measurement.
7. Need to establish the guidelines and procedures for establishing environmental/ user fees
There are broad provisions in the law (Section 47 of Article 7, Local Government Solid Waste
Management) as well as its IRR (Sections 1 and 2 of Rule XVII, Cost Recovery Mechanisms)
for charging user fees but the specifics for establishing such fees are yet to be developed.
The modified Full Cost Accounting procedure developed by EcoGov Project Phase 1 for
SWM facilities and services can be used as an instrument in determining these fees.
8. Need to set the guidelines and procedures for verifying and evaluating SWM technologies
Many SWM technologies being offered and marketed to LGUs promise revenues for the
LGUs. The LGUs could easily become gullible to the marketing schemes of technology
sellers in the absence of technical capability and information about such technology. It is,
thus, imperative that a practical guideline be provided to the LGU to enable them to wisely
decide on how to respond to the technologies being offered, including the cost and
environmental risks involved. There should be a standardized method for technology
verification and evaluation (i.e. technology assessment) to help the LGUs in this regard.
Section 7 under Chapter II, Institutional Mechanisms, of the ESWM law, and Section 1 under
Rule V of the IRR, support institutional mechanisms, provide that one of the main functions of
the National and Regional Ecology Centers is to be the “clearinghouse for cleaner
production/cleaner technologies on solid waste management”. However, these centers are
not yet functional and there is a deluge of technology offers to LGUs. All the more, this points
to the need to develop guidelines and procedures for technology verification and evaluation
for LGUs.
9. Need to provide a monitoring and environmental audit guidelines for SWM facilities
Once established and operational, there is a need to ensure the continued soundness of a
SWM facility (e.g., SLF) throughout the span of its operational life. This can be helped
achieved through a system of facility audit and monitoring, which can aid in identifying
deficiencies and needed corrective actions.
Section 2 of the ESWM IRR provides the minimum operating requirements for sanitary
landfills, which include monitoring of water quality of ground and surface waters, gas
emissions and effluents. However, the DENR still has to come up with the guidelines and
requirements for Section 2c) ground water sampling protocol, 2d) background groundwater
quality monitoring statistical data evaluation and establishment of concentration limits for
contaminant indicators, 2e) detection groundwater monitoring data statistical analysis and
verification monitoring, and 2f) assessment monitoring and corrective action.
10. Need to provide guidelines for financing SWM projects of LGUs
The LGUs have limited resources. Much as they want to comply with the requirements of the
law, their own resources may not allow them to proceed. Hence, clear financing options and
windows with simple and clear procedures (steps to avail of financing) should be formulated
for the LGUs to have access to these possible financing sources.
Chapter V of the law, Financing Solid Waste Management, and Rule XV of the IRR,
Financing of Solid Waste Management Initiatives refer only to the availment by the LGU of
the National Solid Waste Management Fund and the Local SWM Fund for financing SWM
projects. These funds are not yet available or established. This means that there is a need to
develop alternative financing schemes that are practical and accessible to enable the LGUs’
SWM projects to prosper.
11. Need to provide guidelines and procedures for managing Toxic and Hazardous Wastes
(THW) in municipal solid waste of LGUs
Although the THWs make up a small fraction (less than 5%) of the total waste generated by
the LGU, this component of the waste poses the gravest threat to public health and
environment.
Section 17, Components of the Local Government Solid Waste Management Plan item (J) of
Article 1, General Provisions; and item (J), special wastes, of Section 3, Components of Local
Government Solid Waste Management Plan, Rule VII, Planning and Programming Policy for
SWM, of the IRR have the same contents on the ”handling and disposal practices for special
wastes or household hazardous wastes”. There are no specific and practical guidelines that
LGUs can refer to in handling these wastes.
CONCLUSIONS
The passage of RA 9003 and its IRR is an important step towards proper management of the
country’s solid wastes. The potential of this law is vast and many LGUs are committed to comply
with its requirements. However, to capacitate LGUs and facilitate their compliance, the DENR
through the NSWMC has to issue clear and specific guidelines and procedures and enabling
policies that will support this process and the full implementation of this law.
REGIONAL COMPLETION REPORT
• GOVERNING THE ENVIRONMENT IN CENTRAL MINDANAO
• IMPROVING LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
• FACILITATING BREAKTHROUGHS IN ENVIRONMENTAL

GOVERNANCE
• GOVERNING THE ENVIRONMENT IN NORTHERN LUZON

GOVERNING THE ENVIRONMENT IN
CENTRAL MINDANAO
COMPLETION REPORT OF THE CENTRAL MINDANAO
ECOGOV PROJECT TEAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Regional Context ................................................................................................................... 1

The Land of Promise .......................................................................................................... 2
II. Regional Directions, Strategies, Targets, Deliverables and Outputs............................... 3
Regional Strategies ............................................................................................................ 4
III. Results and Impacts............................................................................................................ 10
IV. Recommendations for Moving Forward............................................................................ 21
For EcoGov 2.................................................................................................................... 21
For LGUs .......................................................................................................................... 22
For DENR-ARMM............................................................................................................. 22
For RLA ............................................................................................................................ 22
For Peoples Organizations ............................................................................................... 23
Annex 1. Central Mindanao Technical Assistance Team ....................................................... 24
Governing the Environment in Central Mindanao i

ii Completion Report of the Central Mindanao EcoGov Project Team
GOVERNING THE ENVIRONMENT IN CENTRAL MINDANAO
COMPLETION REPORT OF THE CENTRAL MINDANAO
ECOGOV PROJECT TEAM1
I. Regional Context
The Mindanao Conflict
The EcoGov Central Mindanao
operations covered two regions: Region 12, According to a World Bank report (Human
which included the provinces of South Development for Peace and Prosperity in the
Cotabato, North Cotabato, Sarangani and ARMM, p. 19), the conflict in Mindanao can be
Sultan Kudarat; and the Autonomous Region traced back to the Spanish period. This escalated
into a major rift between the Muslims and the
of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), covering the
national government when the latter continued to
mainland provinces of Lanao del Sur and neglect Mindanao. In the 1950s, the national
Maguindanao.2 Most of these provinces are government encouraged mass migration to
among the poorest in the Philippines where Mindanao. The presence of non-Moro migrant
the poverty incidence ranges from 34-48 settlers, whose views on land ownership were
percent3. These provinces, especially those completely different from the traditional Moro
in the ARMM, are the most affected by the views, further heightened the tensions over land
prolonged armed conflict in Mindanao, which rights.
has slowed down the delivery of basic The Muslims established the “Green Guards”
services, curtailed the flow of investments in Basilan to fight the Christians, who, in turn,
formed the “Ilaga” group to repulse the Muslims. In
and, thus, stalled their progress and
the 1970s, the government began sending
development. soldiers to Mindanao to contain the conflict. The
declaration of Martial Law in 1972 even worsened
The hostilities continue to this day. The the tension between the two warring groups.
years 2000-2003 were marked by sporadic Usually, what would start as local encounters
encounters between the government forces between Muslim and Christian paramilitary units
and the Muslim rebels, punctuated by could lead quickly to a much wider conflict
scattered bombing incidents in urban centers between a rapidly organized Bangsa Moro
like Tacurong City, Koronadal City, (Muslim Nation) Army and the Armed Forces of
Kidapawan City and Cotabato City, areas the Philippines.
The fight of the Bangsa Moro people was led
where EcoGov operated. Cotabato City was
by the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF),
the regional center of EcoGov in Central then headed by former ARMM Governor Nur
Mindanao. Misuari. The group split into two when the faction
headed by Misuari signed the Tripoli Agreement
The armed conflict in Mindanao is not brokered by the Republic of the Philippines and
limited to the differences between Muslims the Libyan Government. Chairman Hashim
and Christians. Warring factions of local Salamat (co-founder of the MNLF) led the
leaders and influential families due to political breakaway group, called the Moro Islamic
and familial grudges and rivalries are also Liberation Front (MILF).
prevalent. These conflicts, locally called The MILF continues the struggle for the
creation of an Islamic State in Mindanao.
“rido”, affected the island’s peace and order
situation, putting everyone’s security at risk,
1
By Dr. Nicolas S. Uriarte Central Mindanao Team Leader (with inputs from Casimiro V. Olvida, Pablo M.
De Boma, Romulo M. Kintanar and Carmenia May Magno).
2
In the original project design, Lanao del Norte was included among the target Mindanao provinces, but no
Memorandum of Agreement with any local government unit in this province was concluded.
3
World Bank, Social Assessment of Conflict-Affected Areas in Mindanao, p. 11.
Governing the Environment in Central Mindanao 1

including that of the EcoGov regional staff’s.
The Land of Promise
Mindanao was once described as the “Land of Promise.” Although many Filipinos –
both Muslims and Christians – appear to have forgotten that, the islands still holds a lot
of promise, despite the armed conflict in its midst, mainly because of the island’s rich
natural resources.
Take for example Mindanao’s forest resources. In the Central Mindanao region
alone, one finds Mt. Kalatungan in Lanao del Sur; the Daguma Range (extending from
Sultan Kudarat to part of South Cotabato and
Mindanao Mapping Project Maguindanao); and a substantial portion of the Mt.
Apo National Park (North Cotabato side). These
The EcoGov-commissioned mountain ranges are major sources of water for power
Mapping Project in Mindanao showed generation, irrigation, domestic and industrial uses.
that although there was an average
increase of 55,000 ha per year Mt. Kalatungan is the primary source of water for
(between 1988 and 2003) in forest
cover from plantations and perennial
the MalMar Irrigation Project, which supplies water to
tree crops in Mindanao, the island lost 19,000 ha of rice paddies in North Cotabato. It houses
an average of 40,000 ha/year of natural two major watersheds (Maridugao and Malitubog),
forests during the same period. which drain into Liguasan Marsh4 in North Cotabato
and Maguindanao. The Daguma Range services
Kabulnan Irrigation Project in Sultan Kudarat and Maguindanao provinces. Mt. Apo, on
the other hand, was declared an ASEAN Heritage Park because of its uniqueness,
diversity and outstanding values. As such, it will be an object of international support and
cooperation for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
A substantial portion of Mindanao’s forest cover (both natural and planted) can be
found in the Central Mindanao region which has 1.4 million ha. This represents almost
37 percent of Mindanao’s forest cover (total: 3.8 million ha).
Central Mindanao also hosts major bodies of water

Deep-seated Barriers rich in fishery resources. These include Iligan and
Panguil Bays in Lanao del Norte; the famous Lake
A World Bank study says the “long
history of independence, separatism,
Lanao in Lanao del Sur; portions of the Illana Bay in
and cultural assertiveness (in the the ARMM; the Liguasan Marsh in North Cotabato and
ARMM) has created deep-seated Maguindanao and the critical part of the Moro Gulf
barriers between the community of fronting the municipalities of Lebak and Kalamansig in
Muslims in Mindanao and the rest of the Sultan Kudarat. Lake Lanao supplies water to
Philippine nation – and has led to an generate power for the entire Mindanao.
absence of the institutional, human and
social capital that is so essential to From among the biophysical assets of the region,
human development.” the forest and forest lands are the most threatened.
Timber poaching and land conversion were prevalent
in the guise of developing the area into an agro-industrial zone. Random issuance of
cutting permits to holders of haphazardly awarded agreements (Industrial Forest
Management Agreements and Community-Based Forest Management Agreements)
were observed in the ARMM and some areas of Region 12 due to the absence of
4
Liguasan Marsh, a biodiversity site, is currently under the coverage of UNDP’s development assistance.
2 Completion Report of the Central Mindanao EcoGov Project Team

updated inventory of forests and forest lands. The management, protection and
development of forests and forest lands in these areas are solely undertaken by the
DENR without much help from the other sectors. In the ARMM, participation from LGUs
and other sectors was almost nil. Policy direction was often not defined and selective
adoption of national policies seemed to be the rule, rather than the exception.
There are also environmental threats to coastal and urban areas in Central
Mindanao. But local government units (LGUs) in the region were able to respond to
these concerns better (than they did in trying to address forests and forest lands issues)
due to national laws, such as RA 8550 (Fisheries Code), RA 9003 (Ecological Solid
Waste Management Act), and RA 7160 (Local Government Code), which clearly set the
policy direction and delineated the roles of LGUs in their enforcement, paving the way
for a much more focused local government efforts5. This points out that clear policies
that spell out roles and accountabilities of participants can lead to better implementation
of programs.
The signing of the peace agreement between the Philippine Government and the
MNLF opened the door for donor agencies to extend development assistance to the
regions, but these were mostly on poverty alleviation, health, education, basic
infrastructure, barangay electrification, barangay justice system and emergency
assistance to rebel returnees. Before EcoGov entered the picture, it was only the CIDA-
funded Local Government Support Program (LGSP) that was working substantially on
environment and governance.
II. Regional Directions, Strategies, Targets, Deliverables and Outputs
EcoGov’s first regional operation started in Central Mindanao as the Project would
like to assist in helping ease the situation in the conflict-ridden region. The EcoGov
Mindanao office, located in Cotabato City, initially covered Regions 9, 12 and the ARMM
until the Zamboanga City office was set up in early 2003 to service Western Mindanao
and the island provinces of ARMM.6 Mindanao, thus, provided the opportunities for
testing the technical assistance strategies and modules developed by the project for
forest land use planning (FLUP), coastal resources management (CRM) and integrated
solid waste management (ISWM). The initial lessons learned in Mindanao were later
applied in the other EcoGov regions.
Mindanao, especially the war-torn areas, was a principal EcoGov region (it was
allocated 60 percent of the project’s level of effort). As a general strategy, the Central
Mindanao Team focused on achieving targets in Forests and Forest Lands Management
(FFM), considering the serious threats to the area’s forest resources, which ultimately
support the local agriculture – a key sector expected to contribute to alleviating poverty
in the region. The forest cover of EcoGov sites in Central Mindanao represented 31
percent of the total forest cover target of EcoGov 1.7 SWM came out as an emerging
5
In ARMM, some of these national laws were adopted either in whole or in part.
6
The two regional offices, however, continued to share the services of the FFM specialist based
in Cotabato City.
7
In the 2003 EcoGov 1 Work Plan, USAID agreed to redefine 100,000 ha of forest cover as those areas
under legitimized and approved FLUPs and are covered with Joint Implementation MOAs between DENR
Regional Executive Directors and concerned LGUs. The MOAs must include provisions for the commitment

concern, particularly in the urban centers of Central Mindanao, which were starting to
grapple with SWM problems and were keen to comply with RA 9003.
Regional Strategies
Prioritizing self-selecting LGUs based on their expressed interest

and commitment to provide counterpart funds and staff
From February to April 2002, EcoGov Central Mindanao conducted five interactive
assemblies (IAs) in Cotabato City, Zamboanga City and Marawi City to inform LGUs
about EcoGov and the technical assistance it was offering to LGUs. These IAs resulted
in generating the interest of 45 out of 165 LGUs in Regions 12 and ARMM and the
Province of Lanao del Norte. Of the 45, EcoGov prioritized
providing technical assistance to only 13 with whom the Prioritizing LGUs
project signed Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) as these
were the LGUs that were obviously committed in Of the 45 LGUs signifying their
environmental governance as they allocated counterpart interest to participate in the Project,
funds amounting to P5.8 million.8 Fifty-one percent of this EcoGov gave priority to 13 who
amount went to the upland sector. obviously were committed to
environmental governances as they
While EcoGov wanted to have more partners from the readily allocated counterpart funds.
ARMM, it was constrained to do so because:
a) Some of the LGUs’ interests were not aligned with the Project’s Scope of
Work (SOW) targets (e.g., Datu Odin Sinsuat was interested in nursery
establishment; Magpet requested for assistance in developing a master plan
for ecotourism; SK Pendatun’s interest was in plantation establishment.); and
b) The local leadership could not provide firm commitments for counterpart
funds and personnel (e.g., Iligan City, Bumbaran and Palimbang). EcoGov’s
requirements for counterpart funds were not really very restrictive9; it was
actually the inability of the LGUs to pass the necessary executive and
legislative issuances to operationalize the LGU’s commitments that became
the major drawback in advancing EcoGov’s technical assistance. Similar
problems were experienced in Cotabato City and Marawi City, both potential
ISWM sites.
of funding support by the LGUs during the FLUP implementation, with the technical assistance and guidance
of DENR
8
Other LGUs, however, were informed that they could participate in EcoGov-assisted training activities as
long as they would shoulder the expenses of their participants.
9
The lowest amount pledged by an EcoGov-assisted site in Central Mindanao was P50,000.

Table 1 Potential LGUs in Mindanao
Total LGU Counterpart Funds
With With (in Php 000)
No. of
LOIs MOAs
LGUs
FFM CRM SWM Total
Region 12 49 15 10 2,505 500 1,885 4,890
ARMM (mainland 93 14 3 455 - 443 898
provinces)
Lanao del Norte 23 16 0 - - - -
10
Total 165 45 13 2,960 500 2,328 5,788
Making technical assistance modules as flexible as possible to address

LGU-specific problems or opportunities
Although the sectors (CRM, ISWM, FFM) had standard technical assistance
modules, these were flexible enough so they could be refocused to address particular
demands, problems or opportunities in the LGUs, while being able to achieve set Project
targets. For instance, the technical assistance to Wao, Lanao del Sur on FLUP
eventually evolved to demonstrate how provisions of RA 7160 and JMC 2003-01
(Strengthening and Institutionalizing the DENR-DILG-LGU Partnership on Devolved and
Other Forest Management Functions) can be applied in resource-use conflict areas.
The FLUP exercise in Makilala and Kidapawan City showcased the LGUs’
participation in the management of a protected area (Mt. Apo Natural Park). Maasim and
Maitum in Sarangani pursued FLUP that placed emphasis on Community-Based Forest
Management (CBFM) and co-management11. In the process, Maasim worked for the
resolution of the conflict between pasture lease holders and indigenous peoples (IPs).
Lebak and Kalamansig in Sultan Kudarat, which similarly dealt with a conflict between
IPs and an industrial tree plantation tenure holder, provided opportunities for
demonstrating a landscape approach in environmental governance as both LGUs were
assisted by the Project in all three sectors.
10
In 2003, technical assistance to two LGUs (Parang, Maguindanao and Kiamba, Sarangani) was
suspended because of political and peace and order instability, further reducing the number of LGUs being
serviced by EcoGov-Central Mindanao to 11.
11
These municipalities were known for the controversial implementation of CBFM – where allowable cuts
were unusually high and where heavy equipment were used in logging operations.

Legend:
FFM Wao,
CRM Lanao del Sur
Kidapawan City,
North Cotabato
SWM
Makilala,
North Cotabato
Sultan Kudarat,
Maguindanao
Tacurong City,
Sultan Kudarat
Isulan,
Sultan Kudarat
Lebak,
Sultan Kudarat Koronadal
City
Kalamansig,
Sultan Kudarat
Maitum,
EcoGov Central Mindanao
Maasim,
Sarangani Sarangani Operation
Clustering LGUs to facilitate delivery of technical assistance
This was especially crucial for the initial set of Central Mindanao LGUs that relied
heavily on the services of national EcoGov specialists for the conduct of the core and
highly-technical training modules. Clustering of LGUs was also beneficial in coordinating
plans of LGUs sharing common resources (such as bays) and have the potential to
share common ISWM facilities (such as sanitary landfills). The strategy likewise
facilitated sharing of experiences and information among the LGUs in the cluster.
Thus, Lebak and Kalamansig in Sultan Kudarat, and Makilala and Kidapawan City in
North Cotabato, were clustered for the provision of technical assistance on FLUP and
benefited from joint planning activities. The joint consensus-building of Lebak and
Kalamansig enabled the LGUs to discuss common concerns related to the use of water
and timber resources within the Daguma Range. Both LGUs agreed to co-manage the
watershed with the DENR and came out with complementary management plans. The
joint workshops for Makilala and Kidapawan provided opportunities for the two LGUs to
plan together and for the stakeholders from both areas to collectively discuss water
users’ fee.12
In SWM, the cities of Kidapawan and Koronadal and the municipality of Isulan were
clustered to facilitate service delivery. They followed the same pace in formulation of
12
While both LGUs strongly lobbied for the conduct of water users’ fee study, the water district and other
water users in the area expressed reservations for the water users’ fee concept. This initiative was
temporarily shelved.

their plans. Occasionally, Tacurong City, which was more advanced in terms of technical
assistance and actual implementation, would be included in some activities of
Kidapawan, Koronadal and Isulan to enable Tacurong to share its experiences with the
three other LGUs. These joint activities were also used to explore the possibility of
Tacurong City sharing its disposal facility with neighboring Isulan.
Deploying APs and LSPs to provide immediate, on-site technical assistance to LGUs
The EcoGov directly hired five assisting professionals (APs) – 3 for FFM, 1 SWM
and 1 CRM -- to be able to effectively cover all target LGUs. Each AP was assigned to
service a number of LGUs. The on-site immersion of APs made technical assistance and
advice readily available to LGUs, especially during the period when Local Service
Providers (LSPs) were still being sourced out. The site-based APs liaised between the
EcoGov regional sectoral specialist and LGU. They also provided coaching and
mentoring to the LGU in-between training sessions and were instrumental in completing
the draft plans. Their frequent interactions with EcoGov APs, which led to the
development of a sense of camaraderie between the LGUs and the APs, motivated local
government leaders to pursue Project-assisted activities more vigorously.
While part of the overall strategy, the deployment of LSPs (institutions and
individuals) only happened towards the end of the project13 to reinforce the technical
assistance team of the Central Mindanao Office. Mindanao-based NGOs were selected
through a competitive process to provide assistance in FLUP to Makilala/Kidapawan and
Maitum. Individual LSPs were preferred for fisheries management planning in Lebak and
Kalamansig. Since these LSPs were new to the EcoGov technical assistance modules
and processes, they had to undergo some mentoring from the regional team and
continued to be supported by the APs.
Collaborating with other projects
EcoGov worked with other donor programs in the region to maximize impact of their
activities. Central Mindanao acted as lead convenor for the synergy meetings with other
GREEN USAID partners,14 which resulted in several collaborative activities.
The TAG Project of the Asia Foundation and the EcoGov 1 Central Mindanao jointly
conducted the Strategic Planning Workshops for DENR-ARMM within the context of the
MMAA 16115. Ecogov Central Mindanao also worked with Coastal Resource
Management Program for scoping activities in Malalag Bay. It supported ACDI-VOCA in
the conduct of a training course on cocoa production for selected LGUs. Close
coordination was also made with AMORE in selected LGUs of Sultan Kudarat and
Maguindanao. It sponsored the participation of selected LGUs in three GEM-sponsored
activities (Tree Farmers’ Congress conducted in Butuan City and in Davao City and the
Echo Forum on the Global Summit of Women 2003). EcoGov also coordinated with
GEM in other areas, especially on security updates.
13
There was a dearth of LSPs in Central Mindanao due to migration of qualified persons to other areas
(because of the peace and order problem) and the presence of so many projects that compete for so limited
supply of LSPs. And, oftentimes, available LSPs needed to be coached or trained to enable them to provide
technical assistance that meets EcoGov’s standards.
14
TAG Project of Asia Foundation, CRMP, GEM, AMORE, etc.
15
Muslim Mindanao Act Autonomy Act No. 161 (Regional Sustainable Forest Management Act).

EcoGov also participated in meetings organized by the CIDA-funded LGSP to
consolidate development assistance in the ARMM.
Supporting important ARMM initiatives
To build a stronger partnership, it is important to support ARMM initiatives that will

ultimately benefit not only ARRM, but contribute as well to achieving project
outputs/deliverables. Such was the case when EcoGov Central Mindanao provided
assistance to the ARMM Regional Legislative Assembly (RLA) in crafting MMAA 161.
The project tapped an local institutional LSP -- the Mindanao State University-King
Faisal Center of Islamic, Arabic and Asian Studies to do the necessary research and
drafting of the bill. The use of a local institution was in itself a strategy so as to give the
bill the needed “flavor” that reflects not only the local culture and aspirations, but the
community’s religious beliefs as well. The local LSP made sure that the bill was
consistent with indigenous and customary laws (Adat) and responsive to the needs of
the communities and LGUs.
MMAA161, popularly known as the “People’s Bill,” is considered by the RLA as a

landmark legislation, as it was the first law in the country that clearly provides for a
decentralized, devolved and deregulated governance framework in protecting,
developing and managing the forests and forest lands in ARMM. What made the
enactment of the law more significant was, in the words of
Strategic location an RLA assemblyman, “it was the first time that a bill in the
ARMM Region became the subject of extensive
The location of the Regional consultations, making it truly a bill of the people.”
Office in Cotabato City became a
plus factor in this respect since the The Central Mindanao Office also responded to the
main offices of EcoGov’s major
request of DA-BFAR ARMM for assistance in the production
partners in ARMM (i.e., the RLA,
the Office of the ARMM Governor, of a primer on the ARMM Fisheries Code.
the DENR-ARMM, DA-BFAR-
ARMM) are located in Cotabato Supporting the initiatives of the ARMM was part of
City. Coordination with these strengthening the regional government’s departments (i.e.,
agencies was, therefore, easier. DENR, DA/BFAR) to enable them to better serve the ARMM
LGUs. This strategy somewhat compensated for the limited
work at municipal LGU level.
Encouraging strong local and multi-sectoral participation through

the TWG and other local bodies
Technical Working Groups (TWGs) were created in all the LGUs to lead the various
activities under the EcoGov technical assistance program. The TWG is a multi-sectoral
group composed of members from the LGU (city/municipal and barangay), national
government, the private sector, civil society and people’s organizations as members. In
some cases, members of disadvantaged groups are included (i.e., youth, women, IPs).
Usually headed by the city or municipal Environmental and Natural Resources Officer
(C/MENRO) or city/municipal Planning Development Coordinator (C/MPDC), it also has
members from the local legislative body particularly the chair of the environment
committee of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB)/Sangguniang Panglungsod (SP). Woman
participation in the TWG was highly encouraged.

In SWM LGUs, the TWG worked closely with the ESWM Board. The formation of the
Board was the main concern of the initial EcoGov technical module to ensure the
Board’s active participation in the whole SWM planning process. Like the TWG, the
Board’s composition was multi-sectoral and initial technical assistance interventions
made sure that the private sector representatives that are required by law are included
and that they are selected in a transparent and participatory manner.
In the FFM LGUs of Central Mindanao, the city/municipal TWG is replicated at the
barangay (upland) level. The barangay TWGs facilitate the conduct of barangay-level
activities and see to it that barangay stakeholders participate in various field activities.
As “frontliners” in the technical assistance process, the TWGs undergo the full range
of technical assistance package provided to the LGU. They, thus, develop a deep
understanding of the situation and issues in their area and acquire an appreciation of the
options that the LGU can take, as well as learn how to use decision-making tools.
They likewise get exposed to the TAP

processes that are built into the technical TWGs as governance champions
assistance modules. Because of this exposure,
TWG members (particularly influential people in In many EcoGov sites, the TWGs have
become the advocates or champions of
the LGU, such as the SB/SP for Environment,
good governance.
administrative officers, mayors) become the
champions and advocates of environmental EcoGov experience has shown that
governance. This has been the experience in most TWGs take an aggressive position in
EcoGov sites. TWGs have taken an aggressive addressing issues and have facilitated LGU
position in addressing issues and have facilitated decisions and actions.
LGU decisions and actions.
The multi-sectoral nature of the working group strengthens links among different
stakeholders and brings about sharing of resources (e.g., seeing the significance of the
mapping activities undertaken by the City Government of Kidapawan, the local office of
the Philippine National Oil Company in North Cotabato offered its mapping facilities.)
Expanding project reach through grants to NGOs and CBFM POs
Grants in Central Mindanao serve mainly to expand the reach of EcoGov to other
organizations and communities in the EcoGov regions. The grants awarded to the
Institute for Primary Health Care, the Philippine Eagle Foundation and two CBFM
people’s organizations (POs) provided support to other POs in Arakan and Magpet
(North Cotabato), Mt. Apo, Kiamba (Sarangani) and Isulan, Sultan Kudarat.
Consistent with the thrust of EcoGov, the grants focused on FFM, particularly CBFM.
While one of the grantees was located in Region 11, it was viewed as critical support for
the project as the grantee was a model CBFM site and regularly tapped as a learning
area of EcoGov-assisted LGUs.
Building capacities of partners to improve LGU access to services
The DENR Region 12 office and the DENR ARMM served as key partners of the
EcoGov Project in Central Mindanao. These offices formed regional focal groups
(RFGs) during the early stage of the Project to collaborate closely with EcoGov in
assisting LGU clients.

EcoGov provided these partners with opportunities for capability-building:
a) Through their participation in the various training modules, which essentially

provided the partners hands-on training; and
b) Through the certificate course on SWM and CRM.16
The project likewise provided training to other partners, such as NGOs and academic
institutions. The LSP NGOs were exposed to, and mentored on, EcoGov methods and
approaches in the process of implementing the FLUP modules. Several academic
institutions were invited to the certificate courses on ISWM and CRM. Moreover, these
two courses were held in collaboration with the MSU at Naawan (CRM) and Ateneo de
Davao (ISWM) to pave the way for the adoption and institutionalization of the modules in
the curriculum of these institutions.
III. Results and Impacts
Result 1: The Central Mindanao team contributed significantly to the overall

biophysical outputs of EcoGov 1.
Technical assistance to 11 municipalities/cities in Central Mindanao resulted in:
• 42.9 km of coastline placed under management

• 82,141 ha of forest cover maintained
• 7,735 ha of forest lands placed under co-management
• 4 LGUs with legitimized ISWM plans
Other performance indicators are shown in Table 2 below:
Table 2. Accomplishments vis-à-vis Targets

LGU Budget
Biophysical Allocation
Performance Indicators No of LGUs Accomplishments for Year 1
Fisheries Management Target* Accomplished
1. Number of LGUs with municipal 2 2 • 42.9 km of coastlines Php 560,000
fishery plans and management under management
implementation • 16,490 ha placed under
management
Forests and Forestland Management Target Accomplished Forest Cover Total Forest
(in ha) Lands
(in ha)
2. Number of LGUs with completed and 7 7 90,618 171,4569
approved FLUP thematic maps
3. Number of LGUs with 7 7
consensus/agreements on priority
watersheds and forest land allocation
16
Unfortunately, participation of DENR 12 and DENR ARMM in both courses was limited due to their budget
constraints.

LGU Budget
Biophysical Allocation
Performance Indicators No of LGUs Accomplishments for Year 1
4. Number of LGUs with legitimized 4 5 82,141 151,570 P2,385,000
municipal FLUP (with approved action
plan and budget for initial
implementation)
5. Number of signed DENR-LGU MOAs 4 5 82,141 151,570
for joint implementation of approved
FLUP
6. Number of signed co-management 2 2 4,380 7,736
agreements for LGU-managed forest
lands (under JMC 2003-01)
Integrated Solid Waste Management Target Accomplished SWM Facilities, % Waste
Reduction, Ordinances
7. Number of LGUs with completed 7 8 • 2 LGUs converted open Php
analysis of solid waste assessment dump sites to controlled 28,271,000
data. dumpsite
8. Number of LGUs with general 7 7 • 1 LGU with operational
consensus on options for managing MRF
solid wastes at the barangay and • Barangay MRFs
municipal levels established in other LGUs
9. Number of LGUs with legitimized 4 4 • 4 LGUs created MENRO
ISWM Plans with one year work plan to manage SWM activities
(and approved budget for initial • 1 LGU with approved
implementation) ordinance
10. Number of LGUs with ordinances and 4 • NTP for controlled dump
actions to reduce, divert, or recycle site of 1 LGU issued by
waste streams via SWM facilities, EMB
agreements and others • Average reduction of
11. Number of LGUs with complete follow 2 2 recyclable waste in 2
up analysis of first year improvement LGUs by 30%
in diversion, recycling, and reduction • Average increase of
of wastes biodegradable waste by
21%
* Based on EcoGov 2004 Workplan
Result 2: Total commitment of LGUs based on MOAs signed was P2.25

million. Actual LGU fund disbursements exceeded commitments.
The actual amount spent by LGUs for FLUP, for example, totaled P4
million or 37 percent more than what was committed in the MOAs.

Table 3. LGU counterpart funds per sector and per province
LGU Budget Allocation

Priority Sector
LGU Counterpart (PhP ‘000) for 1st Year Plan Implementation
Province No. of of LGU with MOA
(PhP ‘000)
LGUs
FFM CRM ISWM
FFM CRM ISWM Total FLUP CRM ISWM Total
(ha) (km) (no)
ARMM 3 19,819 - 3 455 - 443 898 485 - - 485
Lanao del Sur 1 19,819 - 1 455 - 200 655 485 - - 485
Maguindanao 2 - - 2 - - 243 243 - - -
Region 12 10 171,800 84.69 6 2,505 500 1,885 4,890 1,900 560 28,271 30,731
Sultan Kudarat 3 63,075 84.69 3 817 500 960 2,277 1,100 560 8,072 9,732
Tacurong City 1 - - 1 - - 574 574 - - 1,500 1,500
North Cotabato 1 8,672 - - 300 - - 300 - - -
Koronadal City 1 - - 1 - - 283 283 - - 13,700 13,700
Kidapawan City 1 9,000 - 1 478 - 68 546 - - 4,999 4,999
Sarangani 3 91,053 910 910 800 - - 800
TOTAL for Central 13 191,619 84.69 9 2,960 500 2,328 5,788 2,385 560 28,271 31,216
Mindanao
Table 4. Actual LGU expenses vs MOA commitments

FFM ISWM
Name of LGU
MOA Actual Expenses MOA Actual Expenses
Lanao del Sur
Wao 455,000 896,830.72 200,000 no data
North Cotabato
Kidapawan City 477,650 218,000.00 68,000 368,860
Makilala 300,000 538,000.00 na Na
Sultan Kudarat
Isulan na na 500,000 150,000
Kalamansig 300,000 973,489.32 300,000 no data
Lebak 517,000 916,981.50 160,000 no data
Tacurong City na na 574,000 761,000
South Cotabato
Koronadal City na na 283,000 69,659*
Maguindanao
Parang Na na 150,000 no data
Sultan Kudarat Na na 92,900 no data
Sarangani
Maitum 200,000 200,000.00 na Na
Maasim 550,000 300,000.00 na Na
Kiamba 150,000 No data na Na
Total 2,949,650 4,043,301.54 1,802,000 368,860
* 2004 expenses only. Expenses for 2002 and 2003 not included.

Result 3. Improved governance practices by LGUs and other partners.
Changed institutional behavior. Prior to EcoGov’s entry, decision-making in many

partner LGUs and national and regional government agencies only involved a few and
information was usually available only to one or two individuals. Plans and budgets were
prepared by a selected staff or by consultants and these were approved without the
benefit of validation and discussion with key stakeholders.
The multi-stakeholder consultations and consensus-

building initiated by EcoGov for the planning activities were Stressing transparent
& participatory processes
lauded by partners, both at the regional and local level. One
good example was the strategic planning workshop that The entry of EcoGov into the
officer of the DENR-ARMM participated in mid-2004 for it regional and local scene,
was the first time, according to participants, that they openly especially in the ARRM areas,
and collectively discussed the organization’s strategic highlighted the need for
directions. The collective discussions led to the revision of transparent and participatory
the agency’s work and financial plan. process in making decisions as
part of good governance.
Another is the experience of the ARMM RLA, which for
the first time, conducted a number of provincial
consultations to get the people’s views on the Regional Sustainable Forest Management
Act (MMAA 161). The processes for the legitimization of MMAA 161 changed the way
the committees of the RLA now undertake their activities. Assemblyman Suharto
Midtimbang declared that all bills that will pass through his committee (Committee on
Environment) will now be subjected to consultations.
MMAA 161 provided the necessary legal bases for decision-making. On the strength
of MMA 161, the RLA Committee on Environment and the Blue Ribbon Committee
conducted a series of hearings to investigate the following issues:
• Alleged illegal transport of logs in Upi, which was captured in a local ABS-CBN
footage.
• The appeal of the DENR-ARMM personnel from Jolo, Sulu for the release of the
government share, monthly operating and other expenses, salary increment and
other benefits due to personnel.
• Collection of forest charges, issuances of PLTPs, and DENR-ARMMs
expenditures.
•
Resolved conflicts. The FLUP process, enhanced by TAP principles, provided
opportunities to resolve conflicts.
In the Municipality of Lebak, for example, the map overlay analysis facilitated by the
project led to the resolution of the conflict between IPs (as represented by Manobo-
Dulangan Tribal Association) and Magsaysay & Sons (a holder of an Integrated Forest
Management Agreement or IFMA). The IPs initially thought that their whole ancestral
claim, which covered 2,216 ha, was within the IFMA area of Magsaysay & Sons. The
map overlays showed that only 600 ha were within the IFMA area. The IPs also thought
that a large portion of the IFMA was within Lebak; the map overlays showed that the
largest portion was in Kalamansig.

The series of orientations and consultations conducted for the FLUP paved the way
for the contending parties to sit down together and agree on:
• IPs waived their prior right over the contested area provided that in the renewal
of the IFMA the Magsaysay & Sons would secure from the IPs their “free and
prior informed consent”.
• Magsaysay & Sons would not cut down the 100-ha Albizia falcataria plantation in
Brgy. Salangsang to preserve the source of water of the IPs and other upland
communities.
The IPs eventually became partners of the LGU in the implementation of its “Bantay
Gubat” project.
In Maasim, Sarangani, the FLUP process also provided an opportunity for IPs and
pasture lease agreement (PLA) holders to resolve conflicting land claims. In the case of
the Rivera clan against Tito Isla’s clan, the Riveras (PLA holder) agreed to compensate
Tito Isla’s clan (IP group) for the use of the land being contested. In the case of Fangolo
(IP) versus Ang, the Ang family (PLA holder) agreed to
withdraw the charges they filed in court against the Fangolo Accountability Centers
clan. The Ang family further agreed to give up the portion of
One key principle in good
their PLA area in favor of the Fangolo family. In addition, environmental governance is
they will pay the Fangolo family for the use of remaining accountability. Partner LGUs
area covered by their PLA. have established offices (such
as MENROs) and bodies (such
In Lanao del Sur, the FLUP process triggered as MENRC) to have groups that
discussions between Wao and Bumbaran regarding their will be accountable for the
boundary conflict. The LGU of Wao presented their DENR- implementation of LGU plans
approved thematic maps to Bumbaran, which was and initiatives.
encouraged to undergo a similar process so both
municipalities could have a common basis for resolving their overlapping claims.
Institutionalized forest management within the LGU’s structure. Except for

Isulan, all the EcoGov-assisted sites either designated Municipal Environment and
Natural Resources Officers (MENROs) or established a full Municipal Environment and
Natural Resources Office to oversee the implementation of the SWM, CRM and FLUP.
Isulan’s SWM Plan is currently supervised by the Office of the Mayor but it plans to
eventually establish a MENRO.
Case resolution
The LGUs also created the multi-sectoral Municipal
LGUs have initiated the formation Environment and Natural Resources Council (MENRC)
of bodies to neutralize political
to monitor implementation of the FLUP. The MENRC
interventions in the resolution of
cases. In Makilala, for example, a enriched the decision-making process, especially in
Municipal Environment Adjudication areas concerning conflicting claims. In Maasim, for
Board was created to deliberate on example, it was the MENRO who played a key role in
appeals made by cutters of illegal facilitating the resolution of conflicting claims of IPs and
logs. PLA holders.
Makilala, on the other hand, created a Municipal Environment Adjudication Board to

neutralize political interventions in the resolution of cases. The Board deliberates on

appeals for pardon made by cutters and shippers of illegal logs or timber. The Board
consists of members from the DENR-CENRO, NCIP Provincial Office, Stakeholders’
representative, MENR Council, SB Environment, Academe, religious sector,
environment NGO, and Municipal Tribal Council Federation.
Mainstreamed former combatants and other marginalized groups. Former

MNLF combatants were initiated back to the government fold through EcoGov-
sponsored activities. In most of EcoGov Central Mindanao areas, former armed
combatants actively participated in the implementation of FLUP. For instance, in Wao,
Lanao del Sur, former adversaries (Commander Busran Ampatua and Municipal Mayor
Elvino Balicao, Sr.) teamed up to implement FLUP. The LGU is now helping the group of
Commander Ampatua in securing a CBFM Agreement from the DENR.
In the Municipality of Lebak, Sultan Kudarat, the Tran MNLF Forest Protectors
Association, composed of former MNLF combatants, applied for a CBFM Agreement;
the LGU linked the group with the DENR to have its application approved.
In Sarangani, the MILF troops headed by Commander Lawin assisted the LGU of
Maasim in community mapping. The support of the MILF troops enabled the TWG
members to penetrate areas which were normally off-limits to non-MILF members. The
activity became a venue for the LGU to educate communities in rebel-controlled areas
on the importance of the environment. It also became an avenue for communities to air
their grievances.
Encouraged information-based decision-making. The LGUs, especially in

Kidapawan City and Koronadal City, expressed appreciation for the valuable information
generated by the time and motion study. The study enabled them to put in place
significant cost cutting measures. The Mindanao Mapping Project, which benefited from
technical assistance under EcoGov, provided the spatial bases for decision-making.
With these two instruments, groups or individuals involved in forests and forest land
management are better equipped in pursuing management interventions to address the
rapid decline of forest resources in the ARMM.
LGU partners are now also making decisions based on information gathered in
activities such as SWM assessment and the FLUP mapping exercises. The updated
information led to improved quality of decisions made, even boosting the confidence of
decision-makers.
Empowered Federation of People’s Organizations to demand for change. The

Team provided technical assistance on organizational strengthening to the Federation of
People’s Organization. The capacity-building activities were focused on improving PO’s
understanding of CBFM policies, on integrating governance elements in the PO’s
systems of operations and on the feasibility of federating regionally, Mindanao-wide and
nationally. This effort proved useful as manifested by varied responses ranging from
reorganization to formation of federations and sourcing of funds from external
institutions. For example, the series of workshops and accelerated IEC provided by
EcoGov with strong emphasis on transparency and accountability prompted PO
members to demand for reorganization leading to the election of new set of officers from
the regional down to the provincial federation levels. The reorganization fever has
filtered down to the member POs, thereby causing a massive change of guards. With the
active implementation of LGUs’ co-management agreements, LGUs also provided POs

with organizational and development support through their community development
officers.
Result 3. Improved resource management
Regulated fishing activities. The decisions and actions taken by the LGUs and the
fisher folk in Lebak and Kalamansig in Sultan Kudarat have created a lot of impact and
resulted in the immediate regulation of fishing activities in the Moro Gulf. For example,
upon the request of the fisher folk, the LGU, municipal Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
Management Council (FARMC), commercial fishermen and ordinary fisher folk agreed to
put the “payao” (a fish aggregating device) outside the common fishing ground of
artisanal fishermen. This decision proved crucial in the regulation of fishing activity in the
area. The fisher folk’s clamor, strongly supported by the FARMC, gained ground after
the municipal-wide consultation on the fishing ordinance which was conducted with
EcoGov’s assistance. The LGUs of Lebak and Kalamansig in Sultan Kudarat are now
championing the cause for responsible fishing in the Moro Gulf. The Municipality of
Lebak intensified its IEC campaign among the coastal barangays and the commercial
fishermen on the proposed municipal fishery ordinance.
Regulated illegal cutting and transport of timber. Seven LGUs located in conflict-
affected areas have DENR-approved FLUPs. These plans are currently being used to
rationalize moves to regulate illegal activities within 170,000 ha of forest lands. LGU
investments are directed towards expanding the forest cover, which is currently
estimated at 94,000 ha. The LGUs in Wao, Makilala, Lebak and Kalamansig have taken
an active role in confiscating lumber or logs that were illegally harvested and
transported. Resolution of conflicts involving forest resource users (such as the cases in
Lebak and Maasim) have led to agreements between protagonists, resulting in improved
management of forests and forest lands. As mentioned earlier, in Lebak the IPs have
become active partners of the LGU in its “Bantay Gubat” project.
Co-management. Lebak and Kalamansig in Sultan Kudarat responded to the

implementation of JMC 2003-01 by signing co-management agreements with the DENR.
The co-management agreements provided a concrete action on the part of DENR to
jointly exercise authority in protecting, managing and developing forests and forest lands
to benefit on-site and off-site stakeholders.
SWM. While only four out of the eight LGUs have legitimized SWM plans, the
involvement of the other four LGUs in the planning process generated enough
momentum to catalyze these LGUs to act on their pressing SWM problems. Although
the LGU of Lebak is still in the process of analyzing their options for SWM, the ESWM
Board passed a resolution authorizing the mayor to purchase the DENR-approved site
for waste disposal.
EcoGov 1, for example, was only committed to assist the LGU of Lebak in Sultan
Kudarat in characterizing its solid waste. This did not stop the LGU of Lebak, however,
to formulate and enforce local ordinances regulating waste disposal at public places like
markets, town halls and recreation centers.
Tacurong City obtained an approval from the Environmental Management Bureau

(EMB) for its controlled dump site and was issued a Notice to Proceed (NTP). Koronadal
City, on the other hand, has started the process of converting its open dump site into a

controlled dump site. The LGU is in the process of putting together the documents
needed by the DENR to issue an NTP.
Significant reduction in waste. Kidapawan City and Tacurong City completed the
second measurement and characterization of waste disposal at the dump site (referred
to in this project as ““end-of-pipe waste characterization”). Based on the results, the
proportion of recyclables of the total waste disposal in these LGUs decreased (from 44
to 4 percent in Tacurong City, and from 30 to 9 percent in Koronadal City). The
biodegradable waste in the two LGUs increased (from 39 to 71 percent in Tacurong City,
and from 63 to 73 percent in Kidapawan City). This implies two things: (1) the LGU has
improved efficiency in collection; and (2) the LGU has not fully implemented composting
of waste.
Result 4: Increased demand for technical assistance
Increased demand for EcoGov services. The experience of Kalamansig in FLUP

encouraged the LGUs of Ninoy Aquino and Palimbang to ask EcoGov for assistance on
FLUP. Likewise, the experience of Maasim in FLUP also encouraged the municipalities
of Kiamba and Alabel to ask EcoGov for the similar assistance. The Bantay Kalikasan
video encouraged the Local Chief Executive of Maasim and the IP leader of Maitum to
advocate for FLUP in their respective municipalities.
IEC/Advocacy can increase demand. The project’s partners from the LGU, the
DENR and the media outfits used to great advantage the powers of print and broadcast
media in spreading inspiring stories from the field. From April 2002 to February 2004,
EcoGov managed to clip 20 stories written by the LGU, the DENR and the local media.
EcoGov also commissioned Bantay Kalikasan to produce feature stories on Tacurong
City’s SWM program and Wao’s experience on FLUP.
The Bantay Kalikasan stories, which were aired on the ANC Channel, were
instrumental in persuading LGUs, academic institutions, NGOs and civil society
organizations from other regions to visit Tacurong and Wao.
Increased demand for DENR’s services. The FLUPs gave the LGUs a clearer
picture of what services to demand from the DENR. The local DENR offices are currently
swamped with requests for technical assistance on CBFM Agreement issuance (Lanao
del Sur and Sultan Kudarat), on enforcement of natural resources management laws
(Sarangani cluster), on plantation establishment (Lebak and Wao) and on boundary
conflict resolution (Sarangani, Lanao del Sur, Suldarat Kudarat). The DENR responded
to the requests, but expressed the need for training in some areas (especially DENR-
ARMM for CBFM Agreement issuance).
Result 5: Improved local capability
Joint activities with regional and local partners have resulted in improved capability in
the FLUP preparation, resolving conflicts, providing training and reviewing work and
financial plans.
DENR 12, through its local DENR Offices, deployed personnel to participate in the
LGUs’ FLUP as well as in pursuing doable activities for the joint protection and
management of forests and forest lands. Local DENR personnel also acted as arbiters in

multi-sectoral discussions to resolve long-standing conflicts. They developed a basic
understanding of the modular technical assistance packages on FLUP, SWM and FFM.
They had hands-on experience in using community mapping as a tool for facilitating
discussions, for planning and for conflict resolution. They developed an appreciation of
multi-stakeholder participation from planning to implementation. They realized that the
LGU can strongly contribute to the development of degraded forest lands and
enforcement of forestry laws and regulations.
BFAR-12 became an able partner in EcoGov 1’s capacity-building activities. The

regional office provided resource persons during trainings and workshops. Moreover,
they are responsible in ensuring BFAR participation at the ground level.
Together with Asia Foundation and EcoGov, DENR-ARMM reviewed its work and
financial plan to make this more responsive to the growing demand for their technical
services. It succeeded in creating a draft work plan that was collectively discussed by
the CENROs, PENROs and Bureau heads. The DENR-ARMM leadership needs to see
the plan for its final approval and implementation.
EcoGov’s Training Courses on SWM and CRM introduced potential LSPs from
academic institutions on the framework and processes used by EcoGov.
Result 6: Improved investment climate; greater allocation of funds to

environment sector
Increased investments in forest lands. The updated and accurate information

base generated through the FLUP activities also encouraged investors to pour in money
for the development of idle forest lands. Uni Frutti, for example, invested in the
establishment of a banana plantation in Wao, Lanao del Sur. Wao signed a MOA with
Uni Frutti; the establishment of the banana plantation is ongoing. Uni Frutti is now
exploring the possibility of expanding the plantation into the adjacent LGU of Bumbaran.
Feasibility studies are being undertaken. To prepare the LGU for the entry of the
investor, EcoGov will assist the municipality in developing its FLUP. GEM, on the other
hand, will assist the LGU in road rehabilitation. Foreign and local investors are also
exploring the possibility of establishing tree plantations in Sarangani.
During implementation of the plans, the LGUs infused more funds to the environment
sector. This is in stark contrast to the previous investments of the LGUs on the
environment as reflected in their Annual Investment Plans. Prior to EcoGov’s entry,
investments on the environment were mostly ad hoc (i.e., in response to disasters
caused by natural calamities and conduct of small and disconcerted efforts to
rehabilitate degraded ecosystems).
Increased LGU allocation for SWM services. The passage of RA 9003 made
SWM even more urgent. It is in this sector that the LGUs invested the greatest amount
of money. For the first year of implementation alone, the LGUs assisted by EcoGov
allocated P28 million. The amount covers salary of garbage collectors, procurement of
trucks, establishment of materials recovery facility (MRF), and engineering cost for
converting open dumpsites to controlled dumpsites. In Tacurong City, the largest
investment was on the establishment of an MRF and on the conversion of open
dumpsite to controlled dumpsite.

IV. Lessons Learned
A good understanding of the political dynamics and the culture of LGUs in

conflict-affected areas enabled the assisting professionals to design
strategies appropriate to local conditions.
Based on the Trust Rating Study conducted by the Social Weather Station
through the Asia Foundation17, Muslims trusted their Christian brothers more
than their fellow Muslims, especially if the Muslim brother came from a different
tribe. This was also the observation of EcoGov field personnel.
The Moros are very proud people as manifested by their Maratabat complex.
In most cases, their fear of losing face among their brothers has been a primary
factor in making critical decisions. Also, Moros are assertive of their rights but are
often non-committal on their accountabilities and responsibilities. Going an extra
mile to achieve excellence is uncommon.
The patriarchal and autocratic style of leadership in Muslim-dominated areas

can still be influenced, making them adopt a method of decision-making that is
more transparent and participatory in nature. The extent to which these
processes can be implemented might be limited, but the tiniest opportunity to
demonstrate the merits of these processes may be sufficient to open the eyes of
the Moros to an alternative way of doing things.
Social marketing is crucial in establishing the LGUs’ confidence in the

project.
The LGUs’ response to the project would depend on how the project’s field
representatives undertake social marketing.
Capacity-building for LSPs and delivery of outputs for the technical

modules cannot be lumped together.
Deliverable-oriented contracting arrangement with stringent time limitation

runs counter to the objective of capacitating the LSPs, much more the LGUs.
This approach sometimes leads to LSPs’ focusing too much on the deliverable
rather than the need for an enabling approach of technical assistance. It
therefore sacrifices the process of inculcating good governance, often leading
TWGs to become uncooperative and indifferent, resulting in further delay instead
of facilitating the process.
17
Based on the powerpoint presentation of Dr. Linda Luz B. Guerrero, Vice President of Social Weather
Station, of the results of Trust Rating Survey conducted by SWS on February 6-22, 2004 for Asia
Foundation. Presentation was made on August 11, 2004 at the Office of the Regional Governor.

Selection of right people is critical.
The APs, consultants and LSPs should be credible, competent, and one who
puts values on providing service and good interpersonal relation above material
gains and interests. They should act as lead convenor, coach, facilitator, and
integrator of the dynamics of all the parties involved.
Feed backing sustains interests in the project and motivates locals to act
on their problems.
Makilala has developed a system for disseminating information related to

forest management to the media and the DENR. Updating communities about a
project’s progress is a must to maintain their interest.
Elected leaders are not necessarily the ones who call the shots.
In the ARMM region, the elected officials ranked only 3rd to religious and
traditional leaders in terms of being able to influence local communities. Ulamas
and sultans and datus are more influential and credible than the mayors and
other elected officials. When conflict arises, it is usually the religious leaders that
people go to for advice.
Need to set clear directions for DENR-ARMM participation.
The DENR-ARMM did not set a clear direction for their overall operations.
The staff acted based on intuition rather than on policies and office decorum. The
selective adoption of ENR Laws by the staff, especially those at the field office,
added to the confusion. The Department also did not establish a protocol on who
should assume leadership in the absence of the Regional Secretary. The outputs
of the strategic planning workshops of DENR-ARMM revealed the gravity of the
agency’s organizational problems. Based on workshop results, the heads of the
different departments even had difficulty defining the objectives and key activities
of their respective departments. The key officers of the Department also did not
have a clear idea on the targets and budgets of the different offices.
Need to rethink strategy in LSP contracting.
Engaging LSPs to expand project reach so that LGUs can have readily
available experts to tap for specific services is a well-meaning move in sustaining
the promotion and adoption of good environmental governance practices in the
country. This approach, however, provided an additional layer of capacity-
building on the part of the EcoGov. The processes advocated by EcoGov were
based on technologies developed by its consultants. Though LSPs have similar
experiences, their philosophy and framework for doing things was completely
different from EcoGov’s. EcoGov consultants ended up training LSPs while the
LSPs were implementing the activities. This diminished the credibility of LSPs in
the eyes of the LGUs. The quality of outputs submitted by LSPs barely met the
standards and specifications of the Project.

This is compounded by the fact that there are a few qualified LSPs in
Mindanao. Of the few who are qualified, the skills and knowledge of their staff
and consultants were not cut out for the work required in a TAP-enhanced
planning process. The capacity of the institutions to bridge finance projects and
to manage donor funded projects was poor. This is complicated further by the
practice of LSPs to stretch the use of people and resources to cover multiple
projects.
Having models of LGUs sharing common facilities for SWM.
The clustering of LGUs for common facilities did not materialize because
LGUs were not ready for this yet. For one, no landfill site had been developed.
Second, there was no existing model that could be used as basis for designing
the management and operations of the common facility.
More efforts needed in establishing water users’ fee.
The stakeholders in the targeted area for water users’ fee application had
reservations about the subject matter. The Metro Kidapawan Water District was
not too open in sharing information because of apprehensions on the
consequences of the proposed water users’ fee.
IV. Recommendations for Moving Forward
For EcoGov 2
1. Expand the pool of service providers. EcoGov can design a separate

program to build capacities of LSPs. LSPs can be mobilized for training but
the APs and regional specialists will still be held accountable for the
deliverables.
2. EcoGov should give special consideration to DENR-ARMM to encourage
greater participation in field activities. DENR has no allocation for
transportation, meals and lodging of personnel participating in field activities.
3. There is a growing need for an investment and economic enterprise specialist
who can assist LGUs in developing project proposals, in linking with the
private sector for market support, and in managing business operations.
4. More LGUs in the ARMM should be considered, regardless of their
resources. Potential expansion sites in the ARMM are the municipalities of
Shariff Aguak and Ampatuan which covers the Kabulnan Watershed and the
municipalities of Datu Odin Sinsuat and Upi for the Dimapatoy Watershed.
5. Continue assistance to the Regional Legislative Assembly. Possible area for
intervention is the crafting of a Regional SWM Act.
6. In the absence of qualified institution service providers, deploy individual
service providers.
7. The implementation of the FLUPs, SWM and CRM plans are lodged with
newly-created MENROs. There is a need to develop a capacity-building
program for these offices. The capacity-building program may be lodged with
the DENR CENRO Academy or similar institutions.

8. Use grant money to complement priority activities of LGUs showing good
governance practices. This then becomes an incentive for LGUs to do more
and perform better. Project gains will therefore be multiplied.
9. Assign one AP for every 2 LGUs so accountability for the activities per LGU
can easily be determined. In areas where EcoGov is providing technical
assistance in more than one sector (i.e. FFM, SWM and CRM), the
deployment of one AP is advantageous. The AP can act as integrator and
coordinator of all information and activities in the area. He or she can also
determine the appropriate pacing of activities because he or she will have a
better appreciation of local conditions.
10. Revise LSP contracting guidelines to include a pre-bid conference.
11. Sustain support for IRR formulation. Tap the services of competent legal
specialists knowledgeable on Shariah laws.
12. Strengthen EcoGov’s technical assistance on SWM technologies, especially
on composting and on designing controlled dump sites.
13. Consider other doables in FFM as another entry point aside from FLUP (i.e.
,co-management and watershed management)
14. Strengthen capacity of DENR-ARMM personnel for CBFM implementation.
15. Considerations for expansion:
• FFM: Davao City, Davao del Sur, Digos and Magpet for Mt. Apo
• FFM: Shariff Aguak, Ampatuan and Datu Saudi for Kabulnan
Watershed
• FFM: Datu Odin Sinsuat and North Upi for Dimapatoy Watershed
• FFM: Bumbaran for Mt. Kalatungan
• CRM: Networking of MPAs in Malalag Bay
• SWN: Cotabato City and Davao City
For LGUs
1. Discourage settlements of conflicts by single institutions. DENR and LGU

should be encouraged to course conflict resolutions through the multi-sectoral
MENRC.
2. Sustain support to implementation of resource management plans by fully
operationalizing Municipal/City ENROs and allocating funds based on the
legitimized plans.
For DENR-ARMM
1. Pursue crafting of implementing rules and regulations for MMAA161.

2. Identify doable activities in line with the implementation of the approved
FLUPs of the LGUs and allocate resources for such activities.
3. Review organizational structure and operations.
4. Strengthen partnership with LGUs and Peoples Organizations.
For RLA
1. Identify priority concerns requiring regional policy support.

2. Continue support for strengthening check and balance between

For Peoples Organizations
1. Strengthen financial viability of its economic enterprises.

2. Strengthen advocacy for policy, market and technical support.

Annex 1. The Central Mindanao Technical Assistance Team
Position/Designation Name
Central Mindanao Team Leader Nicolas S. Uriarte

Mindanao Upland Specialist Casimiro V. Olvida
Solid Waste Management Specialist Romulo M. Kintanar
Coalition Building and Advocacy Specialist Pablo M. Deboma
IEC Associate Delza T. Fuentes
Process Facilitator (Sultan Kudarat) Edwin T. Camacho
Assisting Professional for FFM (Sarangani) Cerenio T. Tila
Assisting Professional for FFM (North Cotabato) Anselmo P. Cabrera
Assisting Professional forSWM Erwin D. Patricio
Assisting Professional for CRM Eden Legaspi
Cotabato Office Manager Carmenia May M. Magno
Cotabato Accountant Aurea D. Macalisang
Accounting Assistant Aleta G. Gabronino
Utility/Business Machine Operator Emilio L. Ballela
Driver Joseph D. Damayo
Driver Ricardo M. Morada

Annex 2A. Status of Priority LGUs as of End of November 2004: Coastal Resource Management (CRM Planning and Fishery Management)
CRM Planning Milestones Fisheries Management Milestones
Jointly agreed Participatory Validated (and Legitimized Approved Approved inter- Ordinances Ordinances Community Law Enforce-
Km of MOA LGU inter-LGU MW biophysical with CRM plan municipal LGU fishery establishing establishing IEC ment (e.g.,
Region/ boundaries and socio-econ consensus) (including fishery mgt mgt plan and fisherfolk user fees and deputation,
Municipality/ City Coast- Signed Commit-
Province assessment coastal zones budget) plan agreements registry, incentives regular patrols,
line (Date) ment (P)
licensing and reporting system)
permit systems
Central Mindanao
Region 12
Sultan Kudarat 11. Kalamansig** 24.30 09/25/03 300,000 Plan legitimized Draft of Part of draft Conducted Training of 30 fish
(Nov 2004) ordinances on ordinance. barangay IEC wardens by BFAR.
identified priority on proposed
fisheries fishery
management ordinance.
12. Lebak** 18.60 10/01/02 200,000 Plan legitimized concerns under Part of draft Conducted Training of 30 fish
(Nov 2004) review by ordinance. barangay IEC wardens by BFAR.
respective SBs. on proposed
fishery
ordinance.
Sub-Total-Central Mindanao 42.90 10 LGUs 500,000
Notes: Kms of coastline are only counted for LGUs which are to undertake any of the three: delineation of municipal waters and its enforcement, CRM planning and fisheries management.
* Target LGUs for CRM plan completion and legitimization
** Target LGUs for municipal fisheries management only
*** Target LGUs for both CRM planning and municipal fisheries management

Annex 2B. Status in Priority LGUs as of End of November 2004: Forests and Forestland Management
FLUP Milestones FLUP Implementation Milestones

Validated Stake-holders Legitimized Signed LGU- Signed LGU- Municipal/ Multi-sectoral Commu-nity Law Enforce- Issuance of
thematic maps consensus on FLUP DENR FLUP DENR Co- City ENR forest mgt/ IEC ment other tenure
Area of LGU and land allocation (including implement- Mgt Office protection instruments
MOA Signed assessment of and sub- implement- ation MOA Agreement creation group formed
Region/ Province Municipality/ City Forestlands Commitment
(Date) forests and watershed ation budget) (MOA)
(Ha) (P)
forestlands prioritization
status
Central Mindanao
ARMM
Lanao del Sur 4. Wao* 19,820 07/31/02 455,000 Completed (Nov Completed (Dec Legitimized Feb Signed by DENR-ARMM Ordinance ENR Council Organized Three POs have
2002). Maps 2002) 17, 2003. DENR-ARMM reviewed the creating created July local submitted
signed by DENR- and LGU July
document- MENRO and 2003. communities in applications for
ARMM. 18, 2003
ation of Wao's designating the protection CBFMA with
community MENR Officer of forestland in DENR-ARMM
watershed, issued July their after the FLUP
which is 2003 respective exercise.
proposed to barangays.
be placed
under co-
management.
Region 12
Sultan Kudarat 5. Kalamansig*** 40,200 10/01/02 300,000 Completed (Sept Completed (Nov Legitimized Signed Feb 3, Co-manage- MENRO Multi-sectoral Information POs and The LGU-MENRO
2003) 2003) Oct 22, 2003. 2004. ment created on enforcement drive initiated community and DENR started
assessment of
agreement Dec 2003. A body created in areas leaders trained
tenureholders.
covering MENRO was by LGU and under co- on Assessment of
1,736 ha designated in DENR- management enforcement of Hinalaan Multi-
community March 11, CENRO, with to promote forest laws. Purpose
watershed 2004. LGU funding. understand- Cooperative
and 3,956 ha ing of their (CBFMA covers
500 ha.) showed
communal roles in co-
strong need to re-
forest signed managed educate PO on
last Mar 30, areas. organizational
2004. management and
CBFM.
6. Lebak*** 23,200 10/01/02 517,000 Completed (Sept Completed (Nov Legitimized Signed Feb 3, Co-manage- MENRO Multi-sectoral Organized The MENRO
2003) 2003) Dec 29,2003. 2004. ment created on enforcement local assisted the Tran
MNLF Forest
agreement Dec 2003. A body created communities in
Protectors
covering MENRO was by LGU and the protection Association in
2,043 ha designated in DENR- of forestland in getting a CBFMA.
signed last March 2004. CENRO, with their DENR is now
Mar 30, LGU funding. respective processing
2004.The area barangays. CBFMA.
will be
developed as
community
watershed
and communal
forest.

Annex 2B. Status in Priority LGUs as of End of November 2004: Forests and Forestland Management

(Ha) (P)
status
North Cotabato 7. Kidapawan City 9,000 10/03/03 477,650 Completed Completed FLUP
endorsed by
CDC to SP.
8. Makilala* 8,672 10/02/03 300,000 Completed Completed FLUP Provided

endorsed by assistance in
MDC to SB. CADT
processing.
Sarangani 9. Maitum* 21,770 08/28/03 200,000 Completed (Feb Completed (Mar Legitimized Signed April
2004) 2004). April 13, 15, 2004.
2004. MOA signing
attended by
DENR
Secretary
Gozun.
10. Maasim 46,620 11/14/03 560,000 Completed Completed Legitimized Signed Oct Mun. ENR IEC sub-team Strengthened
(Sept 23, 2004 Council conducted CBFM POs for
2004) with created to help barangay forest
2005 budget resolve orientations protection.
allocation of conflicts in on FLUP.
P1.2 million. allocation of
forestlands
and to monitor
FLUP
implementation
Sub-Total - Central Mindanao 169,282 10 LGUs 2,809,650
Notes: * Target LGUs for FLUP completion and legitimization

** Target LGUs for co-management agreement
*** Target LGUs for FLUP and co-management agreement

Annex 2C. Activity Status in Priority LGUs as of End of November 2004: Integrated Solid Waste Management
ISWM Planning Milestones ISWM Implementation Milestones

Completed Consensus on Legitimized Functioning SWM Municipal/ SWM SWM IEC NTPs for MRFs NTPs for Assessment of
solid waste SWM options ISWM plan ESWM Board Barangay City ENR ordinances, issued by Disposal proposed
assessment (including Committees Office creation actions on DENR Facility SLF(including
MOA Signed LGU Commit-
Region/ Province Municipality/ City (practices implement- waste (controlled Letter of
(Date) ment (P)
survey and ation budget) segregation, dumpsite) Endorsement)
waste reduction, issued by
characterizatio recycling DENR
n)
Central Mindanao
ARMM
Maguindanao 6. Sultan Kudarat 09/05/02 92,900 SWM data Reconstituted Initial assessment
reviewed to (Dec 2002); (ocular) of proposed
correct data entry active. landfill site.
errors
7. Parang 12/08/03 150,000 SWM TA to LGU put on hold due to political instability. Formed (Jan
2004)
Lanao del Sur 8. Wao 10/23/03 200,000 Completed Formed (Jan

analysis of waste 2004); active
charac-terization
data.
Region 12
N. Cotabato 9. Kidapawan City* 09/26/02 68,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Oct Legitimized Reconstituted Created on Draft ordinance Construction of Conversion to DENR's assessment
2003); follow-up 2003) (Oct 2004) (Nov 2003); April 2003. under review by MRF ongoing. controlled of the proposed
waste active SP. dumpsite landfill site completed
characteriza-tion ongoing in Nov 2001.
(end-of-pipe) (trenching,
held on Sept 15- fencing)
22, 2004.
S. Cotabato 10. Koronadal City* 12/04/02 283,500 Completed (Dec Completed (Oct Legitimized Reconstituted Being Draft ordinance Ongoing
2003) 2003) (Sept 29, (Sept 2003); organized in under review by assistanceby MGB
2004). active barangay SP. and EMB for the final
clusters selection og SLF
Sultan Kudarat 11. Isulan* 11/08/02 500,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Oct Legitimized Formed (July Barangay Draft ordinance Construction of Negotiations with
2003) 2003) (Oct 2004) 2002); active committees under review by composting Tacurong City for
being SB. facility ongoing. sharing of SLF
organized. facility.
12. Tacurong City* 10/14/02 574,000 Completed (April Completed (May Legitimized Reconstituted Brgys covering City ENRO Comprehensive Barangay Construction of NTP for DENR MGB issued
2003); follow-up 2003) June 25, 2003. (Jan 2003); 11 urban structure, ISWM ordinance captains sent on city MRF controlled permit to operate
waste characteriza- Copy of plan active puroks have staffing plan published and a study tour; completed; MRF dumpsite Tacurong City's SLF.
tion (end-of-pipe)
submitted to released (56 personnel) IRR issued. pulong-pulong partially issued.
held on Aug 25-31,
2004 NSWMC April P50,000 for and operating with sitio operational; NTP
2004 purchase of budget leaders; IEC issued.
"trisikad" for the approved by materials
collection of SP through City production and
non- Ordinance 13 dissemination;
biodegradables (2003). ABS-CBN
from house- documentary
holds in puroks.
13. Lebak 10/01/02 160,000 Waste Reconstituted MENRO created
assessment/ (3/11/04); on Dec 2003.
characterization Resolution MENR Officer
adopted working designated in
completed.
protocols on Mar March 2004.
11, 2003
14. Kalamansig 09/25/03 300,000 Waste Formed (Jan MENRO created

assessment/ 2004) on Dec 2003.
characterization MENR Officer
designated in
completed.
March 11, 2004.
Sub-Total - Central Mindanao 14 LGUs 2,328,400
Notes: The MOA with the Nueva Vizcaya Prov'l Gov't does not have a budget. The LGU however gave assurance that financial support will be provided to EcoGov activities in the province (placed as P390,000 for both
ISWM and FFM).
* Target LGUs for SWM plan completion and legitimization.
Annex Table 3 - Page 1 of 1

IMPROVING LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE:
COMPLETION REPORT OF WESTERN MINDANAO
ECOGOV PROJECT TEAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS

III. Results and Impacts.............................................................................................................. 6
Annex 1. Western Mindanao Technical Assistance Team ...................................................... 18
Improving Local Environmental Governance i

ii Completion Report of Western Mindanao EcoGov Project Team
IMPROVING LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE:
COMPLETION REPORT OF WESTERN MINDANAO
ECOGOV PROJECT TEAM1
I. Regional Context
The Western Mindanao region, now referred to as Zamboanga Peninsula Region, is

composed of three provinces, namely: Zamboanga del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur and
Zamboanga Sibugay. It is host to five cities (Dapitan, Dipolog, Isabela, Pagadian and
Zamboanga), 67 municipalities and 1,903 barangays. For practical purposes, some parts
of Basilan2 (specifically the municipality of Lamitan), which now belong to the
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), were covered by the Western
Mindanao EcoGov operations.
Fisheries, aquaculture and plantation agriculture are among the key industries in the
region. According to the Department of Agriculture (DA), the region ranks second
nationwide in terms of capture fisheries production (commercial and municipal fisheries)
and third in culture fisheries production. Major exports of the region are seaweed/
carageenan, marine products (frozen prawns and other crustaceans, live crabs, bottled
and canned sardines) and rubber. In 2001, the seaweed industry of the region
accounted for more than 80 percent of the country’s production.
Opportunities abound in the

region’s fishing bays such as Illana
Bay and Sibugay Bay and coastal
LGUs. However, growth is constrained
by poor coastal resource
management; lack of transport and
post-harvest facilities such as solar
dryer for seaweeds, municipal fish
ports, wet markets and cold storage;
and peace and order problems.
Of the region’s total land area of

1,599,730 ha, 48 percent is alienable
and disposable, while 52 percent is
forest land. Significant forest cover
can be found in Zamboanga City,
specifically at the Pasonanca
Western Mindanao region Watershed; in Zamboanga del Norte;
Zamboanga Sibugay; and Basilan
Island.
1
Written by Caridad Nasol, Western Mindanao Team leader, with inputs from MF Portigo, DL Fabunan, CV
Olvida and the Assisting Professional.
2
Basilan is a few minutes boat ride away from Zamboanga City, where EcoGov has its Western
Mindanao office.
Improving Local Environmental Governance 1

Environmental governance issues
Major forestry issues in the region include overlapping claims, inappropriate upland
farming systems and illegal cutting, resulting in the reduction of forest cover and
degradation of the upland ecosystem.
Illana Bay and Sibugay Bay, two significant bodies of

EcoGov in Basilan
water in the region, provide livelihood to thousands of
Isabela City and Lamitan residents in the area. Both bays are threatened by over-
are hosts to the Basilan Natural fishing and illegal fishing practices, not to mention the havoc
Biotic Area. This area was set that resource users inflict on coastal habitats, such as
aside through a presidential mangroves.
proclamation to protect the
biodiversity of Basilan’s forests Governance issues in the region include, among others,
while enhancing its value as inadequate local capacities to protect and conserve natural
part of the island’s critical resources, conflicting government policies related to the
watershed.
environment, lack of resources to generate/access data for
The island province of
Basilan, known to be the lair of
better resource management planning, and non-functional
the Abu Sayyaf, has been a site mechanisms for participation in decision-making by the
of many skirmishes between the marginalized or disadvantaged sectors.
dreaded group and the
government troops. Sibugay is a newly established province. It separated from
Zamboanga del Sur precisely because it was the “forgotten”
part of the province. The image of Sibugay as a high security
New threats risk area was due to the burning of Ipil town and massacre of
civilians.
Although threats from the
Abu Sayyaf are no longer as The region has had its share of development assistance
grave as before, new conflicts which appears to be quite substantial, based on the list from
are emerging. In as far as the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA ) as of
Illana and Sibugay Bays are March 2004. A big chunk is in infrastructure development,
concerned, the conflict is more such as roads, bridges, water supply. But there are “soft”
between the commercial and
projects also, like the Local Government Support Program
municipal fishers. The peace
and order problem is more (LGSP) and the Transparent Accountable Governance (TAG)
associated with criminal Project of the Asia Foundation.
elements such as pirates and
extortionists. Previously, some parts of the region have received little or
no development assistance at all, primarily because of the
peace and order situation. Tabina, for instance, was a “hotbed of the left”. It was then
considered a high security risk area. Tabina now is one of the most active partners of the
EcoGov Project in the region.
Growth centers identified by the NEDA include the cities plus Ipil and a few others
such as Kabasalan, Margosatubig, and Dapitan, which are rapidly urbanizing areas.
2 Completion Report of Western Mindanao EcoGov Project Team

It was against this backdrop that the Western Mindanao EcoGov 1 Project Team
formally established its presence3 in the region by opening an office in Zamboanga City
in early 2003.
The Team provided technical assistance in coastal resource management (CRM),

forests and forest lands management (FFM) and integrated solid waste management
(ISWM) to 16 local government unit (LGU) partners, with whom EcoGov signed
memoranda of agreement (MOAs).
Among its targets are:
• CRM – 4 LGUs with legitimized CRM plans, 6 LGUs with legitimized marine
protected area (MPA) or marine sanctuary plans and 3 LGUs with municipal
fishery plans
• FFM – 2 LGUs with legitimized municipal FLUP, 2 LGUs with signed MOA for
FLUP implementation and 2 LGUs with signed co-management agreements with
DENR
• ISWM – 5 LGUs with legitimized ISWM plans (with one year work plan and
approved budget for initial implementation)
To achieve these and other regional targets, the Western Mindanao EcoGov 1
Project Team employed various strategies.
Regional Strategies
Demand driven selection of LGUs
The conduct of interactive assemblies (IAs) was undertaken by the Central Mindanao
Team early on in the Project. Invitation letters were sent to all LGUs in the region for the
IA, which was conducted in Zamboanga City. There was no pre-selection of LGUs done.
The IAs basically oriented the LGUs and potential partner organizations on the
EcoGov 1 Project. Being a demand-driven project, each LGU had to send a letter of
interest (LOI) to DENR/EcoGov. Most of the LOIs received were on CRM. This was
expected since majority of the LGUs in the region are located along the coasts.
Requests for technical assistance in the SWM sector came from capital towns and cities
as well as from other urbanizing areas. Those on FFM came from Basilan Island wherein
the need to protect watersheds has become an urgent concern due to problems of low
water supply at certain times of the year, particularly in Isabela City.
3
Prior to opening an office in Western Mindanao, EcoGov had already been conducting activities
in the region, such as interactive assemblies and consultations with prospective partners. These
activities were being run from the Central Mindanao EcoGov Project office, which was based in
Cotabato City.

MOAs were subsequently signed among the LGU, DENR and EcoGov 1 for
collaborative work on resource management planning and implementation. The MOAs
spelled out the roles and responsibilities as well as counterparts committed by the
signatories to pursue the project. In Zamboanga del Sur, a separate MOA was signed by
the DENR and EcoGov with the Provincial Government and the eight-member LGUs of
the Illana Bay Regional Alliance 9 (IBRA 9) for municipal water delineation and fishery
management and enforcement. The mayor of Tukuran, Zamboanga del Sur, the Chair of
the Council Alliance at that time was, pushed for the alliance-wide MOA with EcoGov.
After the Project received the LOIs, EcoGov asked some LGUs that requested
assistance for the three sectors to prioritize their needs; assistance was provided only to
address the No. 1 priority of the LGUs.
Organization of technical working groups (TWGs)
Consistent with the participatory approach adhered to by the Project, a TWG was
organized in each of the LGUs assisted. This served as the mechanism for participation
by various sectors and stakeholders at different levels in the social, economic and
political spectrum. Members include representatives from the government sector (LGU,
national government agencies, military, police) and civil society (people’s organizations
or POs, non-government organizations or NGOs, media, private business, socio-civic
organizations, religious groups, schools, youth, women, indigenous peoples or IPs)
including former rebels in some areas. Through this strategy, a strong sense of
ownership of the whole planning process and the plan itself was developed among the
members of the TWG. Based on experience, this ensures a greater probability of the
plan being implemented as it embodies a commonly held vision and provides the clear
road map for the attainment of that vision.
In Zamboanga del Sur, the TWGs of the IBRA 9 LGUs were assisted by the
Provincial TWG (PTWG). This group at the provincial level evolved in the course of the
conduct of EcoGov-related project activities and is now composed of representatives
from the various provincial offices of national government agencies as well as from
provincial LGU offices. The PTWG provides support to the IBRA 9 Project Management
Office (PMO).
Training through experiential learning
The training modules developed under the Project for CRM, ISWM and FFM are
designed to ensure that “classroom learning” is complemented by actual implementation
and exposure to similar situations (study tours) for better internalization of concepts and
principles and enhancement of knowledge and skills. This experiential learning process
injects dynamism in critical thinking regarding the range of options and possibilities in the
real world, in effect broadening the perspective of the project’s training participants.
The national and regional specialists coordinated and jointly conducted most of the
training modules together with local assisting professionals (APs). Modifications were
made by the regional specialists, effectively customizing the design to suit the particular
requirements of the LGUs.

Counterpart funding and resource sharing
The requirement for LGUs to provide counterpart, whether in cash or in kind,

enhances the partners’ sense of ownership as stakes are put into the Project. On the
other hand, minimal funds of partner organizations, if utilized individually and separately,
will not be able to go far in terms of providing assistance to LGUs. However, if pooled
together, the use of individual institutional resources can be maximized and more can be
accomplished. This holds true not only to financial resources but to human resources as
well, including other material resources such as equipment, vehicle and supplies. More
than these things, however, the cooperative and team spirit enhanced by the sharing of
resources increase the probability that Project initiatives will be sustained even after the
project ends.
Engaging local service providers (LSPs)
A major strategy employed in the region has been the engagement of the services of
LSPs, whose selection was done through a competitive bidding process. This strategy
provides the avenue for the enhancement of local expertise with the LSPs’ exposure to
and participation in the innovative processes and the resulting sharing of ideas with the
EcoGov Team. The strengthening of LSP’s capabilities redounds to the benefit of the
local communities and LGUs in the long-term as better quality services become more
accessible. In addition, engaging the services of LSPs has proven to be more cost-
efficient and effective in providing technical assistance to a greater number of LGUs in a
shorter period of time.
Two modes of engaging LSPs were experienced in Western Mindanao. One is the
institutional mode and the other is the individual mode. The Mindanao State University
Foundation for Science and Technology Development Incorporated (MSU-FSTDI) was
engaged to assist the LGUs of Tabina, Dinas and Tukuran in the preparation of their
respective CRM plans. On the other hand, the Zamboanga State College of Marine
Sciences and Technology Foundation Incorporated (ZSCMSTFI) was hired to provide
assistance to the LGU of Tungawan in the preparation of its CRM, MPA and fishery
management plans as well as the MPA plans of RT Lim, Naga and Payao LGUs.
Individuals were likewise engaged to provide very specific forms of assistance, such as
in finalizing plans, process documentation and conduct of barangay/ municipal
consultation meetings.
Table 1 presents the list of institutional LSPs engaged by EcoGov Western

Mindanao.
Table 1. List of Institutional LSPs Engaged in Western Mindanao, EcoGov 1

Sector LSP Deliverable LGU
MSU-Naawan Foundation for CRM Plans Tabina, Dinas,
Science and Technology, Inc. Tukuran
(MSU-FSTI)
CRM CRM Plan Tungawan
Zamboanga State College of
Marine Sciences and
MPA Plans Tungawan, RT Lim,
Technology, Inc. (ZSCMSTI)
Naga, Payao

Sector LSP Deliverable LGU
Solid Waste Management ISWM Study Tour Lamitan, Isabela City
Association of the Philippines
ISWM (SWAPP)
Institute for Small Farms and ISWM Study Tour Ipil, Buug, Pagadian
Industries (ISFI) City
GIS-generated ZDS, ZS, ZDN, ZC,
vegetative cover maps Isabela City, Lamitan
Geodata Systems Technologies,
FFM GIS-generated tenure All EcoGov-assisted
Inc. (GSTI)
maps, settlement LGUs
maps
Establishment of regional sub-field office
The EcoGov office in Zamboanga City was set up to improve efficiency in the
delivery of technical assistance to the region’s LGUs as the Project’s Cotabato City
office was too far. The Zamboanga City office responded to the needs of Western
Mindanao LGUs (particularly Region 9) as well as those in the island province of
Basilan, while the Cotabato City office attended to the LGUs in Central Mindanao,
including Region 12 and ARMM.
Following this strategy to bring the technical assistance program closer to the partner
LGUs, the Western Mindanao office set up a sub-office in Pagadian City, run by a CRM
specialist and supported by two APs. This proved to be a very strategic decision
because of the volume of work that needed to be done in the area, in particular, in the
coastal areas of Illana Bay. Counterpart personnel of partner organizations as well as
LGU staff frequented the sub-office for consultation and coordination. However, this set-
up also reduced the frequency of person-to-person interaction with those based in the
Zamboanga City office. Conducting general meetings at the regional office was costly
and time consuming due to the distance and travel time. To cope with the situation,
frequent communication through telephone and e-mail as well as periodic field visits by
the Team Leader were done.
Basic facilities, such as internet connection, facilitated communication between

national and regional specialists and APs as well as with the Zamboanga Regional Field
Office. With the subsequent budget cut, the capability of the project to do on-site
technical assistance was not significantly affected as this set-up proved to be cost-
efficient in terms of operations. It would have been best if an administrative assistant
formed part of the sub-team. To address this constraint, one of the APs had to devote
part of her time for admin/finance matters.
Result 1: The Team met all its physical targets (except that of the total 23
plans targeted, 21 have been legitimized while two are still going
through the legitimization process)
The major focus of technical assistance in the region was the CRM sector. Western
Mindanao’s deliverables in the CRM sector comprise about 52 percent of the total
number of project deliverables based on key performance indicators. The ISWM sector

provided assistance to most of the capital towns/cities of the region, while the FFM
sector provided technical assistance to only two LGUs in Basilan Island.
Three LGUs received more than one technical assistance package. Lamitan and
Isabela City received assistance in the preparation of both FLUPs and ISWM plans.
Pagadian City received assistance in ISWM planning and, as it is a part of IBRA 9, in the
preparation of the inter-LGU fishery management plan (ILMFP).
Overall, a total of 16 LGUs were assisted by the Project in Region 9. Table 2

summarizes the outputs and deliverables of Western Mindanao based on key
performance indicators. Of the total 23 plans targeted, 21 have been legitimized while
two are still going through the legitimization process.
Table 2. EcoGov 1 Western Mindanao Physical Targets and Accomplishments

Key Performance Indicators Target* Completed LGUs
A. CRM
1. Number of LGUs with consensus on 8 4 Tabina, Dimataling, Dinas, San
CTPs of their municipal waters thru Pablo
individual or joint ordinances
2. Number of LGUs with joint (inter-LGU) 8 8 Tabina, Dimataling, Dinas, San
fishery management and enforcement Pablo, Dumalinao, Pagadian
agreements City, Labangan, Tukuran
3. Number of LGUs with overall 5 4 Tabina, Dinas, Tukuran,
consensus on their respective CRM Tungawan
zones
4. Number of LGUs with legitimized CRM 5 4 Tabina, Dinas, Tukuran,
Plans Tungawan
5. Number of LGUs with legitimized MPA 8 6 Tabina, Tukuran, Tungawan,
Plans and MPA management Payao, Naga, RT Lim
implementation
6. Number of LGUs with municipal fishery 4 3 Tabina, Tukuran, Tungawan
Plans and management
implementation
B. FFM
1. Number of LGUs with completed and 2 2 Lamitan, Isabela City
approved FLUP thematic maps
2. Number of LGUs with consensus/ 2 2 Lamitan, Isabela City
agreements on priority sub-watersheds
and forest lands allocation
3. Number of LGUs with legitimized 2 2 Lamitan, Isabela City
municipal FLUP (with approved action
plan and budget for initial
implementation)
4. Number of signed DENR-LGU MOAs 2 2 Lamitan, Isabela City
for joint implementation of approved
FLUP
5. Number of signed co-management 2 1 Isabela City
agreements for LGU-managed forest (Zamboanga City in initial
lands (under JMC 2003-01) stages of project)
C. ISWM
1. Number of LGUs with completed 5 5 Isabela City, Lamitan, Ipil, Buug,
analysis of solid waste assessment Pagadian City
data

Key Performance Indicators Target* Completed LGUs
2. Number of LGUs with general 5 5 Isabela City, Lamitan, Ipil, Buug,
consensus on options for managing Pagadian City
solid wastes at the barangay and
municipal levels
3. Number of LGUs with legitimized 5 3 Isabela City, Lamitan, Buug, (Ipil
ISWM plans with one year work plans and Pagadian City still
(and approved budget for initial undergoing legitimization)
implementation)
4. Number of LGUs with ordinances and 5 4 Isabela City, Ipil, Buug,
actions to reduce, divert, or recycle Pagadian City
waste streams via SWM facilities,
agreements, or other local initiatives
5. Number of LGUs with complete follow- 2 1 Isabela City
up analysis of first-year improvement
in diversion, recycling, and reduction of
waste stream.
*Based on approved EcoGov 2004 Workplan.
CRM efforts on target. The number of LGUs that received CRM-related assistance
is 12, eight of which are located along Illana Bay, while the other four are located along
Sibuguey Bay. Based on the revised targets for 2003-2004, all outputs have been
delivered, as follows: 4 CRM plans, 8 MPA plans, 3 fishery management/enforcement
plans and 1 ILFM plan. In addition, four LGUs have defined their municipal water
boundaries and corresponding ordinances have been passed. Six inter-LGU agreements
on Coastal Terminal Points (CTPs) have been signed involving eight LGUs.
Corresponding ordinances have been passed on various CRM-related policies that were
based on the plans formulated. Aggregate area of the MPAs is 1,634 ha, while the total
length of coastline protected and managed is 179.7 km.
ISWM targets. In ISWM planning, five LGUs were targeted and assisted in the
drafting of their ISWM Plans. The Project has assisted most of the major urban centers
in the region, namely: Ipil, the capital town of the newly created province of Zamboanga
Sibugay; Isabela City, the most urbanized LGU in Basilan Island; Lamitan, the capital
town of the province of Basilan; and Pagadian City, the regional center. Buug, a third
class municipality has likewise been assisted for purposes of developing a working
model for third class municipalities. Out of the five targeted ISWM Plans, three have
been completed and legitimized. These are for Isabela City, Lamitan and Buug LGUs.
Ipil and Pagadian City Plan are still going through the legitimization process.
FFM targets. Lamitan and Isabela City LGUs were assisted in the preparation of
FLUPs. Sumisip and Tipo-tipo LGUs also sent LOIs for FLUP assistance. Unfortunately,
due to organizational and staffing constraints, these LGUs were unable to participate in
the training under the technical assistance package. Lamitan and Isabela City have
completed and legitimized their FLUPs. Aggregate area of forest lands covered by the
two plans is 15,520 ha. The area of remaining forest cover in Lamitan is 3,733 ha, while
that in Isabela is 9,188 ha.

Result 2: More LGU investments in environmental efforts
Increased budget allocation at the municipal/city level. In all three sectors, there
has been a marked increase in budget allocation by the participating LGUs from the time
of signing of the MOA. Budgets range from P50,000 to P1.1 million. Allocations for 2005
range from P400,000 to P2.5 million. In some cases, original budget allocation for a year
increased with supplemental funding. Some LGUs reallocated funds for this purpose.
The major source of counterpart funds is the 20 percent Local Development Fund.
Salaries and wages of new personnel are charged to the General Fund.
Most of the funds allocated for CRM-related activities were utilized for the
construction of guardhouse near the marine protected areas (MPAs)/marine sanctuaries,
purchase of patrol boats, maintenance and operation of patrol boats (oil/fuel, repair,
spare parts), honorarium for Bantay Dagat members, some supplies, marker buoys,
training, special events, and travel. For ISWM-related activities, a big part of the
counterpart funds for the first year was utilized for transportation expenses for the study
tour. Currently, funds are used for IEC campaigns and for the purchase of the initial
batch of garbage receptacles and for pilot Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs). For
FLUP-related activities, counterpart funds were spent for training, study tours, IEC and
barangay consultation meetings.
Barangays provide counterparts, too. Barangay counterparts range from P5,000

to P20,000, the major source of which is their share in the Internal revenue Allotment
(IRA). Some municipal LGUs provided supplemental funding to their barangays, as in
the case of Buug, for ISWM-related activities. In some cases, the concerned
Congressman provide supplemental or counterpart funding.
Result 3: Improved governance practices by partners
Organizing groups to establish accountabilities. Different LGUs have set up

different institutional arrangements for CRM. Some LGUs opted to organize a
Community-Based CRM Council (CBRMC) as in the case of Tabina, Tukuran and
Tungawan. Some created a CRM office (CRMO) as its implementing arm, while others
assigned the responsibility of taking the lead in the implementation of the plan to the
Municipal Environmental and Natural Resources Office (MENRO) or the Municipal
Agricultural Office (MAO).
In the case of Tungawan, the Integrated Coastal Resource Management Section

(ICMS) of the MENRO oversees the management and monitoring of the Bangaan
Marine Sanctuary. It employs five full-time Civilian Auxiliary Army members to guard the
MPA 24 hours a day.
Co-managing resources with DENR. A co-management agreement has been

signed between DENR and Isabela City covering the former reforestation project of the
DENR over a 343-ha area straddling Barangays Kapatagan Grande, Kapayawan and
Maligue. The LGU intends to protect and manage the area as a community watershed
and local park to enhance the area’s environmental functions, while increasing its
capacity to support sustainable livelihood.

Implementing activities to stress transparency. Initial implementation activities in
Lamitan include IEC on community-based forest management (CBFM), orientation on
forestry laws, rules and regulations to deputized forest guards and CAFGUs; display of
billboard and posters; capability-building on nursery establishment/rubber production;
and, establishment of municipal nursery.
Result 4: Improved environmental/resource management
Apprehending perpetrators of illegal activities. Several apprehensions have been

made by the different LGUs, with total fines imposed amounting to about P146,000.
Most of the violations involved the use of destructive gears and encroachment in
municipal waters. Others involved the use of fine mesh nets and dynamites. Cases have
likewise been filed by the LGUs of Tabina and Tungawan against violators. The LGUs
have varying incentive schemes for their Bantay Dagat. These range from cash incentive
per apprehension, monthly honorarium to food supply and life insurance. The number of
Bantay Dagat or Fish Wardens that have been deputized varies from LGU to LGU; the
range is from 12 to 75 members for every LGU.
ISWM efforts. Three pilot barangay MRFs have been established in Isabela City,
while in Buug, 2 MRFs have been set up in the public market and one in the municipal
hall. Color-coded receptacles have likewise been placed in strategic areas within the
public market complex where the bus terminal is also located. The Buug LGU also
provided funding assistance to its urban barangays for IEC activities and for garbage
receptacles. An attempt was made in Pagadian City to implement a no-segregation-no-
collection system. However, this was not sustained as the SWM personnel trained to
implement this have been replaced by new personnel. Barangay SWM councils have
been organized in the urban barangays of all the LGUs.
All the LGUs are now actively identifying alternative dumpsites as some of the LGU’s
existing dumps are not qualified for conversion into controlled dumpsites. Requests have
been submitted to the Mines and Geo-sciences Bureau (MGB) for assistance in
evaluating the proposed disposal sites.
IEC activities influence behaviors of communities. All the LGUs have been
aggressively conducting IEC campaigns particularly in its urban barangays and among
institutions and organized groups. These are being done through barangay meetings
(with film showing), regular radio plugs and broadcasts, and printing and distribution of
IEC materials. In Buug, this has resulted in people being encouraged to segregate and
sell their recyclables to buy-back centers or to itinerant buyers. Recently, local junkshops
are experiencing brisk business trading waste materials.
LGU-CRM related initiatives. Among the activities implemented by the LGUs at

their own initiative are continuing IEC (installation of billboards, production and
distribution of leaflets, barangay meetings and radio plugs), livelihood projects,
patrolling, training and deputization of additional Bantay Dagat or Fish Wardens,
installation of marker buoys in their marine sanctuaries or MPAs, construction of
guardhouses or Bantay Dagat command posts, purchase of patrol boats, registration of
fisher folk, and registration of bancas and fishing gears. Group activities like mangrove
planting and coastal clean-up have likewise been undertaken to rehabilitate the
environment, while serving to enhance environmental consciousness among the

participating community members. Other initiatives include the establishment of CRM
learning centers in Tukuran and Tungawan.
Although the Dinas LGU was provided assistance in CRM planning only, it took the
initiative to establish its MPA as identified in the CRM plan. It has been undertaking
enforcement activities even in the absence of an MPA operational plan. The CRM plan
served as the LGU’s guide in the implementation activities. IEC activities were
conducted in the coastal barangays, particularly in Barangay Tarakan, which is adjacent
to its MPA.
IV. Lessons Learned
Participatory process facilitates internalization of ecogovernance concepts.
Members of the TWG expressed appreciation for the participatory processes

introduced under the project. When asked if they would recommend a shorter process or
perhaps collapsing some modules, the common response was “No.” The positive effects
of the participatory method became evident among the TWG members in terms of
mobilizing communities and other stakeholders. As EcoGov-related activities progressed
the TWG seldom experienced difficulty in mobilizing communities and other stakeholders
to participate in meetings and various project-related activities.
The participatory process facilitated the internalization of concepts and principles,

and the stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities. The sense of ownership of the analysis
of their situation as well as the solutions and plans to address their needs have been
deeply rooted in their consciousness. As expressed by the Mayor of Dinas, the process
observed has resulted in behavioral transformations among LGU personnel, local
communities and local stakeholders. The culture of
confrontation is gradually being replaced with that of Community transformation
dialogue and negotiation. Where before this was primarily
applied in politically-charged situations related to peace The participatory process
and security, this was now applied to conflict situations observed has resulted in behavioral
transformations among LGU
related to resource use and allocation. It is recognized
personnel, local communities and
however by the TWG that their advocacy has to be shared local stakeholders. The culture of
with members of other communities that have not confrontation is gradually being
benefited directly from the project. This is why IEC replaced with that of dialogue and
campaigns particularly on the plans formulated are being negotiation.
done to generate more support in implementation
activities.
TWGs play a key role in facilitating project implementation
The organization of a TWG in each of the LGUs facilitated the implementation of the
project. The number of members ranges from 20 to 35, and 20-40 percent of them were
women. The multi-sectoral and multi-level (municipal and barangay) composition of the
TWG projects an “inclusive” image thereby creating a sense of ownership among the
different sectors for the efforts, outputs and successes of the project.
The TWG has also turned into a pressure group in the local political environment.
This was manifested by the Lamitan TWG when it insisted that the mayor convene the

Municipal development Council (MDC) to discuss the draft FLUP and subsequently for
the SB to act on the MDC endorsement of the plan. The TWG members presented and
defended the Plan and saw it through its legitimization process.
The TWGs, however, have evolved into other

Expanding role of TWGs forms of organization after the plan has been
adopted by the LGU. In Tabina, the TWG was
The TWG also evolved into a pressure
group in the local political environment. This renamed Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and
was manifested by the Lamitan TWG when it its function is to provide advise to the CRM
insisted that the mayor convene the Municipal Council as well as provide support to the newly
Development Council (MDC) to discuss the draft created CRM Office. Some LGUs retained their
FLUP. respective TWGs. ISWM TWGs have been
retained by the municipal SWM body as a
support group to the regular offices that are going to implement the ISWM Plans
particularly in terms of advocacy and IEC campaigns. The FLUP TWG has likewise
retained its function as a support group to the regular LGU office implementing the
FLUP. With the excellent working relationships developed within the TWG, the DENR-
ARMM has in fact seconded one of its foresters to the LGU MENRO of Lamitan for the
purpose of implementing the FLUP.
The PTWG of Zamboanga del Sur has been an active partner of EcoGov in the
provision of technical assistance to municipal LGUs in the formulation of CRM, MPA and
fishery management/enforcement plans; training of municipal Bantay Dagat members;
and delineation of municipal water boundaries. Members of the PTWG have served as
resource persons and facilitators in the project-related training activities, seminars and
workshops. They have likewise provided on-site technical support to municipal CRM
TWGs.
Provincial TWG: The PTWG has likewise been instrumental in
An important EcoGov ally directing local and foreign development
assistance, e.g., community livelihood and
A most valuable contribution of IBRA 9’s
PTWG is the facilitation of inter-LGU training, to the coastal communities. Whenever
agreements on CTPs, and the determination requested by the municipal LGUs, the PTWG
and mapping of coordinates of CTPs and likewise provided assistance in the conduct of
municipal water boundaries. The alliance IEC in the coastal communities for the purpose of
through the PTWG has been an effective enhancing environmental awareness and more
avenue for settling differences through dialogue effective public participation in CRM. At the
and negotiations between LGUs. provincial level, this is further reinforced by the
The skills of the PTWG have been put to the PTWG through regular radio broadcasts on IBRA
test particularly in the series of dialogues 9’s activities, CRM-related polices as well as
regarding the CTP between Dinas and San
local.
Pablo. The perseverance and determination of
the PTWG members produced an agreement
and a positive atmosphere that enhanced inter- The series of Bantay Dagat training
LGU collaboration in protection work. conducted in the eight LGUs by the PTWG in
More recently, the Dimataling LGU partnership with Environmental Legal Assistance
requested for a reconsideration of its boundary Center (ELAC) and EcoGov 1 have produced
with Tabina in a meeting of IBRA 9, to which significant results in terms of apprehensions and
Tabina agreed. The PTWG then worked with the imposition of corresponding fines and penalties.
two LGUs in determining the new CTP and in Alliance support in enforcement activities gives
mapping the new boundary. the LGUs and local communities the confidence
to pursue the implementation of local ordinances.

Recently, the alliance organized its law enforcement task force for the purpose of
implementing its inter-LGU Fisheries and Coastal Law Enforcement Plan.
EcoGov processes also benefit LSPs
Engaging the services of LSPs proved to be a mutually enriching experience for

those involved in the Project. Based on feedback from the LSPs, the participatory
processes and TAP mechanisms introduced by EcoGov 1 were new to them. Previously,
they have been engaged as consultants, i.e., the supposed beneficiaries merely assisted
in gathering or providing information and the consultants do the analysis and writing of
the plan. As one consultant realized, their role is to share their knowledge with the
people and to guide them in analyzing information and preparing their plan. The
consultant found this to be more tedious and time-consuming but more fulfilling and
sustainable. On the other hand, a member of the TWG placed a premium on the value of
consultants citing a specific example in the case of the conduct of Participatory
Community Resource Appraisal (PCRA) wherein the TWG learned to identify various
species of flora and fauna, sampling techniques, as well as gained a better
understanding of the various ecosystems.
DENR’s lack of travel funds a major constraint in providing assistance to

LGUs
Designated EcoGov focal personnel at the PENRO and CENRO levels participated
actively in the conduct of project-related activities, acting as participant, facilitator, co-
facilitator, resource person or simply as a member of the TWG. Some were constrained
due to their respective offices’ lack of travel funds, such that it was not uncommon for
them to use their own funds just to be able to participate in EcoGov-related activities.
The budgetary constraint of the DENR has nowhere been more apparent than in the
ISWM sector. The regional technical personnel of the MGB have the expertise to
undertake assessments of potential sites for disposal facilities. However, it has an
annual budget that allows them to assess only two sites in one year. Considering the
demands for assistance from the LGUs of Region 9, there is the need to find ways and
means by which LGUs can be assisted in complying with conditions set in RA 9003.
Technical assistance package should “fit” LGU needs to sustain

enthusiasm in project implementation
Reflecting on the accomplishments and what worked, what did not work, in general,
it can be said that the Project was able to meet the technical assistance needs of the
LGUs. Assistance focused on helping LGUs formulate resource management plans
through a TAP-enhanced process as well as in the initial implementation activities.
These were made possible through the collaboration between national and regional
specialists, between EcoGov 1 specialists and LSPs, and between EcoGov 1 and local
partners through PTWGs. The sustained enthusiasm of the LGUs in implementing their
plans coupled with the active participation of key stakeholders indicates that the
technical assistance package of EcoGov 1 “fits” the needs of partner LGUs.
As expressed by the LGUs, the project assisted them in providing a firm, technical
basis for their actions in any one of the sectors. Activities in the past were identified
without such firm basis. The project has likewise provided the opportunity or avenue for

multi-sectoral and multi-level collaboration work, that many things can be done if
resources are shared rather than if used separately. The project helped develop healthy
working relationships among various sectors, such as between LGU and
communities/POs, between municipal-provincial LGUs, between civilian and military
institutions and personnel, between the executive and legislative branches of LGUs,
between neighboring LGUs, and even between local commercial and municipal fishers.
The Project has likewise been instrumental in bridging scientific and local knowledge
about local resources paving the way for a better understanding of local conditions and
more realistic strategic planning. The Project has contributed significantly to the bridging
of gaps and the development of trust where before there was mistrust. The recognition
of the techno-social dimension of the project environment provided the framework for
TAP processes to prosper in the course of implementation of project activities.
Political will: An indispensable ingredient in law enforcement
The challenge now to the LGUs is in sustaining the gains already achieved. Although
overall, there have been significant improvements in local environmental governance,
the need to further institute measures to ensure the sustainability of TAP processes
cannot be overemphasized. Sustainability of efforts, especially in law enforcement,
appears to hinge on the political will of LGU leaders to exercise good environmental
governance.
This was recently underscored in enforcement activities wherein a violator attempted

to bribe an enforcer, and a municipal mayor came under pressure from a provincial
politician, asking the mayor to exercise leniency to a local politician-violator from another
municipality. On the other hand, there is one LGU that imposed penalties as specified in
their local ordinance, regardless of political stature of the violator, in this case, no less
than a local Sangguniang Bayan member was penalized for encroaching in municipal
waters.
Among all the sectors, the most vulnerable to political intervention is the SWM
sector as majority of those involved are either casual or contractual LGU employees. In
one particular LGU, with the change in leadership, many SWM casual/contractual
personnel have been laid off and replaced with new personnel recommended mainly by
the new set of leaders. Payment of political debts is still very much a part of local politics.
In another instance, a key personnel involved in ISWM Planning was eased out and
“floated” primarily because he was identified with the former dispensation (although
there were some valid grounds in terms of lack of diligence in the performance of duties
and responsibilities.) The need to professionalize local government service is still a big
challenge in good governance TA initiatives.
Sharing of specialists between two EcoGov offices affect quality of outputs
With CRM being the major focus of Western Mindanao, it had the benefit of having
two CRM Regional Specialists. Coupled with the engagement of institutional LSPs, this
bode well for the delivery of technical services to more LGUs and the completion of the
deliverables. However, the office did not have its own forestry specialist (shared with
Central Mindanao) and ISWM specialist (supposedly shared with Central Mindanao but
was unable to help Western Mindanao due to the sheer volume of work in Central
Mindanao). The sharing of specialists would have worked if the APs had prior extensive
experience in working in their respective assigned sectors. Nonetheless, with the open

lines of communication with the regional and national specialists, the target deliverables
were still met.
Having an organization and management specialist would have been an advantage

as the institutional arrangements component of the plans have been found to be wanting
in more in-depth analysis of implications to the overall LGU governance.
Scheduling of activities should take into serious consideration possible

delays due to security problems
Other constraints in the delivery of TA external to the project were delays in project
implementation activities due to armed conflicts some of which were political; others
were due to “rido”, i.e., conflict between feuding Moslem families or clans. In these
instances, the project staff was advised to postpone activities as key people might not be
able to attend the activities as well as for security reasons. In these instances, the TA
team made the necessary adjustments in schedule.
Follow-on activities after closure of Phase I need to be identified and undertaken

in the context of long-term sustainability of project initiatives. This will involve an in-depth
analysis of the needs of LGUs in the implementation of their respective plans, its current
capabilities as well as of its communities and local stakeholders, and the current
capacity of the local LGU support system. Below are recommendations for moving
forward in the provision of technical assistance to LGUs.
1. Continue engaging the services of institutional LSPs (academe-based, non-

government organizations) while enhancing their institutional capacities to
provide services to LGUs, communities and other government agencies.
There is a need to inject dynamism in local institutions as catalysts of change,
progress and good governance. LSPs are usually assumed to be capable as
they are chosen through a competitive bidding process. It should be borne in
mind that the EcoGov Project is introducing better ways of doing things and
innovative processes which may not be familiar to the LSPs. It is
recommended that the project design and implement a capacity-building
program for LSPs.
2. A major stumbling block in the region’s LGUs’ initiatives to comply with RA
9003 is the MGB’s budgetary constraints to provide technical services
specifically in assessing proposed sites for SW disposal facilities. As
previously mentioned, it is only able to assess to two sites per year. It is
recommended that a MOA be brokered by EcoGov 1 between the Provincial
LGU and its municipal LGUs and component cities for a more purposive and
directed assessment of potential SWM disposal sites, in the context of
possible clustering among LGUs for the establishment and management of
common disposal facilities. This can be piloted in one province in the region,
possibly, Zamboanga del Sur.
3. The Project may explore possible partnerships with academic institutions in
monitoring environmental conditions using selected indicators and methods in
various ecosystems, e.g., Illana Bay. This could form part of the regular
extension work of the university, or the bay can be a regular study area of

senior or graduate students of the university. The other possibility is that
EcoGov can broker an agreement between the provincial government and
the academic institution for this particular purpose.
4. For all three sectors, implementation of LGU plans will require the services of
APs or LSPs that have competencies in training, community mobilization and
organizing, and IEC. However, rather than being actual organizers, they
would serve as trainers and mentors to
local community organizers (COs) of Need for livelihood development
LGUs and NGOs and to leaders of assistance
existing POs.
Considering the poverty condition of
5. Considering the poverty condition of families along the coastal areas as well as
families along the coastal areas as well in the uplands, livelihood development
as in the uplands, livelihood development assistance is a must in follow-on activities.
assistance is a must in follow-on
activities. This can be achieved in many
ways. One is through the grants program of EcoGov 2. Another way is to
assist the LGU in planning for livelihood support to ensure that funds
allocated for this purpose is optimized. Assistance can also be provided in
linking the communities with the private sector and potential funding
institutions.
6. There is a need to develop a provincial core group of trainers with particular
specializations to ensure sustainability and broader reach of the project.
Developing local competencies requires both experiential learning
opportunities as well as theoretical inputs through seminars and workshops.
Complementing this is the need to develop a core group of trainers from
among the barangay leaders (coastal, uplands and urban).
7. To date, there is already a very high demand for CRM planning, ISWM
planning, and FLUP. The Project cannot possibly respond to all of the LGUs’
requests. The prioritization criteria may include urgency of technical
assistance to arrest further degradation of the resource base, potential impact
to adjacent LGUs, and greater public benefit. Possible expansion sites
include the following: CRM – Sibuguey Bay, Dumaquillas Bay, and the
coastal areas of Isabela City, Lamitan, and Zamboanga City; ISWM – Dipolog
and Dapitan Cities; FFM – Zamboanga City, Salug Valley watershed in
Zamboanga del Sur, Tungawan in Zamboanga Sibugay, and the forestlands
of Zamboanga del Norte.
8. As what has been experienced, complementation with other development
projects proved to be in the best interest of the LGUs and communities.
Opportunities and impacts were maximized. The plans served as both
leverage for funding as well as guide for the LGUs in directing external
assistance to its communities. More deliberate efforts need to be made to link
up with other development projects and funding institutions to enable the
LGUs fully implement its Plans.
9. There is the need to establish a legal support system for the enforcement
teams to protect them from harassment. This can be achieved in several
ways. In coordination with the DOJ and the IBP, a series of seminars can be
conducted for fiscals/prosecutors and judges regarding environmental laws
and policies, and good governance. It has been the experience in the past
that trial lawyers had to “educate” the judge on new laws and policies. The
same seminars can be conducted for the military and police personnel as
members of the enforcement teams. Subsequent efforts may likewise be

devoted to establishing a network of lawyers
willing to provide support services to the Managing ecosystems
enforcement teams.
10. Considering that ecosystems go beyond Considering that ecosystems go
political-administrative boundaries, there is the beyond political-administrative
need to develop/strengthen ecosystem-based boundaries, there is a need to
alliances/networks/ coalitions for purposes of develop/strengthen ecosystem-
based alliances/networks/ coalitions
ensuring the long-term viability of natural
for purposes of ensuring the long-
ecosystems as part of life support systems. term viability of natural ecosystems
Though IBRA 9 has been in existence for more as part of life support systems.
than five years, it has to be assisted in
analyzing its current institutional arrangements, in defining its relationship
with the municipal LGUs and other sectors, in enhancing its capabilities in
unifying polices and coastal development plans, and in establishing working
protocols among the alliance members. In relation to this, there is the need to
help the alliance in further refining its proposed organizational structure and
internal systems and procedures.
11. It would be best if the Western Mindanao office will have its own complete set
of regional specialists, namely, two CRM, one FFM, and one
ISWM/Wastewater. APs will be site-based. In general, a ratio of 1 AP:4 LGUs
is viable, depending on the geographic location of the covered LGUs and the
sectors covered. The sub-office in Pagadian may be retained to service
Zamboanga del Sur and Zamboanga del Norte.

Annex 1. Western Mindanao Technical Assistance Team
Position/Designation Caridad N. Nasol

Coastal Resource Management Specialist
(Zamboanga del Sur) Maria Fe L. Portigo
Coastal Resource Management Specialist
(Zamboanga Sibugay) Dolores D. Fabunan
Upland Specialist Casimiro V. Olvida
Assisting Professional for FFM (Basilan Province) Manuel M. Reblando
Assisting Professional for ISWM (Basilan,Zamboanga
Sibugay, Zamboanga del Sur Kenneth M. David
Assisting Professional for CRM (Zamboanga del Sur) Lope Louie C. Dizon
Assisting Professional for CRM (Zamboanga del Sur) Vienny P. Senoc-Dizon
Regional Office Manager Ramon C. Blanco
Regional Accountant Dreama D. Tolosa
Driver/Messenger Oscar A. Du

permit systems
Western Mindanao
ARMM
Basilan 1. Lamitan 11/19/02 50,000 LGU was provided CRM orientation. TA on CRM planning was not pursued further due to budget constraint, time limitation and limited LGU absorptive capacity
Region 9
Zambo del Sur 2. Dimataling 12.50 The CTPs of 7 Inter-LGUs Training of Bantay
LGUs have been coastal law Dagat on law
established and enforcement enforcement by
mapped but only
plan approved ELAC.
Tabina,
3. Dinas*** 19.70 10/10/02 600,000 Dimataling, Dinas Completed (Aug Completed Legitimized in by the Illana Incentives Training of Bantay
and San Pablo 2003) (Sept 2003) Jan 4, 2004. Bay Regional system Dagat on law
have passed Alliance in established for enforcement by
individual October. Bantay Dagat ELAC. Regular
ordinances on
(I.e., fixed patrolling done by
their boundaries.
honoraria, sack Bantay Dagat and
Dumalinao,
Pagadian City of rice per apprehension of
and Labangan month, illegal fishers;
were unable to assorted guardhouse built
resolve their grocery food and manned.
differences on the
4. Labangan 6.40 10/10/02 190,000 Training of Bantay
seaward
projection of MW
Dagat on law
boundaries enforcement by
because of a ELAC.
5. Pagadian City 14.70 common interest
in an offshore
6. San Pablo 15.00 10/10/02 180,000 Training of Bantay
island. Tukuran
Dagat on law
was unable to
achieve enforcement by
formalagreement ELAC.
7. Tabina*** 31.00 10/10/02 180,000 on CTP with Completed (Mar Completed Legitimized in Plan legitimized Incentives Series of Training of Bantay
neighboring 2003) (May 2003) June 1, 2003. (Oct 2004) system dialogues/ Dagat on law
ARMM
established for consultations enforcement by
municipality.
Bantay Dagat with ELAC. Regular
(i.e., fixed commercial patrolling done by
honoraria, 50% fishers on Bantay Dagat;
share of fines CRM policies. guardhouse built
collected) and manned.

permit systems
8. Tukuran*** 9.00 10/10/02 210,000 Completed (Apr Completed Legitimized in Plan legitimized Incentive Training of Bantay
2003) (Aug 2003) Dec 1, 2003. (Oct 2004) system Dagat on law
established for enforcement by
Bantay Dagat ELAC. Regular
(i.e., fixed patrolling done by
honoraria, Bantay Dagat and
Philhealth apprehension of
insurance, 50% commercial fishing
share of fines vessels;
collected). guardhouse built
and manned.
9. Dumalinao 15.30 Training of Bantay
Dagat on law
enforcement by
ELAC.
Prov'l Gov't/IBRA 9 10/10/02 400,000
Zambo Sibugay10. Tungawan*** 56.10 11/06/02 160,000 Completed (Feb Completed Plan legitimized Plan legitimized Bantay Dagat
2004). (April 2004) (Oct 2004) (Oct 2004) Base in Bangaan
Island constructed.
Enforcement
activities ongoing.
Sub-Total - Western Mindanao 8 LGUs 1,970,000

Notes: a. Kms of coastline are only counted for LGUs which are to undertake any of the three: delineation of municipal waters and its enforcement, CRM planning and fisheries management.
b. The delineation of municipal waters of 8 LGUs along Illana Bay is proceeding on the basis of the MOA with the Prov'l Gov't and IBRA 9 (an inter-LGU alliance).
c. The Provincial Government of Zamboanga del Sur has committed P400,000 to support municipal water delineation and fisheries management activities in Illana Bay (Region 9) in 2002. Additional support
was provided in 2003. The Illana Bay Region 9 Alliance (IBRA 9) has also committed personnel services, and equipment and other support with an estimated total value of about P200,000.

Annex 2B. Status in Priority LGUs as of End of November 2004: Coastal Resource Management (Marine Sanctuaries)
Assessment of Legitimized MPA plan, Delineated/ marked Community IEC Law Enforcement (e.g.,
proposed MPA site with ordinance boundaries deputation, patrols,
MOA reporting system)
Target Marine LGU Commit-
Region/ Province Municipality/ City Signed
Sanctuaries ment (P)
(Date)
Western Mindanao
ARMM
Basilan 1. Lamitan 11/19/02 ** Orientation completed. TA to this LGU on MPA establishment has not been pursued due to budget constraint, time
limitation and limited LGU absorptive capacity.
Region 9
Basilan 2. Isabela City 11/19/02 267,428 TA to this LGU on MPA establishment has not been pursued due to budget constraint, time
limitation and limited LGU absorptive capacity.
3. Tabina 2 10/10/02 ** Assessment and bench- Management plans of MPA boundaries Community IEC Active enforcement
marking completed in 2 Tambunan MPA (98 ha) delineated and ongoing. through regular patrolling;
sites (June 2003); follow approved Aug 2, 2004; marked with bouys guardhouse built and
up assessment in July Concepcion Marine (Aug 2003). manned
2004 indicated corals to Sanctuary Plan (28 ha)
be in good condition. legitimized Sept 15, 2004.
4. Tukuran 2 10/10/02 ** Assessment and MiSSTa MPA plan (160 MPA boundaries Community IEC Active enforcement
benchmarking completed ha) legitimized Aug 2004. delineated and ongoing. through regular patrolling;
in 2 sites (May-June Alindahaw MPA Plan (70 marked with bouys guardhouse built and
2003); follow-up ha) legitimized Sept. 27, (Aug 2003). manned.
assessment in July 2004 2004.
indicated corals remain
in good condition.
Zambo Sibugay 5. R.T. Lim 1 11/06/02 150,000 Barangay validation of RTLim MPA Plan (50 ha) MPA boundaries Community IEC
PCRA results completed legitimized Sept. 2004 determined. ongoing.
(March 2004)
6. Tungawan 1 11/06/02 ** MPA Plan (880) MPA boundaries Community IEC Active enforcement
legitimized Oct 2004. delineated and ongoing. through regular patrolling;
marked with bouys guardhouse built and
(Sept 2004) manned.
7. Naga 1 11/06/02 80,000 Tandu Balasan MPA Plan MPA boundaries Community IEC
(124 ha) legitimized Sept. delineated and ongoing.
27, 2004 marked with bouys
8. Payao 1 12/02/02 102,742 PCRA completed (July Takot Patumbok MPA MPA boundaries Community IEC Active enforcement
2004) Plan (224 ha) legitimized delineated and ongoing. through regular patrolling;
Sept. 20, 2004. marked with bouys guardhouse built and
(Sept 2004) manned.
Sub-Total-Western Mindanao 8 8 LGUs 600,170
Notes: a. Sumisip and Tipo-tipo of Basilan have been excluded from the list.
b. Those with "**" have their counterpart funds included in the total LGU CRM counterpart indicated in Table A.1.

Annex 2C. Status in Priority LGUs as of End of November 2004: Forests and Forestland Management

(Ha) (P)
status
Western Mindanao
ARMM
Basilan 1. Lamitan* 4,235 11/19/02 50,000 Completed Completed. Legitimized Signed Aug Mayor IEC materials
June 9, 2004 26, 2004 designated a produced with
MENRO; funds
DENR-ARMM sourced out
assign full- by the TWG.
time technical
staff.
Region 9
Basilan 2. Isabela City* 11,300 11/19/02 230,180 Completed Completed Legitimized Signed Sept. MOA signed Search IEC materials
July 29, 2004. 24, 2004 April 24, 2004 Committee produced with
covering 343 formed for funds
hectares. LGU search for provided by
intends to CENRO; the city
develop this criteria for government.
as community seelction
watershed agreed upon.
and local
k
3. Zamboanga City** n.a. 02/26/04 1,000,000 An action plan
on co-manage-
ment prepara-
tory activities
prepared by
LGU and
DENR.
Sub-Total - Western Mindanao 15,535 3 LGUs 1,280,180
Notes: Sumisip and Tipo-tipo of Basilan have been excluded from the list.
* Target LGUs for FLUP completion and legitimization
Annex 2C, Page 1 of 1

Annex 2D. Activity Status in Priority LGUs as of End of November 2004: Integrated Solid Waste Management

Completed Consensus on Legitimized Functioning SWM Municipal/ City SWM SWM IEC NTPs for MRFs NTPs for Assessment of
solid waste SWM options ISWM plan ESWM Board Barangay ENR Office ordinances, issued by Disposal proposed
MOA Signed LGU Commit- assessment (including Committees creation actions on DENR Facility SLF(including
(Date) ment (P)
n)
Western Mindanao
ARMM
Basilan 1. Lamitan* 11/19/02 35,000 Completed (Jan Completed (Jan First draft of Reconstituted Brgy Staff from Initial IEC
2004) 2004) plan completed. Sept. 15, 2004 committees MPDO campaign
organized in 6 designated conducted.
urban MENRO
barangays
Region 9
Basilan 2. Isabela City* 11/19/02 201,040 Completed (Dec Completed (Jan Legitimized Formed (July BSWMCs Initial IEC Requested TA Requested MGB
2003); follow-up 2004) Sept. 9, 2004 2002); active. organized campaign from DOST for to assess
waste conducted. establishment of proposed
characteriza-tion composting controlled dump
(end-of-pipe) facility. Under site. Require-
held on Aug 27- DOST ments for NTP
Sept 3. evaluation. application
Establishment of being prepared.
MRFs in 4 brgys
ongoing.
Zamboanga del 3. Pagadian City* 07/23/03 538,830 Completed (Dec Completed (Jan Draft plan Reconstituted BSWMC Has existing Initial IEC MRFs in 5 brgys
Sur 2003) 2004) undergoing (Aug 2003); organized in 21 composting campaign plus purok drop-
refinement. active brgys facility conducted. off sheds for
recyclables and
compost bins for
biodegrada-bles
being set up.
Zamboanga 4. Ipil* 03/19/03 200,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Jan Under review Formed (Jan Initiated IEC
Sibugay 2003) 2004) by SB. 2003); active. programs on
waste
segregation and
reduction.
Launched
"Bangon Ipil"
radio program.
5. Buug* 03/18/03 150,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Jan Legitimized Oct Formed (Mar BSWMCs SWM Officer Initial IEC Three MRFs Environmental
2003) 2004) 2004 2003); active. organized hired campaign installed (2 units and geological
conducted. in mun market; 1 assessments
in mun hall). undertaken in
proposed
controlled dump
site.
Sub-Total - Luzon 5 LGUs 1,124,870
Notes: * Target LGUs for SWM plan completion and legitimization.
Annex 2D - Page 1 of 1
FACILITATING BREAKTHROUGHS IN
ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
COMPLETION REPORT OF THE ECOGOV CENTRAL
VISAYAS TEAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS

II. Regional Strategies, Targets and Results........................................................................... 3
Regional strategies............................................................................................................. 4
Targets and Results ......................................................................................................... 10
III. Lessons learned .................................................................................................................. 13
IV. Recommendations for Moving Forward............................................................................ 14
Improve practice of governance by LGUs, DENR and other partners ............................. 14
Improve client management ............................................................................................. 15
Sectoral Assistance Management.................................................................................... 15
Facilitating Breakthroughs in Environmental Governance: i

ii Completion Report of the EcoGov Central Visayas Team
FACILITATING BREAKTHROUGHS IN ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
1
COMPLETION REPORT OF THE ECOGOV CENTRAL VISAYAS TEAM
I. Regional Context
Central Visayas, the seventh region in the country, is made up of four major
archipelagic island-provinces and more than 90
islets. These islands, namely: Cebu, Bohol, Negros By the end of the 19th Century, the
Oriental and Siquijor, have a total of 12 cities and state of the region’s natural resources had
120 municipalities. already deteriorated to seemingly
irreversible levels. Historical chronicles
The total land area of Region 7 is 1,495,142 reveal that exploitative logging operations
began because of opportunities that came
ha, 60 percent of which is classified as A&D lands,
with the Spanish-Chinese Galleon trade.
and the rest, as timberlands. However, of the Subsequently, trees were cut to supply
599,053 ha of forest lands, only 19 percent have the post-Japanese/World War II
remaining forest cover. Half of this are natural reconstruction efforts. By the 20th Century,
forest while the other half consist of tree forest regeneration efforts proved almost
plantations. Negros Oriental and Cebu are part of futile because of the “kaingin” system
the biodiversity-rich Negros-Panay faunal region. employed by the occupants of forest
Its forests are habitats to rare flora and fauna lands.
found no where else in the world. It is identified as
one of the biodiversity hotspots in the world.
Figure 1. Location map of Central Visayas
1
Written by May Elizabeth Segura-Ybañez, Central Visayas Team Leader, with inputs from Rudy Aragon,
Rafael Bojos, Jr, Roger Vergara and other members of the Central Visayas Team and partners from DENR-
7, the Bohol Province’s Environmental Management Office (BEMO) and the Negros Oriental Province’s
Environmental and Natural Resources Division (see Annex 1)
Facilitating Breakthroughs in Environmental Governance: 1

The region has 2,030 km of coastline, representing 11 percent of the country’s total.
The area from the Visayan Sea, Tañon Strait, Northern Bohol up to the Camotes Sea
belong to the Philippine Inland Seas Sub-region. This is considered a priority area in the
Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Eco-region being home to diverse, endemic and rare species of
marine life as well as critical bird migration stopover.
Like its forests, the region’s coastal resources are in danger. Based on coastal
resource assessment undertaken in 21 sampling areas, it was found that only 5 percent
of its coral reefs remain in excellent condition. The degradation of coral reefs have been
caused by so much pressure from a growing population, 60 percent of which (5.7 million)
live along the coastal areas. Fisher folk resort to destructive means of fishing to feed the
population that is rapidly increasing due to natural growth and in-migration. People from
Mindanao and many parts of the Visayas come to Region 7 because of economic
opportunities and better education services that the region offers.
Despite its being an economic center, Region 7’s poverty incidence is higher than
the national figure (32 percent versus 28 percent), making some parts of the region
susceptible to the ideological overtures of the New People’s Army (NPA) who thrives on
the economic sufferings of the people to promote its cause. There is apparent
discontent, especially in rural areas, due to unequal access to resources and
opportunities. Key environmental management decisions are oftentimes based on the
whims of vested interest groups rather than on sound and thorough analysis of what will
be for the good of the majority of stakeholders and the sustainable use of the region’s
resources.
In the past two decades, Region 7 attracted

Good governance: Response to many international donor-assisted projects. Among
environmental issues these projects are: USAID’s Rainfed Resources
Development Project (RRDP), Governance and
Most of the previous projects in
the region offered technical solutions Local Democracy Project (GOLD), and Coastal
to environmental issues. The EcoGov Resources Management Project (CRMP). Other
Project offered partner local donor-assisted projects had lasting effects in the
government units (LGUs) another region as well, such as the World Bank (WB)-
approach: environmental governance assisted Central Visayas Regional Project (CVRP)
that stresses the principles of and the Community-Based Resource management
transparency, accountability and Project (CBRMP), the Cebu Upland Project (CUP) of
participatory decision making (TAP) in the German government, Japan International
decisions and actions relative to the Cooperation Agency (JICA)–assisted Strategic
management of the environment and
Environment and Enterprise Development (SEED)
natural resources.
and Cebu Masterplan, the Japan Bank for
International Cooperation (JBIC) Forestry Sector
Project (FSP), the European Union-supported Small Islands Agricultural Support Service
Program (SMISLE) and Philippine Rural Institutional Strengthening Program (PRISP),
and the Philippines-Canada Economic and Environment Management (PCEEM) Project
of the Canada International Development Agency (CIDA).
Thus, when the Philippine Environmental Governance (EcoGov) Project entered the
picture in 2002, it was guided by the varied experiences and valuable nuggets of lessons
from these projects on natural resource management, governance, and economic
development. Most of these projects offered technical solutions to respond to
2 Completion Report of the EcoGov Central Visayas Team

environmental issues. The EcoGov Project offered another approach: environmental
governance, which stress the principles of transparency, accountability and participatory
decision making (TAP) as necessary ingredients of decisions and actions relative to the
management of environment and natural resources.
II. Regional Strategies, Targets and Results
EcoGov Project was

launched in Region 7 in May
2002. It carried an investment
portfolio equivalent to 25
percent of the Projects’ total
level of effort for the next 2½
years, compared to 60 percent
for Mindanao and 15 percent
for Northern Luzon. Investment
for sectoral activities was
pegged at 35 percent for
coastal resource management
(CRM), 35 percent for forests
and forest lands management
(FFM) and 30 percent for
integrated solid waste
management (ISWM).
The Project has signed

agreements with the Bohol
Province and 29 municipalities
and cities: 11 in Bohol, 9 in
Cebu and 9 in Negros Oriental.
In terms of technical sectors, 8
pursued CRM, 11 FFM and 21
ISWM. The list of all the LGUs
assisted and the status of Figure 2. EcoGov partner LGUs in Central Visayas
activities in each, as of end of
November 2004, is in
Annex 2.
EcoGov technical assistance to these LGUs forwarded the premise that

environmental and resource management that applies the TAP principles will promote
positive environmental conditions resulting in improved economic, social and political
situation in the region. This emphasis on environmental governance found increasing
appeal among functionalities within DENR and LGU leaders in Central Visayas.

The 2½ years of EcoGov assistance resulted in More Ecogovernance Champions
more environmental governance allies and
champions both in the government and private The environmental governance
sector. initiatives undertaken by the LGUs, with
assistance from EcoGov and DENR, are
Regional strategies creating a ripple effect and attracting
more champions. In Danao City, for
With the general project strategies serving as instance, big business—such as
guide, the EcoGov Regional Teams developed their Jollibee, Cebu Mitsumi, Inc., Prince
Warehouse and Tse Guim Enterprises
own strategies, taking into consideration regional
—signed a MOA signifying their support
conditions, situations and nuances. The strategies for the city’s ISWM Program.
discussed below focus more on client management
and building relationships with partners rather than The private sector’s participation in
the technical approaches, which are presented in the the program is expected to reach
sectoral terminal reports. thousands of households, as Mitsumi
alone employs 20,000 employees, who
Select LGUs that really need and are committed to can apply at home the good ISWM
participate in the technical assistance grant by adopting practices they learned from their place
a modified self-selection process of work.
To determine which LGU to assist and assess where the most impact could be
created, the Team employed a three-level strategy:
9 First, “feel” the pulse. To “feel” the prospective partners’ pulse and get and idea
of the how much demand there is for environmental governance, four Interactive
Assemblies (IA) were conducted by the EcoGov Regional Team: one for the
DENR-EMB-MGB (regional), and three for the LGUs of the region. A framework
for collaboration was presented together with the elements of environmental
governance. The Project’s sectoral focus (CRM, FFM and ISWM) was discussed
in detail.
Letter of Interest Participatory Participatory

Processing: LCE Scoping/ LGU EcoGov Sign LGU- Implement
request and Quick Project DENR-TA LGU
LGUs roundtable with Appraisal by Formulation Memoranda EcoGov
Municipal Devt. EcoGov TA (preparation of of Project
Council + EFG activity Agreement
proposal)
EcoGov Focal EcoGov Implement EFG

DENR Group (EFG) Focal Group capability
Interactive Mobilization and Strategic enhancement Provide TA
assemblies Orientation Planning plan to LGU
and Team
Building
Scope of Preparation of Procurement

LSP Letter of Interest work – SOW for specific process to Provide TA
Processing deliverables LGU assistance engage to LGU
workshop services
Figure 3. Central Visayas’ framework for EcoGov technical assistance

Of the 77 LGUs who attended (20 from Bohol, 34 from Cebu, 19 from Negros
Oriental and 4 from Siquijor), 49 LGUs (representing 64 percent of the
participants and 39 percent of all LGUs in the region) eventually submitted letters
of interest. Of these LGUs, 90 percent wanted assistance in ISWM; 45 percent
were interested in both FFM and CRM; and 28 percent2 wanted a landscape
approach (integrated FFM-CRM-SWM).
9 Second, prioritize. The Team deemed it best to balance the demand-driven, LGU
self- selection process with a purpose-laden prioritization. A set of socio-
economic and physical criteria for prioritization was formulated with DENR’s
regional EcoGov Focal Group (EFG) and the provincial LGU’s environmental
offices. With the EFG and provincial LGUs, the Team also conducted quick LGU
appraisals on the political alignments and the dynamics between the local chief
executive (LCE) and Sangguniang Bayan (SB), the LGUs’ Internal Revenue
Allotment (IRA) level and allocation priorities, and its structure and resource
deployment.
9 Third, expand the decision-making circle in the LGUs through roundtable

discussions (RtDs). The RtDs included the municipal/city development councils,
the provincial/municipal/city legislative councils and DENR regional EFG. These
are the key groups that will have to participate actively in the project for it to be
successful. The RtDs ensured that there was informed and shared decision-
making pertaining to the pursuit of ecogovernance by the LGU. These validated
the felt needs of the LGU and DENR 7 and confirmed the commitment earlier
expressed by the LCEs.
Through this selection process, the list of LGUs was narrowed down. Subsequently,
the Team and the EFG conducted action planning workshops (APWs) with the prioritized
municipalities, this time involving key stakeholders and civil society groups in the LGUs.
The APWs allowed further reality checks on current LGU priorities and strength of LGU-
non-government sector cooperation. As a result of this culling process, only 2 out of 14
LGU requests for a landscape approach were pursued, 21 out of 44 LGUs in ISWM, 11
out of 22 LGUs in FFM and 8 out of 22 LGUs in CRM (see footnote 2).
Engage assisting professionals (APs) and local service providers (LSPs)

to facilitate delivery of assistance to partner LGUs
The modular delivery of technical inputs made it possible to hire LSPs to augment
the Team’s technical manpower resources and immediately respond to the needs of the
LGUs. At the early part of the Project, the Team held an IA for potential LSPs in
anticipation of the big demand from partner LGUs for technical assistance. The potential
service providers (NGOs, academe and individuals) were given prior orientation about
the scope of work of the Project, required competencies, performance standards and
work ethics particularly on the TAP-enhanced assistance, as well as on administrative
matters. In the latter part of 2003, individual LSPs were brought on board to accomplish
LGU-based deliverables specified in time-bound work orders.
In the case of CRM, two LSP-engagement strategies were tried out. The first
strategy was to engage academic institutions in the region. However, the academic
2
Percentages do not add up as many LGUs wanted assistance in more than one sector.

institutions became unavailable at the time needed to undertake CRM activities because
of competing activities. The second strategy was to partner with state colleges in the
provinces. However, they would have to be infused with substantial capability-building
resources to upgrade them to the level needed by the Project. The Region finally settled
with engaging individual LSPs from these institutions to assist specific LGUs. For ISWM
and FFM, the decision to hire individual LSPs was brought about by the lack of
institutions which could provide the expertise required for the different modules.
The LSPs presence in the LGUs were intermittent and activity oriented. The APs,
who were full-time staff of the Project were the ones who provided more regular Project
presence in the LGUs. An AP was assigned to service two or more LGUs. Other than
facilitating TA activities in LGUs, APs also served as liaison between the LGU and the
regional specialists and Regional Team Leader based in Cebu City. They provided the
link between the LGUs and the Regional Team, ensuring a smooth exchange of
information between the partners and immediate response to LGU concerns.
Encouraged resource-sharing with LGUs to underscore real partnership
Cost-sharing protocols were agreed upon with LGUs for the conduct of EcoGov
activities (e.g., training, workshops, study tours). These cost-sharing arrangements were
based on the LGUs’ capacity to pay. For example, actual disbursements of LGU funds to
cover travel and to sponsor 50 percent of the cost of meals during workshops were
arranged with cities and first class municipalities. For 3rd to 5th class municipalities, use
of their facilities (such as venue for training) was considered as counterpart contribution.
The resource sharing did not only result in complementation of resources. More
importantly, this heightened the realization among the stakeholders of the meaning of
authentic partnership and shaped local ownership of the processes and the resulting
decisions, actions and products.
Cluster LGUs for inter-LGU collaboration in planning and

sharing resources as well as for facilitated service delivery
Where appropriate, LGUs were clustered for LGU clustering

the efficient delivery of technical assistance. In
FFM, LGU clusters in Negros Oriental, southern Clustering LGUs is one strategy that is
Cebu and northern Bohol were based on worth pursuing. In the Central Visayas
geographic consideration, i.e., sharing common ISWM sector, for example, the Metro
watersheds. In CRM, the Project assisted LGUs Tagbilaran Cluster (composed of
municipalities with contiguous shore lands and Tagbilaran City and 7 municipal LGUs)
shared coastal waters (Balamban-Toledo, Danao- reached a consensus to have a
Camotes Islands). In ISWM, the Team, together common disposal facility. Albuquerque,
a 5th class municipality and a member of
with the Provincial Governments, grouped LGUs
the cluster, offered to host the facility.
with common interests such as the eight LGUs in
the Metro Tagbilaran area (which plan to use a An agreement between Tagbilaran and
common sanitary landfill) and the LGUs in Albuquerque to go into a joint venture to
southern and northern Negros Oriental (which plan establish a common sanitary landfill for
to establish a network of MRFs). This clustering the cluster was forged recently.
approach also encouraged the sharing of ideas
and experiences among LGUs. It paved the way for the proposed joint venture between
Tagbilaran City and Alburquerque for the establishment of a common sanitary landfill
and other inter-LGU agreements that will result in cost-efficiency and effectiveness.

Clustering also proved to be useful when the EcoGov experienced resource constraints
in 2004.
As a result of the clustering strategy, a number of potential regional showcases of

geographical impact, synergy and enhanced collaboration among LGUs adopting good
environmental governance policies and practices are emerging.
• Foster proactive relationships and team-building with DENR, DA/BFAR and

provincial LGUs in assisting municipal LGUs
As major sources of technical assistance to local governments, the Project made

sure that DENR-EMB-MGB and the provincial LGUs, i.e., Bohol Environmental
Management Office (BEMO) and the Negros Oriental Environment and Natural
Resources Division (ENRD) were significantly involved in EcoGov activities. Project
related problem-solving and strategic planning were held with them. Key staff were
tapped as co-facilitators and resource persons in various training and coaching
sessions. The Team provided them with training on facilitating skills, non-adversarial
negotiation and conflict management in addition to technical training on forest land use
planning, and coastal resources and solid waste management. They were also given
relevant reference materials, guidelines, manuals, and audio-visual materials. In the
case of DENR Region 7, the Project supported their FLUP activities so they can meet
their regional targets (part of the DENR 7’s Key Result Areas/Major Final Outputs).
The Team got DENR and the LGUs to be upfront and honest with each other about
their institutional constraints paving the way for synchronized event schedules,
complementation of resources in ways that built mutual trust, empathy and appreciation
for their respective institutions. The move from an adversarial relationship to that of a
proactive government team harmonized the delivery of assistance to the LGUs and is a
big step towards a sustainable partnership between DENR and LGUs in the region.
The efforts of the Project to strengthen its relationship with the DENR-EFG and the
provincial government proved to be very productive for the Project. It effectively
expanded the region’s “TA Team,” making way for the replication of EcoGov processes
in non-EcoGov LGUs. Moreover, the Provincial Governments provided the needed
balance of gender to what was otherwise a predominantly all-male TA Team.
Generate a cadre of champions in government
The region employed a three-pronged strategy to build a cadre of champions who

could promote as well as deliver environmental management and governance services
to municipal LGUs and communities.
⇒ Formal training in both process-oriented interventions such as

environmental conflict management and facilitating skills enhancement as
well as the formal competency courses on governance-enhanced sectoral
management. The national Team led and conducted the sectoral training
programs with complementary support from the regional teams; on the other
hand, the regional teams led the process-training programs with minimum
Manila inputs.

⇒ Mentoring and coaching the government service providers on the different
training modules and planning processes offered by the Project. This came in
the form of advisories and on-site technical assistance during action-planning
activities. LGU staff, such as city/municipal/provincial ENROs/MPDCs (72%
of whom were males) as well as the municipal TWGs (70-80% of whom were
males) were also coached by the Team.
⇒ Lastly, their deliberate and gradual phase in as resource persons and

providers of technical assistance. These champions started as observers
during the initial orientation to each module. Then, they began providing
assistance by performing specific evolving tasks during the mobilization of
their teams. As their confidence and comfort levels increased, they became
facilitators and eventually, lead resource persons with self-determining
initiatives. As resident resource persons in these institutions, they used the
TA Team’s package of key messages, synthesized the relevant substance
and enriched these with local knowledge, examples and experiential learning.
Collaborate with developmental organizations and projects
Collaboration with existing projects and NGOs (i.e., CRMP, Plan International,
PCEEM Inc., CCEF Inc., CMF Inc., Peace Corps, GDS, among others) was initiated to
help in the successful project implementation. This resulted in complementary activities
andsharing of resources. Plan International, for instance, shouldered the cost of some
marine protected area (MPA) training in Camotes when the Project was encountering
resource constraints. The GDS Consultant in Bais City shared his expertise in ISWM for
free. The PCEEM Foundation in Compostela took on the training for barangay-level
ISWM to complement EcoGov’s planning assistance at the municipal level. There were
also co-sponsorships of competency courses between the Project and leading academic
institutions in the region, i.e., University of the Philippines-Cebu Campus and the
University of Southern Philippines.
Support regional initiatives that are compatible with project goals
Although not specifically identified in the Project workplan, the Project responded to
a request for assistance in formulating a framework in analyzing the anatomy of conflict
in foreshore areas. Utilizing this framework, DENR 7 was able to define specific issues
(e.g. policy, validity and restrictions of tenure and tenure instruments, process of
decision-making pertinent to assessment and appraisal, fees and penalties) affecting the
foreshore. With coaching and facilitation, DENR 7 succeeded in formulating an
advanced draft of the needed protocols to decisively act on the issues at hand. The
interim product is a set of unified protocols related to foreshore lands management that
is ready for pre-testing in the region. With this, DENR Region 7 is more confident that it
can respond to the LGU’s demand for resolute action on issues confronting the
development of their foreshore areas.
Expand participation to include all sectors of the society,

including women and marginalized and disadvantaged groups
Although the female members of the various technical working groups (TWG) and
Ecological SWM Boards were smaller in number than their male counterparts, at 25%,
they can be considered significant particularly as most female members were actively

involved in the training, workshops and group activities. Women participation was
highest in the ISWM TWG and Boards, which is important considering that a lot of waste
management efforts will need to be introduced in households, the largest generator of
waste.
Among the government service providers (DENR-EFG and Provincial Governments),

the male-female ratio was more balanced. It was noted however that the female
recipients of coaching by the Project became the more aggressive champions of
environmental governance.
The Team made sure that women and marginalized and disadvantaged groups in
the uplands, coastal and urban communities areas are drawn into the decision-making
process. They were included in various consultations and focus group discussions, and
encouraged to share their experiences and communicate their aspirations. These groups
validated and enriched the findings of resource and community assessments with their
local knowledge; participated in the analysis of information and helped craft strategic
goals, vision and mission. Even some rebels belonging to the Revolutionary Proletarian
Army (RPA) and Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA)
took interest in the EcoGov-facilitated activities apparently to ensure that stakeholders’
interests and their own were factored into the plans and programs. In Negros Oriental,
Aetas/Negritos as indigenous people were brought into the forest land use planning
activities.
Strategically use grants to deepen learnings and

support innovative approaches in environmental governance
The EcoGov Small Grants Program in the Visayas

Resolving conflicts
supported innovative and pioneering approaches and
interventions in environmental governance. One of this Of the 41 cases evaluated during
is on environmental conflict management, carried out the pilot phase of the Environment
by the Cebu Mediation Foundation (CMFI). CMFI Conflict Mediation System, 6 were
assisted DENR institutionalize an Environmental deemed not suitable for mediation, 10
Conflict Mediation System (ECMS) as an alternative were successfully mediated with one
approach for resolving environmental conflicts brought ongoing mediation and 24 returned for
to the jurisdiction of the DENR in Region 7. Through various reasons.
the grant, a mediation desk and working protocols
were established in DENR and the number of ECMS brings down the bulk of
environmental cases filed in court. It is
accredited mediators was increased.
now increasingly being accepted. It is
believed that “within a decade, going
The other grant provided a sustaining investment to court will become more and more
on coastal resource governance. It raised the level of the alternative way of resolving
MPA management in three LGUs in Cebu and allowed disputes, and less and less the norm”
the grantee, the Coastal Conservation and Education (CMFI)
Foundation (CCEF), to conduct further research and
IEC in these areas. There are lessons in this particular project that can be applied to the
MPA projects of EcoGov.

Targets and Results
Result 1: EcoGov technical assistance in Central Visayas covered 29,790

hectares of forest cover and 275.8 km of coastlines, established 6
MPAs and led to the legitimization of 6 ISWM plans. These
achievements contributed substantially to the Project’s life-of-
project targets.
The Team, which covered a total of 29 municipal and city LGUs out of the 79
targeted by the Project, was able to accomplish its major targets3 and even exceeded
those set for MPAs and legitimized FLUPs. See Table 1 for the summary of targets and
accomplishments and Annex 3 for the status of each sector based on agreed progress
milestones.
In CRM, Central Visayas contributed 39 percent of the project targets on km of

coastlines under improved management and 35 percent of the total MPAs established
with project assistance. The area coverage of the MPAs (236 ha) is almost equal to the
overall project target.
In FFM, the Team accomplished all its target deliverables. Because of the severe
degradation of its upland areas, the region’s contribution to the forest cover target of the
Project is only 11%. The Team saw an unprecedented commitment by both the LGUs
and DENR to the co-management scheme under DENR-DILG Joint Memo Circular
2003-01. Eleven co-management agreements were signed even as no targets were set
for the region.
Out of the 21 ISWM LGUs assisted in Central Visayas, 7 were able to complete
plans but only 6 plans have been legitimized to date. These 6 legitimized plans
compose 24% of the Project’s target. The remaining 15 are at various stages of
planning.
Table 1. EcoGov Visayas Regional Targets and Accomplishments as of November 2004
EcoGov EcoGov EcoGov Percent

Program Project Visayas Accomplish- % Contribution of
Performance Accomplishment as of 30
Targets Targets Targets ment as of 30 Visayas to Project
Indicator November 2004
under the (2004 (2004 November Targets
MOU Workplan) Workplan) 2004
1. No. of target 79 • 29 LGUs with MOAs forged; 38%
LGUs with municipal/ P17,640,322 counterpart
MOAs city LGUs funds committed
2. CRM: Km of 1,000 710.6 296.7 • 143.0 km of coastline covered 93% 39%
coastline with legitimized CRM or
under fisheries management plans
improved • 132.8 km of coastline within
management delineated municipal waters
(with ordinance)
3
This refers to the life-of- project targets set in the 2004 workplan of EcoGov. Subsequently, in May 2004,
these targets were revised after an assessment of the effects of the local elections on LGU-based activities.
In this report, however, the reported accomplishments are compared against the 2004 WP targets.

EcoGov EcoGov EcoGov Percent
Program Project Visayas Accomplish- % Contribution of
Performance Accomplishment as of 30
Targets Targets Targets ment as of 30 Visayas to Project
Indicator November 2004
under the (2004 (2004 November Targets
MOU Workplan) Workplan) 2004
3. CRM: Marine 100 17 5 covering • 6 MPAs covering 235.7 ha 120% (no. of 35% (no. of
sanctuaries covering covering 62.5 MPAs) MPAs)
established 5,000 ha 250 ha hectares 377% (ha of 94% (ha of
MPAs) MPAs)
4. FFM: Ha of 360,000 276,400 • 29,790 ha forest cover 11%
forest cover
maintained 100,000
(original
target)
5. FFM: No. of 25 9 • 11(legitimized at the LGU 122%(LGU 44%
legitimized/ level) legitimized) (LGU
approved • 8 (LGU legitimized, DENR 88% (LGU legitimized)
FLUPs approved) legitimized, 32%
DENR (LGU legitimized,
approved) DENR approved)
6. ISWM: No. of 100 25 8 LGUs • 6 LGUs 75% 24%
LGUs with • 1 awaiting SB legitimization
approved
ISWM plans
Result 2: Increased resource mobilization for the environment sector
In the MOAs with the 30 partner LGUs in Central Visayas, a total of P17,640,322
was committed as counterpart funds for 2003-2004 to the DENR and the EcoGov
Project’s technical assistance (see Table 2). Of this, P7,279,660 was for ISWM;
P6,079,662 for FFM and P4,281,000 CRM. In addition, the LGUs mobilized their key
personnel to form sectoral TWGs while DENR mobilized the regional EFG to collaborate
with the Team in implementing the agreed-upon action plans. There are indications that
many LGUs spent more than their MOA commitment.
Table 2: MOA and Implementation Commitments of EcoGov-Assisted LGUs in Central

Visayas
EcoGov- Assisted Sector LGU Counterpart Allocation LGU Budget allocation for Plan
Local No. with MOA for EcoGov 1 Implementation*
Governmen of (Php Million) (Php Million)
t Units LGUs CRM FFM ISWM CRM FFM ISWM Total FLUP CRM ISWM
km ‘000 ha no. CO MOOE
Visayas 30 296.7 126.1 22 4.3 6.1 7.2 17.7 20 16.7 302 751
Bohol 12 98.9 7.4 11 3.1 1.5 3.9 8.5 0. 1.0 144 434
Cebu 9 197.8 18.3 3 1.2 1.4 1.6 4.2 20 2.6 55 77
Negros Or. 9 100.4 8 3.2 1.7 5.0 0 13.1 103 240
* Note that FLUP refers to 1st year plan implementation; CRM refers to 5-year budget for MPAs and/or 10-year budget for
CRM/Fisheries Plans while ISWM refers to capital outlay and operations/ maintenance cost for the 10-year ISWM Plan
implementation
To date, there are 23 LGUs which have begun implementing their legitimized plans.
These plans, which have indicative annual budgets for the whole plan period, require the

allocation of at least P1.26 billion in the next five to ten years. For Year 1 of FLUP
implementation, the concerned LGUs have committed to allocate some P17,000,000 .
Several LGUs have identified and designed permanent organizations to be the

accountability centers for the three sectors. Multi-stakeholder or multi-agency bodies
(councils for MPAs, steering committees for co-managed forestlands, ESWM Boards)
have likewise been set up and mobilized in many LGUs.
The private sector is an important potential source of resources and investments but
this have yet to be tapped. The significant initiative in this area has been the move of
Danao City to bring in four business establishments to support its integrated solid waste
management program. Put box in page 4 here.
Result 3: Improved governance practices by partners
Improved decision making in LGUs. Local chief executives, no matter how busy
they are, now check on the recommendations in the plans before making any decisions.
The same is true with SB members who provide the necessary legislative support to
environmental governance-related activities. This is because they know that these
recommendations were based on an analysis of available information (such as results of
waste assessments, participatory coastal resource assessment, etc.) and that they have
been validated by the local communities – their constituents.
Improved governance practices within DENR. DENR field offices have been the
subject of evaluation, mentoring and target setting activities. After the Central DENR-
Project Management Office organized a Visayas-wide EcoGovernance Conference, the
regional DENR sought to institutionalize TAP measures to improve the governance
practices and provide for internal feedback in all their offices.
Result 4: Increased number of environmental governance champions
Participation in TAP enhanced processes. Enhanced competencies for

environmental governance coupled with a successful planning and promising actions on
the ground have produced champions in good governance. In the government-side
alone, there have been over 1,000 leaders and opinion-makers (about 75 percent are
males and 25 percent of whom are females) across the region who had direct, personal,
positive experience in environmental governance processes. Although the project
experienced a lull and delays because of the May 2004 elections, support and
appreciation for ecogovernance did not wane, even in areas where new mayors were
elected, simply because of the presence of these environmental governance champions.
Increased demand for good governance. More champions mean more people
who will demand for good governance. And this is what is happening in many areas of
the region. In Danao City (ISWM) and Dauin (FLUP) for instance, these stakeholders
bared to the media their increased expectation for better performance by their
government leaders. Either put a box here or expand the last para with Dauin
experience.

III. Lessons learned
Community involvement in planning is key to make people participate in

implementation.
Organized multi-stakeholder groups under the leadership of the LGU jointly identified
issues, analyzed options and moved from plans to actions. The organized assemblies
and facilitated events created opportunities for participation and collaboration by various
stakeholders. Because of these, there developed strong ownership of the information
generated and the resulting plans. By increasing participation of communities, the
Project raised the level of transparency and clarified accountability centers for
environmental management. amongst LGUs, the DENR and the communities. The
active participation of stakeholders in activities that are now being implemented by LGUs
is proof that participatory decision making is key to getting people’s support.
Tailor-fit transfer of technology process and methods to needs and

capacities of partners in order to enhance the learning process
At the client-level, technology transfer using the sequential modular training and the
more discrete coaching/mentoring approach, was effective because the Team was able
to tailor-fit the process to the nuances and needs of target groups. The design of its
activities, e.g., interactive assemblies, round-table discussions, action-planning
workshops, orientation sessions, formal training, and cross-visits were consequently
adjusted. A major realization in ISWM is that the use of templates can facilitate learning
but could be frustrating on the part of partners if it involves very technical information or
are presented in a manner that is too technical for local partners to immediately
comprehend.
Balance the learning styles and expertise within the TA Team
Sectoral expertise certainly increases the quality of the outputs (i.e., LGU plans), but
to properly convey the environmental message, there is need to have a good mix of
technical and process-oriented members in the TA team. The different orientation and
skills of the members can be balanced and harmonized through regular team meetings
and periodic competency-enhancement activities (e.g., mentoring). The members will
have to be upfront with their concerns and leader must be decisive in resolving
inconsistencies in the content and methods of technical assistance. Team interactions
(within the regional team and with national teams) will further improve the product lines
and the delivery of services to LGU partners
Implement “doable” actions while plans are still being completed to

maintain interest in and support for the activity
A long planning process is good as it allows those involved to thoroughly analyze

planning information, and look for and evaluate options that will work. However, people
need to see immediate results so as not to lose interest in LGU programs. While plans
are being finalized, the planning group should come up with doable activities such as
IEC, public hearings for ordinances and other initiatives to keep the momentum of
support for the activity.

Build partnerships with DENR and Provincial Government
The purposive nurturing of partner relationships with, and capacitating of DENR’s

EcoGov Focal Group including the PENRO/CENRO and the Provincial Governments,
facilitated the delivery of assistance to LGUs. it also facilitated the exchange of learning
and encouraged complementation and sharing of resources. The existence of a MOA
with Bohol facilitated the flow of financial resources to support the BEMO. However, the
absence of such a MOA with Negros Oriental did not deter the ENRD from participating
in and facilitating ecogovernance initiatives in the region. The latter can be drawn from
the proactive leadership in the office. The absence of such an office focusing on the
environment in the Province of Cebu made it difficult for provincial participation since the
Office of the Planning and Development Office was busy attending to many other
projects. In the case of DENR, efforts to draw in the EcoGov Focal group bore fruit as
the members became active partners in providing services to the LGUs.
Use grants strategically to support learning and innovation.
The EcoGov experience with grants has shown that tapping existing institutions in
the region indeed helps expand the project’s reach and scope of work. Furthermore, it is
unrealistic to expect people organizations (POs) or federations to generate quality
project proposals without proper guidance. Unless these POs are provided assistance in
proposal preparation, they will always be at a disadvantage in competitive grant
programs.
The same learning from the grants applies to the co-sponsorship of the competency
courses by local universities and colleges. UP and USP, which were EcoGov partners in
holding these courses are now planning to offer these courses in the future as part of
their regular programs.
IV. Recommendations for Moving Forward
Improve practice of governance by LGUs, DENR and other partners
• Introduce more incentives to enhance the self-governing power of local

communities whether POs, NGOs, private sector and coalitions. This may be
done through grants or outright support for laudable activities.
• Pursue “spark-plug” incentives that can support self-sustaining investments
by LGus. These may be both in the form of policy or resource support.
• Improve coaching approach used for DENR CENROs and PENROs, applying
a mix of formal competency courses, modular trainings, study tours and
mentoring/coaching so as to broaden their understanding of the concepts of
environmental governance.
• Capacitate the city/municipal LGU ENROs using a mix of formal competency
courses, modular trainings, study tours and mentoring/coaching, supporting
on-the-job CRM, FFM and ISWM activities
• Collaborate with and support the provincial local governments’ efforts to
provide oversight, monitoring and evaluation and coordination on the
implementation of several laws and regulations on environmental
governance. As LSPs, they have to strengthen their technical competencies

for environmental management and sharpen their delivery of support and
assistance to municipal clients, especially in advocacy and in linking with
regional offices of national agencies
Improve client management
• Complete the assistance committed in the MOA; continue support to LGUs

who were unable to finish their plans due to the resource constraints of
EcoGov.
• Build on current achievements of DENR, LGUs and grantees. Create more
opportunities for collective environmental action and partnerships,
encouraging self-help and grassroots initiatives. For instance, the current
arrangements on the DENR EFG can be improved and the partnerships
between DENR and the provincial governments can be formalized and
infused with funding assistance as counterparts; The current grantees and
other partner NGOs in the region can be given a new lease on resources.
This is recommended especially for those NGOs with good track record in
the EcoGov-served municipalities.
• Rethink the formula used to allocate resources across regions. In EcoGov 1,
the formula of 60:25:15 for Mindanao:Visayas:Luzon was observed. While the
basis for preferential treatment for Mindanao is understandable, the
absorptive capacity of its LGUs and institutions should be factored in.
• Continue engaging academe partners in designing and conducting
competency courses in FFM, CRM and ISWM for LGUs and other partners.
USP’s and UP’s co-sponsorship of the competency courses in Phase 1 can
be brought to a higher level by engaging them to provide training for client
LGUs. Alternatively, LGUs who wish to attend trainings conducted by these
institutions may be supported to meet the required registration fees.
• Celebrate success by having “IEC explosion” events, including regular
sharing of experiences and lessons learned in the region. These can be
venues for brokering partnerships as well as forging of new alliances. This
requires high profile activities in the communities covered and documented
by mass media. This is where other members of civil society can find roles to
fill.
• Provide grants for good LGU performance and focused assistance to deeply
committed and performing LGUs in EcoGov 1.
Sectoral Assistance Management
• Adjust the sectoral level of effort based needs and demand for assistance.
Resources in EcoGov 1 were limited to a formula of 35:35:30 for
FFM:CRM:ISWM. In the future, the allocation should be based on demand
and ease of the service delivery. The latter is influenced by the relative
“maturity” of the processes and technology. Hence, UEM being a new
endeavor is preferred to be piloted only in select urban center(s) as it will
probably incur higher costs over the others. Include in the criteria for UEM
LGU selection: presence and availability of functional champions in the LGU,
LCE-SB partnership, and LGU investment commitment. In the Region. two to
three LGUs should be sufficient at the start of UEM. This may be increased
when the assistance delivery mechanism matures. Suggested new areas for

Central Visayas are Lapu-lapu City (Export Processing zone, light industrial
park, beach resorts) and Tagbilaran City
• Pursue foreshore management initiatives in selected coastal municipalities.
The ‘anatomy of conflict’ in foreshore areas was well discussed in EcoGov 1,
and protocols have been drafted to harmonize actions and policies within
DENR 7. Piloting of the protocols is suggested in Region 7 where the
demand and initiative emanated. Pilot areas may be in the province of Cebu
as recommended by the League of Municipalities. EcoGov 2 can facilitate a
partnership between the Cebu League of Municipalities and DENR as well as
do pilot testing in Balamban (industrial development in coastal areas) and/or
Dalaguete (tourism development in foreshore lands)
• Use the Philippine Marine Sanctuary Strategy towards achieving marine
biodiversity conservation and sustained fisheries utilization.
• Focus on FFM co-management areas where the productive interaction of
members of the Steering Committee and the civil society stakeholders can
advance the FLUP efforts. LGUs who have not shown consistent commitment
in EcoGov 1 should be accorded lower priority.

Annex 1. Key EcoGov 1 Actors in Central Visayas
The Central Visayas Technical Assistance Team
“Teamwork is the ability to work together toward a common vision.

It is the fuel that allows common people to attain uncommon results.”
Regional Team Leader May Elizabeth S. Ybañez

Forest and Upland Management Specialist Rudy V. Aragon
Coastal Management Specialist Rafael M. Bojos Jr.
Solid Waste Management Specialist Roger F. Vergara
Associate on IEC for Advocacy and Coalition Building Elpe P. Canoog
Associate on Institutions Strengthening for Advocacy Charito H. Chiu
Assisting Professional for FFM (Negros Oriental) Joel P.Baterna
Assisting Professional for FFM (Cebu and Bohol) Justin L.Briones
Assisting Professional for ISWM (Bohol) Quirico “Czar” C. Migriño
Assisting Professional for ISWM (Negros Oriental) Emanuel P. Crucio
Assisting Professional for CRM (mainland Cebu and Bohol) Riva G. Valles
Assisting Professional for CRM (Camotes) Antonio D. Balang
Cebu Office Manager Rita N. Villarasa
Cebu Regional Accountant Angel L. Valles
Administrative Assistant Susan N. Lauranilla
Driver Elmer A. Codeniera
The National EcoGov Technical Assistance Team
The Law of Navigation:

Anyone can steer the ship, but it takes a Leader to Chart the Course
Ernesto S. Guiang Chief of Party
Rebecca R. Paz Deputy Chief of Party for Operations and M & E Specialist
Mary Christine P. Owen Project Administrator
Ben S. Malayang III Senior Policy Advisor
Victor S. Luis Integrated Solid Waste Management Specialist
Marie Antonette J. Menez Coastal Resource Management Specialist
Elmer S. Mercado IEC/Advocacy and Coalition Building Specialist
Gem B. Castillo Resource Valuation and MIS Specialist
Wilman C. Pollisco Policy Advocacy Specialist
Roberto V. Oliva Policy and Law Specialist
Ferdinand S. Esguerra Communications Specialist
Renato A. de Rueda Deputy Chief of Party for Operations (Dec 2001-Feb 2003)

The DENR7 EcoGovernance Focal Group (EFG)
DENR 7 Regional Executive Director Augustus L. Momongan (2002-2003)

DENR 7 Regional Executive Director Clarence Baguilat (2004)
DENR 7 Regional EcoGovernance Focal Group 2003-2004

Name Designation
1. Dr., Isabelo R. Montejo RTD for Forestry/Chairperson
2. Engr. Bienvenido L. Lipayon RD Environmental Management Bureau
3. Engr. Eligio G. Ariate (RIP) RD Mines and GeoSciences Bureau
4. Dr. Dioscoro M. Melana RTD for Research
5. Diane R. Anistar RTD for Lands
6. Felix C. Mendoza RTD for PAWMS
7. Pilar M. de Rueda Chief, Finance Division
8. Eduardo M. Inting Chief, FRDD
9. Demetrio U. Kho Chief, PAWD
10. Emma E. Melana Chief, CMMD
11. Victoria Ricaña OIC Chief, EMB Pollution Control Division
12. Wilfredo C. Lee Chief, Planning Management Division
13. Adela B. Villegas Information Officer III
14. Olivia M. Apaap Sr. Forest Management Specialist
15. Jose Layese, Jr. Forester
16. Juanito R. Pua Supervising Forest Management Specialist
17. Joselito Francis Alcaria Sr. Science Research Specialist
Provincial and involved Community Environment and Natural Resources Office

Antonio T. Cabrido PENRO, Negros Oriental
Arius C. Ilano PENRO, Bohol
Richard N. Abella PENRO, Cebu
Charlie E. Fabre (formerly Protacio Orog) CENRO Dumaguete
Juan L. Silva CENRO Ayungon
Jovencio Taer CENRO, Tagbilaran
Moreno Tagra CENRO, Talibon
Fedencio Carreon CENRO, Cebu
Loreto C. Rivac CENRO, Argao
Iluminado Lucas CENRO,Toledo
Tito Trapila CENRO, Carmen

The Provincial Government Partners
Bohol Environmental Management Office (BEMO)

Gov. Erico B. Aumentado Governor, RDC 7 Chairperson (2002-mid2004)
Atty. Juanito Cambangay PPDO
Ms. Nunila M. Pinat BEMO Chief (2002-2003)
Mr. Renato C. Villaber BEMO Chief (2004)
Ms. Ma. Socorro Trinidad
Ms. Jovencia Ganub
Negros Oriental Environment and Natural Resources Division

Gov. George Arnaiz Governor, RDC 7 Chairperson(mid2004- 2006)
Ms. Mercy S. Teves ENRD Chief
Ma. Victoria Ramirez
Ms. Lucena Amaro

Target inter-LGU MW biophysical with CRM plan municipal LGU fishery establishing establishing IEC ment (e.g.,
MOA LGU
Region/ Km of boundaries and socio-econ consensus) (including fishery mgt mgt plan and fisherfolk user fees and deputation,
Municipality/ City Signed Commit-
Province Coast- assessment coastal zones budget) plan agreements registry, incentives regular patrols,
(Date) ment (P)
line licensing and reporting system)
permit systems

Bohol 1. Talibon 98.90 12/04/02 1,300,000 SB Resolution TA on CRM planning and fishery management not pursued as Talibon has been identified as FISH Project site. Law enforcement
and orientation for
agreements Bantay Dagat,
with adjoining FARMCs and
LGUs deputized wardens
submitted to conducted Sept
NAMRIA. 2003.
Prov'l Gov't 12/03/02 1,800,000
Cebu 2. Poro* 65.20 04/11/03 250,000 CTP agreement Completed (Feb Completed Legitimized in Establishment of Law enforcement
with adjoining 2004) (Mar 2004) Aug 2, 2004 fisherfolk orientation for
LGUs; SB registry ongoing. Bantay Dagat,
Resolution FARMCs and
submitted to deputized wardens
NAMRIA. conducted July
2003.
3. San Francisco** 47.20 04/11/03 100,000 Consensus Establishment of Law enforcement
achieved on the fisherfolk orientation for
fisheries zones registry ongoing. Bantay Dagat,
(July FARMCs and
2004);Fisheries deputized wardens
mgt plan conducted July
legitimized 2003.
(Sept 27,2004)
4. Tudela* 15.40 04/11/03 50,000 SB Resolution Completed Completed Legitimized in Law enforcement
issued (April 2004) (June 2004) Aug 23, 2004 orientation for
reflecting Bantay Dagat,
agreement with FARMCs and
adjacent LGUs. deputized wardens
conducted July
2003.
5. Toledo City 27.00 04/30/03 280,000 Ordinance on TA on this activity will not be continued due to Law enforcement
MW boundaries organization and staffing issues which have not orientation for
passed (Feb been resolved. Bantay Dagat,
2004); FARMCs and
approved by deputized wardens
NAMRIA which conducted Aug
certified 1,765 2003.
6. Balamban 20.90 04/30/03 50,000 Agreement Coastal Completed Law enforcement
reached with resource (Aug 2004). 9 orientation for
Toledo; assessment zones mapped Bantay Dagat,
negotiations on through FGD with technical FARMCs and
Balamban- and community description. deputized wardens
Asturias CTP consultations conducted Aug
ongoing. completed (Aug 2003.
2004).

Target inter-LGU MW biophysical with CRM plan municipal LGU fishery establishing establishing IEC ment (e.g.,
MOA LGU
Region/ Km of boundaries and socio-econ consensus) (including fishery mgt mgt plan and fisherfolk user fees and deputation,
Municipality/ City Signed Commit-
Province Coast- assessment coastal zones budget) plan agreements registry, incentives regular patrols,
(Date) ment (P)
line licensing and reporting system)
permit systems
7. Danao City** 15.24 03/17/03 196,000 Agreement BFAR data Consensus Establishment of Law enforcement
reached with enhanced by achieved on the fisherfolk orientation for
Compostela; FGD and fisheries zones registry ongoing. Bantay Dagat,
ongoing community (July 2004); FARMCs and
negotiations consultations fisheries mgt deputized wardens
with Carmen. (June 2004) plan approved conducted Oct
(Nov 2004). 2003.
.
8. Compostela 6.86 03/17/03 255,000 Ordinance on TA not pursued Establishment of Law enforcement
MW boundaries further due to fisherfolk orientation for
passed (Nov resource registry ongoing. Bantay Dagat,
2003); constraints and FARMCs and
approved by new leadership. deputized wardens
NAMRIA which conducted Oct
certified 6,336 2003.
ha MW

(Date)

Bohol 1. Talibon 2 12/04/02 ** Initial assessment and MPA plan forSag (33.5 ha) MPA boundaries Consultations and Establishment of concrete
benchmarking in Aug approved by SB and delineated and public hearing with guardhouse, solar power;
2003; follow-up endorsed to PAMB marked with bouys. communities on MPA created Cataban
assessment in August through Res 2004-106 plans. Monitoring Team; law
2004. dated Sept 13, 2004; MPA enforcement support from
plan for Cataban (19.8 ha) fishers organizations and
approved by SB Coastal Law Enforcement
Team (CLET).
Cebu 2. Poro 1 04/11/03 ** Initial assessment and Management plan of MPA boundaries Consultations and Active Bantay Dagat
benchmarking in Jan Esperanza MPA (42 ha) delineated and public hearing with trained by ELAC with Plan
2004. approved on Sept. 13, marked with bouys. communities on MPA International
2004. plans.
3. San Francisco 1 04/11/03 ** Assessment completed Management plan of MPA boundaries Consultations and Active PO and fish
June 2004 Consuelo MPA (32 ha) delineated and public hearing with wardens in law
approved on Sept. 13, marked with bouys. communities on MPA enforcement; ELAC
2004. Ordinance also plans. trained
issued
4. Tudela 2 04/11/03 ** Assessment and MPA plans for MPA boundaries Consultations and Fish wardens and Bantay
benchmarking done by Villahermosa (69.3 ha) delineated and public hearing with Dagat active with regular
ReefCheck. and Puertobello (39.1 ha) marked with bouys. communities on MPA budget support from LGU
legitimized Sept 13, 2004. plans. (honoraria and logistics);
with support from Plan
International; ELAC
trained
Sub-Total - Visayas 6 4 LGUs 4 LGUs with 6 MPAs

Notes: b. Those with "**" have their counterpart funds included in the total LGU CRM counterpart indicated in Table A.1.


thematic maps consensus on FLUP DENR FLUP DENR Co-Mgt City ENR forest mgt/ IEC ment other tenure
Area of LGU and land allocation (including implement- Agreement Office protection instruments
MOA Signed
Region/ Province Municipality/ City Forestlands Commitment assessment of and sub- implement- ation MOA (MOA) creation group formed
(Date)
(Ha) (P) forests and watershed ation budget)
status

Bohol 1. San Miguel 585 12/04/02 205,200 Completed Completed Legitimized FLUP
June 15, 2004 submitted to
PAMB to
harmonize
area
2. Talibon** 6,815 12/04/02 666,000 Completed Legitimized Signed Mar 11, 2004 IEC ongoing
Feb 16, 2004 covering 580-ha of in co-
mangroves. Steering Com management
mobilized; PMU-in-Charge area.
designated.
Prov'l Gov't 12/03/02 600,000
Negros Oriental 3. Sta. Catalina 41,507 03/20/03 688,270 Completed (Dec Completed Legitimized Signed Sept Signed Sept MENRO
2003) Apr 6, 2004 8, 2004 8, 2004 designated
covering
15,000 ha in
22 brgys
4. Bayawan City*** 20,245 03/20/03 750,000 Completed (Oct Completed. Legitimized Signed June Signed June Ongoing IEC
2003) Dec 11, 2003 8, 2004 8, 2004 activities
covering
14,434 ha in
15 brgys
5. Dauin 5,279 03/20/03 160,000 Completed (Nov Completed Legitimized Agreement reached between
2003) May 24, 2004 LGU, DENR and PNOC on
steps to resolve areas under
PNOC reservation.
6. Bais City*** 13,255 03/20/03 800,000 Completed (Dec Completed Legitimized Signed Sept Signed Sept City ENRO
2003) Mar 11, 2004 9, 2004 9, 2004 created. In the
covering process of
5,665 ha in 27 hiring
brgys personnel
7. Tanjay 14,554 03/20/03 440,000 Completed (Nov Completed. Legitimized Signed Sept Signed Sept City ENRO
2003) Feb 24, 2004 9, 2004 9, 2004 created. In the
covering process of
8,555 ha in 15 hiring
brgys personnel
8. La Libertad*** 5,595 03/20/03 400,000 Completed (Nov Completed Legitimized Signed June Signed June Ongoing IEC
2003) Dec 12, 2003 9, 2004 9, 2004 activities
covering
5,042 ha in 10
brgys


thematic maps consensus on FLUP DENR FLUP DENR Co-Mgt City ENR forest mgt/ IEC ment other tenure
Area of LGU and land allocation (including implement- Agreement Office protection instruments
MOA Signed
Region/ Province Municipality/ City Forestlands Commitment assessment of and sub- implement- ation MOA (MOA) creation group formed
(Date)
(Ha) (P) forests and watershed ation budget)
status
Cebu 9. Alcoy 4,974 04/10/03 396,160 Completed (Dec Completed Legitimized Signed Aug Signed Aug
2003) Mar 29, 2004 16, 2004. 16, 2003 Forest wardens
covering of the CBFM PO
1,769 ha in 7 in Nug-as Forest
deputized
brgys
10.Dalaguete* 7,321 04/10/03 274,032 Completed (Nov Completed Legitimized Signed Aug Signed Aug MENRO LGU created LGU signed
2003) Feb 26, 2004 25, 2004. 25, 2003 designated Task Force MOA with Cebu
covering Barangay Biodiversity
3,952 ha in 20 Bantay Conservation
brgys Lasang. Foundation for
preparation of
action plan for 6
brgys identified
as wildlife
sanctuaries.
11.Toledo City 5,994 04/30/03 700,000 Completed (Nov Completed Lagitimized Signed Sept Signed Sept
2003) Sept 14, 2004 28, 2004 28, 2003
covering
5,000 ha in 21
brgys
Sub-Total - Visayas 126,124 12 LGUs 6,079,662 11 legitimized 8 joint MOA 8 co-management agreements


assessment (including Committees creation actions on DENR Facility SLF(including
(Date) ment (P)
n)

Bohol 1. Tagbilaran City* 04/04/03 546,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Plan presented Formed; active. ISWM provisions NTP issued last NTP for Will avail of Metro
2003) 2004) and approved of the City July 2004; controlled Tagbilaran SLF. Joint
by Board (Sept Environment materials for dumpsite venture with
2004) Code for MRF already received Nov. Alburquerque agreed
amendment. available with 2002; ongoing by LCEs; negitations
funding from operations to on terms ongoing.
Province. shift to controlled
dump.
2. Dauis 04/04/03 583,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Plan Formed; active. Resolution Will avail of Metro
2003) 2004) preparation passed Tagbilaran common
ongoing. requesting NTP SLF.
for MRF.
3. Alburquerque* 04/04/03 620,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Legitimized Formed; active. 11 Barangay Drafting of SWM Training of NTP for MRF Will host Metro
2003) 2004) (Aug 23, 2004) Committees ordinance Speakers'Burea issued; Tagbilaran SLF. MGB
formed ongoing. u conducted with construction of 7 issued letter of
BEMO; ongoing central MRF endorsement last
IEC in 3 urban completed April 16, 2004. LGU
barangays (without office allocated P2M for
yet). procurement of site.
Negotiations for joint
venture with
Tagbilaran City
ongoing. Common
SLF approved by
PDC on Sept 9,
2004
4. Corella 04/04/03 451,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Drafting of plan Formed; active. 2 Barangay IEC activities Resolution controlled dump Will avail of Metro
2003) 2004) ongoing. Committees focused on 6 out passed approved Tagbilaran common
formed of 8 brgys, with requesting NTP byMGB SLF.
BEMO for MRF; also for Nov19,2004
assistance Prov Gov't (thorough
assistance for hydrogeological
construction and
materials. georesistivity
study required
5. Maribojoc 04/04/03 227,680 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Drafting of plan Formed; active. 22 ISWM ISWM ordinance Speakers' Resolution Will avail of Metro
2003) 2004) ongoing. Committees for final reading Bureau formed passed Tagbilaran common
formed by SB and conducted requesting NTP SLF.
IEC in all 22 for MRF; also for
brgys Prov Gov't
assistance for
construction
materials.
6. Cortes 04/04/03 128,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Drafting of plan Formed; active. Training of NTP issued last Resolution Will avail of Metro
2003) 2004) ongoing. Speakers' July 22, 2004. passed Tagbilaran common
Bureau MRF site requesting NTP SLF.
conducted with inaugurated. issuance
BEMO Requested Prov
Gov't assistance
for MRF
construction.
Annex 2D Page 1 of 3

(Date) ment (P)
n)
7. Panglao 04/04/03 212,500 Completed (Dec Further SWM TA not pursued due Formed; active.
2003) to changes in direction of new set
of LGU officials.
8. Talibon 12/04/02 290,000 Completed (Jan Completed (Feb Drafting of plan Formed; active. Resolution Proposed SLF site
2004) 2004) ongoing. passed found to be suitable.
requesting NTP Awaiting official
issuance report of MGB.
9. Jagna* 09/30/02 136,000 Completed (Nov Completed (Dec Legitimized Formed; active. 33 BSWMC ISWM Training of NTP issued by MGB assessment
2003) 2003) (Aug 16, 2004) formed ordinance Speakers' DENR 7 and report dated Dec 3,
drafted Bureau EMB 7 last July 2002 indicated site
conducted; 2004. MRF meets minimum
ongoing IEC in 7 construction geological
brgys ongoing. requirements. Some
concerns raised.
Ongoing search for
alternative sites.
10. Duero 09/30/02 80,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Drafting of plan Formed; active.
2003) 2004) ongoing.
Prov't Gov't 12/03/02 600,000

Negros Oriental 11. Tanjay City* 03/20/03 502,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Legitimized Formed; active. Proposal MGBapproved site;
2003) 2004) (Oct 12,2004) submitted for Nov 16,2004.
SP approval synthetic or clay liner
as geomembrane
12. Pamplona 03/20/03 160,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Formed; active.
2003) 2004)
13. Bais City* 03/20/03 235,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb ISWM plan Formed; active. 35 ISWM Created thru Has existing SLF;
2003) 2004) endorsed by the committees previous established befored
CDC to the SP formed ordinance; before EcoGov TA
ready for
funding in 2005
14. Amlan 03/20/03 200,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Formed; active. 8 ISWM established Shifted to
2003) 2004) committes composting controlled dump
formed facility is subject before 2003
of study tours
15. San Jose 03/20/03 59,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Formed; active. Application for Shifted to
2003) 2004) NTP being controlled dump
prepared. before 2003
16. Dauin 03/20/03 153,000 Data analysis Completed (Feb Formed; active. MENRO Approved to host
completed (Dec 2004) designated MetroDumaguete
2003) cluster SLF.
Negotiations for FS
ongoing. Province to
fund study.
17. Sta. Catalina 03/20/03 130,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Plan Formed; active. MENRO Ongoing
2003) 2004) preparation designated processing of
ongoing. LBP loan for
controlled dump
establishment

(Date) ment (P)
n)
18. Bayawan City* 03/20/03 300,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Nov Legitimized Formed; active. City ENRO Draft of Application for
2003) 2003) (Aug 17, 2004) existing before ordinance ready NTP submitted to
EcoGov TA for first EMB 7. MRF
reading;submitte under
d by City ENRO construction.
to Committee on Composter is
Laws of SP under testing.
Cebu 19. Danao City* 03/17/03 350,000 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Legitimized Formed; active. 27 ISWM City ENRO MOA with five 2 sites approved by
2003) 2004) (Sept 21, 2004) Committees existing before bulk waste MGB Oct 4, 2004.
formed EcoGov TA generators Further studies
signed Sept 17, needed
2004 for source
reduction,
segregation and
recycling.
20. Compostela 03/17/03 616,480 Completed (Dec Completed (Feb Plan Formed; active. 8 ISWM IEC activities Ongoing Ongoing site
2003) 2004) preparation committes initiated with negotiation with investigation initiated
ongoing. formed assistance from land owner by MEO, assisted by
CIDA-funded PCEEM
PCEEM.
21. Toledo City 04/30/03 650,000 Ongoing data analysis. TA to complete data Formed; active. Area 1 approved
analysis may not be pursued due to organizational June 14,2004 though
and staffing issues that need to be resolved. demanding stringent
/costly engineering
measures
Sub-Total - Visayas 22 LGUs 7,229,660
Notes: a. The Provincial Government of Bohol has committed P1,183,892 to support ISWM activities of the listed Bohol LGUs.
Annex 3A.Targets versus Accomplishments in CRM-assisted LGUs in Visayas (as of November 2004)
Comple Biophysical
Regional ted Dec Target Accomplishment
Performance Indicators Target 2003 in 2004 LGUs (km coastline) Status as of October 2004
No. of LGUs with 5 1 4 213.4 out of 5 LGUs reached consensus on MWD and
consensus on CTPs of 296.7 km legitimized
their municipal waters coastline 1 ongoing inter-LGU negotiation
thru individual or joint 1 ongoing intra-LGU negotiation
ordinances Compostela 6.9 Ordinance 11 s.2003 dtd 11-28-2003 (6.86km)
Resolution 166s. 2003 dtd 8-25-2003
Toledo 27 Ordinance 2004-4 dtd 2-24-04(27 km)
Resolution 2003-57 dtd 5-23-2003
Tudela 15.4 Ordinance 020-S 2003 dtd 7-25-03 (15.4km)
Talibon 98.9 SB Resolution 2003-102 dtd 9-15-03 (98.9km)

NAMRIA response Oct21,2003: needed feedback of
B.Unido
Balamban 20.9 Ongoing Negotiations with Asturias LGU (20.9km)
Poro 65.2 SB Resolution 2002-203 dtd 10-14-2002 (65.2km) but

revisited and LCEs agreement reached during Project
life
San (47.2) LCEs of adjacent LGUs reached agreement ;
Francisco Resolution withheld by Vice Mayor
Danao City 15.2 Reached agreement with Compostela but negotiations
with Carmen still ongoing
No. of LGUs with over- 4 0 4 101.5 Km 3 LGUs reached municipal-wide consensus on
all consensus on their CRM zones
respective CRM zones Poro 65.2 Consensus reached 3-22 to 24-2004
Tudela 15.4 Consensus reached 6-28 to 29-2004
Balamban 20.9 Municipal-wide consensus reached on coastal zones
No. of LGUs with 2 0 2 0 80.6 km 2 LGUs with legitimized CRM plans

legitimized CRM plans
Poro 65.2 MDC Res 2 dtd 8/9/2004;
SB Res 2004-83 dtd 8-2-2004
Tudela 15.4 MDC Res 2-2004 dtd 8-17-2004
SB Res 46 dtd 8-23-2004
No. of LGUs with 3 0 3 2 62.4 km 2 LGU with legitimized fisheries plan
municipal fishery plans San 47.2 MDC Res 2 s. 2004 (dtd 9/22/04)
and mgt Francisco SB Res 063-2004 (dtd 9-27-04)
implementation SB Municipal Ordinance 2004-024 (dtd9-27-2004)
Danao 15.2 SB approved dtd 10-04-2004

Comp
leted Targe
Performance Project Dec t in LGUs-Marine Biophysical
Indicators Target 2003 2004 Protected Area Accomplishment Status as of October 2004
No. of LGUs with 4 0 4 235.7 km 4 LGUs with legitimized MPAs
legitimized MPA 6 MPAs with management plans
plans and MPA mgt Talibon – 19.8 SB Res 06 s.2004 dtd 8-9-04 declaring MPA
implementation Cataban Benchmark (2003) and situation analysis July 2004
(19.8ha) Community consultations on elements of MPA plan
BDC Res 7-2004 dtd 8-07-04;
SB Res awaiting brgy documentation
Talibon 33.5 Situation analysis completed July 2004
- Sag Community consultations on elements of MPA plan
BDC Res 21-2004dtd 8/21;SB 2004-106 dtd 9/13
Poro 42 MDC Res 2 dtd Aug 9,2004;
- Esperanza SB Res 2004-120 dtd Sept 13,2004
SB Ordinance 2004-3 dtd Sept 13,2004
San Francisco 32 MDC Res 1dtd Aug 12,2004(30 has)
– Consuelo SB Res057-2004 dtd Sept 13,2004
SB Ordinance 2004-022 dtd Sept 13,2004
Tudela – 39.1 SB Res 2S-2004 declaring MPA/marked
Puertobello boundaries(30hectares)
SB Res 47 series 2004 dtd 8-23-2004(35 ha)
SB Ordinance 1 series 2004 dtd 9-13-2004(39.1)
Tudela – 69.3 SB Res 2S-2004 declaring MPA/marked boundaries
Villahermosa (22hectares)
SB Res 47 series 2004 dtd 8-23-2004(69.3ha)
SB Ordinance 2 series 2004 dtd 9/13/2004
2
Annex 3B. Targets versus Accomplishments in FFM-assisted LGUs in Visayas (as of November 2004)
Performance Regional Accomplishment / Status Biophysical Milestones

Indicators Target
as of October 2004 as of October 2004
No. of LGUs 11 11 LGUs with FLUP thematic maps (100%) 126,073 ha of forest lands
with completed Bayawan Completed 20,245
and approved La Libertad Completed; 5,595
FLUP thematic
maps Sta Catalina Completed 41,507
Tanjay Completed 14,554
Bais Completed 13,295
Dauin Completed 5,279
Dalaguete Completed; 7,231
Alcoy Completed 4,973
Toledo Completed 5,994
Talibon Completed; 6,815
San Miguel Completed; 585
No.of LGUs 11 11 LGUs reached consensus (100%) 13 Priority watersheds
with consensus Bayawan 12-2-2003 Bayawan river (out of 6)
on priority sub- La Libertad 11-27-2003 Pacuan (out of 5)
watersheds
and forest Sta Catalina 1-19-2004 Tulong, Sicopong,Kawitan (3 of 9)
lands allocation Tanjay 12-13-2003 Tanjay river(out of 4)
Bais 12-10-2003 Tindog-bato panalaan (out of 4)
Dauin 3-11-2004 Bolokbolok (out of 4)
Dalaguete 1-20-2004 Dingayo (out of 9)
Alcoy 1-19-2004 Madanglog (out of 6)
Toledo 1-29-2004 Sapangdaku (out of 8)
Talibon 2-03-2004 Group of Islands (out of 5)
San Miguel 1-29-2004 Wahig (out of 2)
No. of LGUs 7 11 LGUs with legitimized FLUPs (157%) 29,790 hectares forest cover
with legitimized Bayawan Res 675 dtd. 12-11-03 2,937
municipal
La Libertad Res 171 dtd 12-12-03; 728
FLUP
Dalaguete Ord.2004-97 dtd 2-26-04 2,057
Tanjay Res 74 dtd 2-24-04; 3,680
Alcoy Ord. 2004-43 dtd. 3-29-04; 2,355
Toledo Res 2004-71 dtd 9-14-2004 1,050
Sta Catalina Res 2004-132 dtd. 4-6-04; 4,458
Bais Res. 85-04 dtd. 3-11-04 ; 6,376
Dauin Res.04-039 dtd. 5-24-04 ; 4,016
Talibon Res.2004-14 dtd. 2-16-04; 2,109
San Miguel Res.2004-35 dtd. 6-15-04; 24

Performance Project Regional Accomplishment / Status Biophysical Milestones
Indicators Target Target
as of October 2004 as of October 2004
No. of DENR- 7 7 8 LGU-DENR joint implementation MOA 113,445 ha 23,032 ha

LGU MOAs for (114%) forestland forestcover
joint Bayawan Signed 6- 08-2004
implementation La Libertad Signed 6- 09-2004
of approved
FLUP Dalaguete Signed 8-25-2004
Tanjay Signed 9-09-2004
Bais Signed 9-09-2004
Alcoy Signed 8-16-2004
Sta.Catalina Signed 9-08-2004
Toledo Signed 9-28-2004
No. of signed 2 2 9 co-management agreements signed (400%) 59,996.5 ha 137 Barangays
co- forestland covered
management Talibon Signed 3-11-2004 580 5 bgys
agreements for Bayawan Signed 6-08-2004 14,434 15 bgys
LGU-managed
forestlands La Libertad Signed6-09-2004 5,042 10 bgys
Dalaguete Signed 8-25-04 3,952 20 bgys
Alcoy Signed 8-16-2004 1,769 7 bgys
Sta.Catalina Signed 9-08-2004 15,000 10 bgys
Bais Signed 9-09-2004 5,665 22 bgys
Tanjay Signed 9-09-2004 8,554.5 27 bgys
Toledo City Signed 9-28-2004 5,000 21 bgys

Annex 3C. Targets versus Accomplishments in ISWM-assisted LGUs in Visayas
(as of November 2004)
Accomplish
Performance Indicators Project -ment (Nov LGUs Status as of November 2004
Target 2004)
No. of LGUs with 21 20 Year completed 20 LGUs characterized

completed analysis of
solid waste assessment Jagna 2003 completed
data Bayawan 2003 completed
Sta. Catalina 2004 completed
Dauin 2004 Completed
Bais 2004 Completed
Tanjay 2004 Completed
Pamplona 2004 Completed
Amlan 2004 Completed
San Jose 2004 Completed
Danao 2004 Completed
Compostela 2004 Completed
Maribojoc 2004 Completed
Cortes 2004 Completed
Corella 2004 completed
Tagbilaran 2004 completed
Dauis 2004 completed
Alburquerque 2004 completed
Duero 2004 completed
Talibon 2004 completed
Panglao 2004 Completed
Toledo waste characterization data only
No. of LGUs with 21 19 Year completed 19 LGUs reached consensus
general consensus on
options for managing Jagna 2003 completed
solid wastes at the Bayawan 2003 completed
barangay/ municipal
Sta. Catalina 2004 completed
Dauin 2004 completed
Bais 2004 completed
Tanjay 2004 completed
Pamplona 2004 completed
Amlan 2004 completed
San Jose 2004 completed
Danao 2004 completed
Compostela 2004 completed
Maribojoc 2004 completed
Cortes 2004 completed
Corella 2004 completed
Tagbilaran 2004 completed
Dauis 2004 completed

Accomplish
Target 2004)
Alburquerque 2004 completed

Duero 2004 Draft of report
Talibon 2004 completed
Panglao Assessment only; no analysis
Toledo Waste characterization only
No. of LGUs with 8 6 6 LGUs with legitimized 10-year ISWM plans
legitimized ISWM plans
with one year workplans
Jagna ESWM Board Res 1s2004 dtd Aug 2,2004
MDC 01-2004 dtd Aug 5
SB Res 52-08-2004 dtd Aug 16,2004
Alburquerque ESWM Board Res 1s2004 dtd Aug 3,2004
MDC 03-2004 dtd Aug 10
SB Res 80 s.2004 dtd Aug 23, 2004
Tagbilaran ESWM Board Res 1s.2004 approved Sept 24,
2004; SB approved October 2004
Bayawan ESWM Board Res. Dtd 7-21-2004
CDC 8 series 2004 dtd 7-27-2004
SP Res 472 series 2004 dtd 8-17-2004
Danao ESWM Board approved dtd 8-27-2004
SP Res dtd 9-21-2004
Tanjay ESWM Board approved dtd 09-10-2004
CDC2004-17 and SB 417 dtd 10-12-2004
No. of LGUs with
ordinances and actions 8 8 Alburquerque DENR/MGB LOE-SLF dtd 4-16-04
to reduce, divert, or MetroTagbilaran LGUs reached consensus on
recycle waste streams Alburquerque as common SLF host site
via facilities, PDC approved 09-09-04
agreements or other Bayawan NTP issued 7-19-2004 – bldg finished minus office
local initiatives DENR/EMB NTP MRF dtd 3-26-04
Jagna Draft ordinance
NTP-MRF dtd 6-18-04; construction started
Maribojoc Draft ordinance
Training of IEC Speakers’ Bureau (July)
Oath taking of trained IEC Speakers Bureau &
barangay ISWM committees (June)
Tagbilaran NTP-MRF dtd 7-8-04
Cortes NTP-MRF dtd 6-18-04
Danao MOA with (bulk waste generator), Mitsumi,
Jollibee-Danao, Gaisano-Danao, Prince
Warehouse-Danao and Tse Guim signed 9/17/04
Dauin Positive negotiations between Dauis and other
Metro-Dumaguete LGUs as site host for common
SLF achieved Sept 20-24 negotiations

Accomplish
Target 2004)
No. of LGUs with 4 2 Bayawan Second round waste characterization

complete follow-up (Aug 30- Sept 5)
analysis of first-year
improvement in Jagna Second round waste characterization
diversion, recycling and (Aug 26- Sept 1)
reduction of waste
stream

GOVERNING THE ENVIRONMENT IN NORTHERN LUZON
COMPLETION REPORT OF THE NORTHERN LUZON
ECOGOV PROJECT TEAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS

III. Results and Impacts.............................................................................................................. 6
Annex 1. Key Players and Partners in the Implementation of EcoGov Northern Luzon .. 16
Governing the Environment in Northern Luzon i

ii Completion Report of the Northern Luzon EcoGov Project Team
GOVERNING THE ENVIRONMENT IN NORTHERN LUZON1
COMPLETION REPORT OF THE NORTHERN LUZON
ECOGOV PROJECT TEAM
I. Regional Context
The Philippine Environmental Governance (EcoGov) Phase 1 Project2 in Northern

Luzon operated in the provinces of Quirino, Nueva Vizcaya and Aurora and the city of
Cauayan in Isabela. These sites include substantial areas alongside the middle section
of Sierra Madre Mountain Range, one of the major ecosystems in the country – and
known all over the world – that is rich in biodiversity.
The Province of Nueva Vizcaya is recognized as

Northern Luzon’s watershed haven, demonstrating Sierra Madre Mountain Range
successful community-based forest management
schemes that not only provide socio-economic and Having a forest cover of 400,000
ecological benefits to the local communities but to ha, Sierra Madre is a vital watershed for
the general population as well (i.e., protection and major hydro-electric infrastructure
sustainability of major hydro-electric dams that projects that support Cagayan Valley,
include the Magat Dam, Casecnan Dam, Adalam Central Luzon and even Metro Manila.
The mountain range protects the rest of
Irrigation Facility and the Ambuklao Dam). Nueva
Luzon from the devastating effects of
Vizcaya, is the first to sign an agreement with the tropical typhoons coming from the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Pacific.
(DENR) to co-manage the forests. This arrangement, The Sierra Madre Mountain Range
which has been working so far, has made the is recognized here and abroad as a
province a good model for co-management Biodiversity Corridor with a rich array of
arrangements with the DENR for other provinces to endemic flora and fauna. A significant
emulate. part of the landscape, particularly in
Aurora and Quirino, had been declared
The coast of Aurora, which forms part of the Protected Areas. Harmonizing Sierra
Madre’s needs as a protected area and
Pacific Ocean, is host to a rich marine biodiversity
the various interests of communities that
that includes, among others, dugong or sea cow and have set up settlements in the area
an array of pelagic and demersal fishes and sea continues to be a major challenge.
corals. The adjoining mountain and marine
resources support the livelihood of a number of
indigenous peoples (IPs), such as the Agta and Bugkalot. During the dry season, the IPs
depend on fishing to earn a living. During the rainy season (when fishing is dangerous
due to the rough seas), the IPs do farming and rely on the bounty of the uplands.
The EcoGov Northern Luzon sites also includes urban areas that are developing into
metro hubs and young cities; and with progress and in-migration of people comes the
worsening garbage situation that has to be managed well. Improper waste disposal is
adversely affecting nearby river and water systems.
1
Written by Dr. Roger Serrano, Northern Luzon Team Leader (with inputs from Bien Dolom, Eleanor
Solomon and Gil Villoria).
2
Governing the Environment in Northern Luzon 1

Over the past decades,
unsustainable practices and
trends impacted the local
natural resources of
Northern Luzon. These
include illegal fishing,
logging, mining and rapid
urbanization. In addition, the
presence of insurgents, like
the New People’s Army
(NPA), made peace and
order condition unstable,
limiting government efforts to
extend development
programs in areas where the
insurgents are active. To
address environmental
degradation, a number of
projects have been
implemented in the region.
These include the Natural
Resources Management Program (NRMP), Governance for Local Democracy (GOLD),
Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor (SMBC) Project, Debt for Nature Swap, Community
Forestry Project for Quirino (CFPQ), Conservation of Protected Area Project (CPAP),
Masterplan Project for Magat and Cagayan Watersheds, Northern Sierra Madre Natural
Resources Management Project, Cagayan Valley Program for Environment and
Development (CVPED), and the Caraballo and Southern Cordillela Agricultural
Development (CASCADE) Program. The first three projects (NRMP, GOLD and SMBC)
were financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
The EcoGov Project, another USAID project, came to Northern Luzon to help in the
efforts to preserve the rich biodiversity in the area’s upland and marine ecosystems,
assist in strengthening local government and community programs of protecting and
managing their natural resources and environment, and take the opportunity to
showcase this experience—that local governments and communities can make a
difference in governing the environment—to the rest of the country.
The EcoGov 1 technical assistance for Northern Luzon was implemented over a two-
year period from December 2002 to November 2004. It covered the three technical
areas of coastal resources management (CRM), forest and forestland management
(FFM) and integrated solid waste management (ISWM).
EcoGov 1’s Northern Luzon Team supported the overall Project aim which was to
help revitalize the Philippine economy by fostering improved management of natural
resources through good environmental governance that stresses transparency (in all
transactions and decisions), accountability (of national and local leaders) and
participatory decision making or TAP. This was envisioned to be achieved by
2 Completion Report of the Northern Luzon EcoGov Project Team

strengthening the ability of local government units (LGUs) to address critical threats to
the country’s coastal and forest resources (such as illegal cutting and conversion of
forest areas, over fishing, illegal fishing and destruction of coastal habitats) and
implement an effective ISWM program.
Northern Luzon was allocated a 15 percent share of EcoGov 1 resources while

Mindanao got 60 percent and Central Visayas, 25 percent. While project implementation
started in Northern Luzon a year after the Mindanao and Visayas offices were
established, the Northern Luzon Team, in collaboration with its various partners (see
Annex 1) was able catch up with the other regional teams in terms of work progress and
accomplishments.
Specifically, the directions and targets for EcoGov 1 Northern Luzon Team were:
1. Assist four Aurora LGUs in protecting, developing and managing their costal
resources based on TAP- enhanced and approved plans, agreements and local
ordinances for fisheries law enforcement and management of marine protected
areas (MPAs). These four LGUs have a total of 166.3 km of coastline.
2. Assist eight LGUs of Quirino, Nueva Vizcaya and Aurora in protecting existing
forests from illegal logging and further destruction and carry out actions that will
increase investment in plantation, high value crops, and agroforestry based on
TAP-enhanced and legitimized FLUPs, co-management agreements and
partnership with different stakeholders. The combined forest cover in these LGUs
is more than 200,000.
3. Assist 11 LGUs of Quirino, Nueva Vizcaya, Aurora and Isabela in recycling,
reducing and diverting their solid wastes in accordance with RA 9003 (Ecological
Solid Waste Management Act) based on TAP- enhanced, legitimized and
approved ISWM plans.
These were pursued employing various strategies.
Regional Strategies
Targeted selection of LGUs
Being the last regional office to open, the Northern Luzon Team learned much from
the experiences of EcoGov in Mindanao and Visayas. While following the principle of
self-selection in the identification of LGU partners, the Team intentionally narrowed down
the list of prospective local government partners to be invited to the Interactive
Assemblies (IA). For instance, in ISWM, the Team focused on the 1st to 3rd class
municipalities. In FFM, municipalities with limited forest lands and forest resources were
excluded. The pre-selection process reduced the number of prospective partners into a
more manageable level, enabling the Team to conduct province-wide IAs where all
sectors (CRM, FFM, ISWM) were discussed. This strategy saved the Project , as well as
the invited LGU, time, money and other resources. It also enabled the national
specialists to come to the region together, allowing them the opportunity to meet
regional, provincial and local partners all at the same time.
The final selection of the LGU partners was based on submitted letters of interest
(LOI) and the Project’s assessment of their capacity to meet the requirements of the

technical assistance. Other considerations were current involvement in other donor
projects (i.e., four LGUs who submitted LOIs were already receiving similar technical
assistance from the CASCADE Project), and opportunity for inter-LGU collaboration
(e.g., four contiguous coastal municipalities in Aurora). Ultimately, the Team agreed to
cover four LGUs in CRM, eight in FFM and 13 in SWM. (The latter was further reduced
Clustering LGUs to efficiently deliver technical assistance and

promote resource-sharing among LGUs
This strategy was adopted to promote sharing of resources, facilitate agreements on

boundary issues and provide a venue for concerted efforts towards resource protection
and management. Thus, the four adjacent municipalities of Bayombong, Solano,
Bagabag and Quezon in Nueva Vizcaya, were clustered for ISWM TA. These LGUs also
intend to share a common landfill facility to be put up in Nalubbunan, Quezon. Following
the bay-wide approach to CRM, the Team also clustered the adjacent municipalities of
Baler, San Luis, Dipaculao and Dinalungan for the technical assistance on municipal
water delineation and the formulation of an inter- LGU fisheries management plan.
Adjusting centrally prepared training modules to suit

LGU conditions; coaching of regional staff
For the three sectors (CRM, FFM and ISWM), the training modules that were
developed enabled members of the LGU technical working groups (TWG) to learn the
step-by-step procedures in resource assessments, mapping and data analysis,
community validation, options analysis, development and evaluation of plan
components, and the legitimization of resource management plans. It also included
some capability building modules for the implementation of the approved plans. While
there were already prepared modules for each sector, some modifications and
adjustments in the design were done by the Team to consider available resources and
level of skills and knowledge of the participants.
Initially, the conduct of the modules for the first batch of LGUs were done jointly by
the regional and national specialists, long with assisting professionals (APs) and
associates to facilitate familiarization of training methods among the local team
counterparts. Subsequently, the Regional Team handled the conduct of most of the
modules.
Engaging service providers to speed up the job
Considering the number of LGUs to be assisted and the time and staff limitation of
the Project, some service providers (individual and institutional) were engaged to provide
technical assistance, with guidance from the Team. This strategy helped the Team meet
the LGUs’ requirements on time. Individual service providers were hired for all the three
sectors, while institutional service providers were tapped for the FFM sector only. The
availability of capable NGOs to provide assistance in FFM made it possible to use
institutional LSPs for the sector. No institutions were available for the CRM and ISWM
sectors, thus, individual service providers, most of whom were from outside the region,
were hired.

Building on gains of earlier initiatives
EcoGov built on the gains earlier achieved by previous USAID projects in Nueva
Vizcaya. Through the Natural Resources Management Project (NRMP) and GOLD
projects, the Province of Nueva Vizcaya was able to forge an agreement with DENR to
co-manage a part of the Lower Magat Forest Reserve. Under the co-management
arrangement, tenure instruments were issued to local occupants. EcoGov provide
support to continue the co-management initiative. It focused on facilitating the generation
of investments into the area to enhance its productivity. Work along investment
promotion and development of protocols, incentives and contract templates for
prospective investors were supported. EcoGov also provided technical assistance and
advice to the DENR for the issuance by the DENR Secretary of a Memorandum Order
on the application by interested parties for tree farming areas under the Nueva Vizcaya
TREE for Legacy Program. This memorandum contained guidelines for the harvest,
transport, processing and marketing of timber from these areas.
Linking with local institutional partners
The key partners of EcoGov 1 in the region included national government agencies
like the DENR, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) and the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and the Provincial Governments of Nueva
Vizacaya, Quirino and Aurora. EcoGov 1 Northern Luzon Team touch based and worked
closely with these offices as their goals, targets, mandates and programs complement
the Project’s thrusts.
The Team coordinated with DENR Regions 2 and 3, through their designated Focal
Persons in their Provincial ENR Offices (PENROs). The Team also met regularly with
the Regional TWG and EcoGov Focal Group, chaired by the DENR Regional Executive
Director (RED), to keep the DENR regional people well informed about EcoGov
progress.
The Team coordinated with BFAR in the conduct of training and technical assistance
modules that are related to BFAR’s mandates and capability building priorities. BFAR
provided some trainers and resource persons in EcoGov-assisted activities in Aurora.
Also, BFAR deputized LGU personnel trained under EcoGov-assisted law enforcement
and other related training activities.
The partnership established with the Provincial Governments of Nueva Vizcaya,

Aurora and Quirino worked well as these provinces appointed EcoGov focal
organizations/persons to facilitate coordination. For Nueva Vizcaya, it was their
Provincial ENRO Office; for Quirino, it was their Provincial Planning and Development
Office; and for Aurora, it was their Provincial Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Office
(PFARO). Occasionally, representatives of these focal offices and EcoGov Northern
Luzon Team met with the Provincial Governors for consultation and update.
Collaborating closely with other related NRM projects in Northern Luzon
EcoGov 1 initiated collaboration with the CASCADE in the preparation of FLUPs and
SWM Plans for Nueva Vizcaya LGUs; the SMBC, in the information drive to promote
community- based forest management; the Enterprise Works Worldwide, in institutional

strengthening and capability building for CBFM people’s organization; and the Cagayan
and Magat Watershed Masterplan Project in the development of action plans and policy
initiatives for the upland areas and communities in Nueva Vizcaya, Isabela and Ifugao.
Such collaborative efforts led to the facilitation of the development of the resource
management plans, increase in awareness on EcoGov-related initiatives among different
stakeholders, and improved capacity of local NGOs and POs (as a result of training and
other activities conducted jointly with partner projects).
Implementing activities while plans are yet to be completed
Preparation of the plans in each of the LGUs took time, as the plans have to be
based on results of assessments, communities have to be consulted and the plans
themselves have to be validated. But this does not mean that emerging problems need
not be addressed or opportunities had to wait until the plans are completed and
legitimized. The Team encouraged and assisted LGUs in implementing “doables”, such
as setting up of an expanded network of junkshops in Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino for the
collection and sale of factory “returnables,” the forging of institutional arrangement for
the composting of LGUs’ biodegradable wastes at the Maddela Institute of Technology in
Quirino, and the drafting of needed support ordinances. All these and several other
implementation activities took place as LGUs were completing their respective plans.
.
Establishing satellite offices to allow for timely response to LGU demands
EcoGov Northern Luzon established its Regional Office in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya.
But to be more responsive in meeting the requirements of partner LGUs , the Team put
up satellite offices in Baler, Aurora and in Maddela, Quirino. While overall regional
direction and supervision were provided from Solano, liaison work, consultation and
coordination with partner LGUs and local institutional partners were being done at the
level of satellite offices. One of the benefits of this arrangement was that it resulted in a
quicker exchange of information between EcoGov, LGUs and other partners
Result 1: EcoGov efforts in Northern Luzon contributed significantly to the

overall biophysical outputs of the Project.
Overall, the Team was able to accomplish the following:
• 166.3 km of coastline (25 percent of overall EcoGov 1 accomplishments) placed

under management. This translates to about 56,000 hectares of coastal areas
managed. The region also contributed 2 to the 16 MPAs established with
EcoGov technical assistance.
• 157,349 ha of forests covered by legitimized FLUPs and placed under
management (56 percent of forest cover in the 20 legitimized FLUPs under
EcoGov 1)
• 11 LGUs assisted in ISWM, 5 of whom were able to legitimize their ISWM plans.
These 5 LGUs compose 28 percent of total project accomplishments.

Despite the odds (budget reduction, limited time, delays due to elections), the
Northern Luzon Team was able to meet most of its targets (Table 1). It had some unmet
targets in FFM and ISWM, but it is also in these sectors where the Team exceeded
some targets (see Annex 2 for list of LGUs assisted and status of technical assistance).

Table 1. Summary of Northern Luzon outputs and deliverables based on key performance
indicators as of November 30, 30, 2004
Regional Accomplishment
Targets per as of November
Key Performance Indicators 2004 WP 30, 2004 Remarks
A. CRM
1. Number of LGUs with - This was pursued in the
consensus on CTPs of their four Aurora LGUs but
municipal waters thru was not successful as
individual or joint ordinances some LGUs would not
agree on their CTPs.
Thus, this was excluded
in the 2004 WP.
consensus
2. Number of LGUs with joint 4 4 Inter-LGU Fisheries
(inter-LGU) fishery Management Plan
management and enforcement (ILFMP) covering the
agreements LGUs of Baler,
Dipaculao and
Dinalungan.
overall consensus on their
respective CRM zones
4. Number of LGUs with 1 1 CRM plan for
legitimized CRM plans Dinalungan
5. Number of LGUs or 1 1 With 2 MPAs
communities with legitimized established in
MPA plans and MPA mgt Dinalungan: Mabudo (49
implementation ha) and Ditangol (23.5
ha)
municipal fishery plans and
mgt implementation
B. FFM
completed and approved FLUP
thematic maps
consensus/agreements on
priority subwatersheds and
forest lands allocation
3. Number of LGUs with 5 2 FLUPs for Nagtipunan
legitimized municipal FLUP and Maddela, Quirino;
(with approved action plan and legitimization of FLUP of
budget for initial Baler and Quezon on
implementation) process.
4. Number of signed DENR- 5 2
LGU MOAs for joint
implementation of approved
FLUP
5. Number of signed co- -
management agreements for
LGU-managed forest lands
(under JMC 2003-01)

Regional Accomplishment
Targets per as of November
Key Performance Indicators 2004 WP 30, 2004 Remarks
C. ISWM
completed
analysis of solid waste
assessment data
general consensus on options
for managing solid wastes at
the barangay and municipal
levels.
3. Number of LGUs with 3 5 10-Year SWM plans of
legitimized ISWM Diffun, Cabarroguis and
plans with one year work plans Maddela (Quirino) and
(and approved budget for initial Bayombong and
implementation) Bambang (Nueva
Vizcaya)
ordinances and
actions to reduce, divert, or
recycle waste
streams via SWM facilities,
agreements, or other local
initiatives
complete follow-up analysis of
first-year improvement in
diversion, recycling, and
reduction of waste stream.
Other accomplishments include:
1. Forum for potential investors in Lower Magat Forest Reserve.

2. Local ordinances for the implementation of legitimized CRM and ISWM
Plans.
3. 48 fish wardens trained and deputized, 7 fish examiners trained
4. Ongoing LGU-based IEC programs in most CRM, ISWM and FFM LGUs.
5. Thirty trained FLUP planners and 20 IEC practitioners.
The list of the LGUs assisted by theNorthern Luzon Team
Result 2: Partner LGUs committed to pursue environmental governance

initiatives that they have started as evidenced by the funds they
have allocated to implement plans developed with EcoGov
assistance.
Setting aside budgets. MOAs for collaboration were signed between EcoGov,
DENR Region 2 and the selected LGUs at the start of Ecogov operations in Northern

Luzon. To keep the activities going, partner LGUs committed a total of P12,844,692 in
counterpart funds.
In addition, LGUs have begun to allocate budgets for the implementation of their
legitimized plans. A case in point is the implementation of the ILFMP where each partner
LGU contributed funds to finance law enforcement activities in Baler Bay. The same
thing is happening in other LGUs that have legitimized FLUPs and SWM plans.
Result 3: Improved governance practices by LGUs and other partners
Establishing accountability centers. To ensure that there is an office or individual

that will see to it that planned activities push through, LGUs have created accountability
centers/permanent organizations that will implement the plans. In Aurora, partner LGUs
that agreed to implement an ILFMP have created their implementing arms, such as the
Municipal Law Enforcement Units (MLEUs) and Municipal and Provincial level
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Groups. Similar bodies are to be created for
the implementation of legitimized FLUPs and SWM plans.
Making decisions based on available information. LGUs are also using available
information to make sound decisions. After the resource management plans have been
prepared and legitimized, each LGU now has a database that can be used for
subsequent decision making and further planning. These include the thematic and
related maps, Participatory Coastal Resource Assessment (PCRA) results in Aurora,
and the data generated from the comprehensive waste assessments for each LGU.
Practicing transparency. Following the principles of transparency, DENR 2 has

posted the procedures and schematic flow in applying for different tenure instruments
and permits connected with forest resource utilization. DENR 2 has also used in their
planning and decision making information provided by EcoGov on waste assessment
and FLUP.
Result 4: Improved protection of coastal resources and SWM practices
Increased awareness about local environmental problems and issues through

EcoGov Modules and IEC activities has led to concrete actions.
Practicing recycling. In Nueva Vizcaya and Qurino, more people are now into
recycling as well as recovering and selling factory “returnables.”
Protecting their coastal resources. In Aurora, illegal fishers (coming from within
and outside the province) are being apprehended.
Result 5: The improved policy environment in the co-managed area in Nueva

Vizcaya has increased its potential for private investments.
The review and fine tuning of the regulations and policies for Nueva Vizacaya’s Tree
for Legacy and co-management program is leading to its more effective implementation
and has created interest from potential investors. The public advertisement for

investments in the area which was supported by EcoGov resulted in the submission of
about 16 proposals for investments.
This Nueva Vizcaya Tree for Legacy initiative is now being replicated in the
neighboring province of Cagayan.
Result 6: Increased allies and champions in promoting environmental

governance; increased demand for good governance
More allies. The formal creation of municipal TWGs that trained and worked
together over the past several months in each of the three sectors (CRM, FFM and
ISWM) has produced a cadre not only of LGU experts but also of allies and champions
that can be relied upon to continue pushing for good ecogovernance. There was an
average of 12 TWG members in each sector per LGU. Of these, the females comprise
about 40 percent in SWM, 30 percent in CRM and 20 in FFM. This shows significant
contribution of the women in planning and decision making as well as in advocacy.
Demand for good governance. With the heightened awareness and consciousness
of the local communities on good governance brought about by their participation in
EcoGov-initiated public hearings and IEC activities, demand for good governance has
also increased. This is illustrated in Dinalungan, Aurora where there has been perennial
showdown between the administration and the opposition Sangguniang Bayan (SB)
members. At the time when the publicly supported ILFMP was set for SB deliberation
and adoption, the opposition SB members began to absent themselves from the SB
sessions so that there would be no quorum and hence, the proposed ILFMP would not
be discussed. Community members who attended the session—in their frustration about
the delaying tactics of the opposition—requested the local police to round up and arrest
the absent SB members and bring them to the session hall. The local folk’s persistence
paid off. The following week, the SB met and deliberated the ILFMP, which was adopted
and approved by the council.
Result 7: Improved LGU capability
The Northern Luzon Team, in collaboration with the BFAR, successfully trained and
deputized 48 fish wardens and seven fish examiners; also trained 20 Forest Land Use
Planners and 20 IEC practitioners in the LGUs. Two other LGU personnel were trained
in Municipal Fishery Law Enforcement.
IV. Lessons Learned
Identifying the stakeholders early on and immediately establishing linkage

can facilitate people support.
Recognizing the important roles of local stakeholders at all levels is necessary to be

able to obtain their support. Thus, it is necessary that these stakeholders (individuals,
groups or institutions) be identified early on and linkage be established as soon as
possible. Such a strategy would make the stakeholders feel that they are indeed part of
the project, and would certainly contribute their share to meet project goals. The DENR,

BFAR, NCIP and other concerned government agencies; the LGUs at the provincial and
municipal levels; the local POs and NGOs, all of them have be involved in the project.
There are some valuable resources in the locality that are just waiting to be
tapped.
For example, the Provincial Governments of Quirino and Nueva Vizcaya have up-to-
date maps that were used for the formulation of the municipal FLUPs. They also have
the capability to compose maps based on the needs of their clients.
Local barangay officials and PO leaders and NGOs at the field level are equally
helpful in the gathering of primary data and in facilitating the orientations of their
constituents in the community. This reduced the Project’s expenses and time in
conducting municipal-wide data gathering.
Focusing efforts on committed partner LGUs can save precious time and
resources.
Not all of the LGUs have the same enthusiasm in formulating their resource use
plans. Although they did signify their interests to develop plans with EcoGov, some did
not respond proactively to the planned activities. So as not to further delay activities and
waste precious time and resources, the Team focused its efforts on assisting those
LGUs who were really interested and committed to complete their plans.
Holding trainings/workshops in off-site venues is necessary to get full

attention of participants.
Holding training/workshops in off-site venues that are equally comfortable was found
to be effective in getting the full concentration/attention of participants. Conducting
training on-site, or within the premises of the municipality, proved unproductive as many
participants, being LGU staff, have to report to their office first hour of the day to attend
to callers or clients. This causes delay in the conduct of the training. At times, some
callers even come to the training site, disrupting the concentration of the participants
they came to see.
Investing in study tours pays off.
The exposure trips conducted for FFM and ISWM sectors heightened the awareness
and interest of the participants about the ways forest and waste management are being
done in other places. It afforded them the opportunity to get firsthand information from
those people who were actually implementing the FLUP and the ISWM plan. They were
also able to see for themselves the progress that other LGUs were doing in these two
sectors.
There must be an agreed criteria and process for the selection of the participants to
the study tours so that the sending of the “wrong” people is avoided. (“Wrong” in the
sense that their regular functions do not directly relate to the subject of the exposure trip,
and they are neither members of the TWG or the Board.)

Plan public hearings and legitimization process are valuable.
Though considered time consuming and laborious, the series of consultations and
approval process that each plan went through enhanced public ownership of the plans.
They also helped in earning the people’s support for their implementation.
MENRO establishment necessary to institutionalize efforts.
LGUs have now seen the importance of having a permanent office that will
implement environmental plans and other initiatives. Many LGUs are now mulling the
creation of a Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office (MENRO) to push
and oversee implementation of their legitimized plans.
Avoid “spreading the butter thinly”
At the start of the project, there were only two EcoGov Luzon Team members who
focused on the FFM sector and one on the CRM sector. The limited number of
personnel resulted in the decreased presence of EcoGov in many LGUs, many of which
were complaining of sporadic visits for technical assistance. LGUs need regular
supervision, especially when doing things that are new to them. However, because
there was only limited staff and there are a number of LGUs to attend to, the Team could
not afford to allow staff to have a prolonged stay in particular LGUs.
For the small grants program, the difficulties and limitations of POs in
project implementation must be recognized and addressed.
Most POs have low capability to manage project implementation and grant funding. If
the grant program is to continue to include them as potential grantees, PO applicants
must be evaluated carefully. The Poject may consider adjustments in the grants system
so that POs are able to access assistance for the preparation of proposals and
implementing the grant agreement.
Looking forward to the continuity of the Project in providing support to local players
for the conservation and development of natural resources and management of solid
wastes, the following are recommended:
Pursue an all out implementation of the Aurora Inter-LGU Fisheries

Management Plan.
This Inter-LGU plan has effected a turn-around in the protection and management of
Baler Bay from that of municipality-centered to a bay-wide orientation. As such, the
arena for an inter-LGU effort and cooperation has been put in place and should be
pursued vigorously.

Put in place sufficient staff complement to be able to respond to the
technical support needs of LGU partners.
Assigning two LGUs for one technical staff should be considered to provide
adequate and quality time for the LGUs’ TWG capacity building and institutionalization of
the governance-oriented process within the LGUs’ framework for development.
Continue and complete technical assistance for the other LGUs who have
not completed their resource management plans because of funding and
time constraints in EcoGov 1.
These LGUs expect that Ecogov 2’s technical assistance in the completion of their
plans as well as in their implementation will push through.
Continue the small grants initiative in partnership with qualified POs and
NGOs.
The Project’s Small Grants initiative has been acknowledged by partners as a means
to effectively reach out to the grassroots for application of learning in environmental
governance. It has been helpful in terms of building local capacities and pursuing local
development through community-based natural resources management.
Publish and popularize success stories and model cases from Project’s
different regional sites of EcoGov.
The implementation of EcoGov Phase 1 has generated a good number of success

stories on governance- enhanced natural resource management that are worth sharing
not only in the Philippines but to other developing counties as well.
Partners from the DENR and other line institutions must assume
permanency of membership in the LGU TWGs to ensure continuity.
In many cases, national agencies often change their representatives to the TWGs
which require co-members to provide another orientation to the new member. This also
hampers the smooth flow of TWG activities as the new member has to be given some
time to catch up.
LGU monitoring on the progress of implementation of approved and

legitimized plans should be institutionalized to ensure that members of the
TWG are made more responsible, accountable and proactive in their
involvement.
Members assigned to the TWG should integrate in their present tasks their TWG
assignment as one of their work’s key result areas.

Build capacity of MENROs and municipal TWG members as well as that of
institutional local service providers.
The goal is to have local service providers who are sufficiently trained in
environmental governance to help carry on implementation of activities and allow for
expansion to other LGUs.
Sustain capability building for DENR personnel with responsibilities

directly related to ecogovernance.
This is important especially at the CENRO and PENRO levels, which provide direct
technical services to the LGUs.
Maximize use of EcoGov 1-trained manpower by tapping their services to

respond to ecogover5nance-related needs of LGUs.
Through these trained manpower, the DENR, with the support and partnership of
interested municipal LGUs and the academe, can pursue preparation and legitimization
of municipal forest land use plans within the region.
Pursue ground implementation of Tree for Legacy Guidelines for

expansion, resource use and marketing.
Under the leadership and supervision of the Lower Magat Steering Committee, this
can be pursued to widen the resource base for the local forest based industry and to
expand economic opportunities.
Pursue resource users’ fee in Nueva Vizcaya in collaboration with related

projects like RUPES of ICRAF.
With the increasing realization on the dependence of different sectors of the

community on watershed resources, introduction and collection of water users’ fee with
proper approach and IEC campaign may not be as difficult. This may, for instance, start
with the water generated from the communal irrigation facilities within the province. The
extra collection could be used for forest renewal and watershed rehabilitation.
Continue collaboration with CI, EWWW, Cagayan and Magat Rivers

Watershed Project, etc. in watershed resource conservation and enterprise
development.
Considering the number of interrelated projects within these large watersheds, there
is a need for coordination and complementation among them to enhance synergy.
Potential expansion sites in Region 2 for Phase 2 may include the province
of Ifugao.
This is to fully cover the headwater sources for the Magat Dam. There are also highly
urbanized areas in Ifugao worth including under the solid waste management technical
assistance.

ANNEX 1. KEY PLAYERS AND PARTNERS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ECOGOV
NORTHERN LUZON
The Northern Luzon Technical Assistance Team
Regional Team Leader Dr. Rogelio C. Serrano

Community Uplands Specialist Buenaventura L. Dolom
Solid Waste Management Associate Eleanor U. Solomon
IEC Associate Gil P. Viloria, Jr.
Assisting Professional for FFM Ruel C. Lazaro
Assisting Professional for ISWM (N.Vizcaya and Quirino) Evelyn V. Sagun
Assisting Professional for ISWM (Ma. Aurora & Bambang) Enerlito D. Pangan
Assisting Professional for CRM Maricar S. Samson
Assisting Professional for CRM Pedcris M. Orencio
Northern Luzon Office Manager Emeterio B. Ramos, Jr.
Administrative Assistant Osias R. Dacquel
Driver Claro G. Tiongson
Business Machine Operator/Utility Man Emilio S. Tabares, Jr.
The DENR EcoGovernance Focal Group (EFG)
Regional Eco-Governance Focal Group (REFG) – 02
RED, DENR R02 Antonio G. Principe
RD for Environment Allan L. Leuterio
RTD for Forest Management Services Laureano Lingan, Jr.
PENRO, Nueva Vizcaya Roberto C. Apigo
OIC-PENRO, Quirino Wilfredo Malvar
PENRO, Isabela Felix Taguba
16 Governing the Environment in Northern Luzon

Regional Technical Working Group
Regional EcoGov Desk Officer Alfonso P. Calimag Jr.
Members Ricardo Soriano
Anna Cabatbat
Bernardino Ulep
Florentino Lingan, Jr.
Salome G. Bonnit
Helen Catolos
Regional Eco-Governance Focal Group (REFG) – 03
OIC RED, DENR R03 Regidor De Leon
RD, BFAR R03 Remedios Ongtangco
RD for Environment Lormelyn Claudio
RTD for Ecosystems Research and Remilio Atabay
Development Service
RTD for PAWS Rogelio Trinidad
OIC-PENRO, Aurora Benjamín Mina
Regional Technical Working Group
Regional EcoGov Desk Officer Buenaventura R. Rodrigo, Jr.
Members Fred Sadueste
Arthur Salazar
Pedro Galaban
Max Milan
Redentor Laureta

Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
CENRO, Nagtipunan Honorio S. Toribio
CENRO, Diffun Bernard Gordon R. Ignacio
CENRO, Bayombong Rolando T. Valdez
CENRO, Dupax Romualdo Villador
CENRO, Ma. Aurora Jeremias Casal
The Provincial Government Partners
Nueva Vizcaya
Governor/LMFR Chairperson Hon. Luisa L. Cuaresma
Representative, Lone District of Nueva Hon. Rodolfo Q. Agbayani
Vizcaya (former Governor/LMFR
Chairperson – 2001 – mid 2004)
Board Member Hon. Merlie G. Talingdan
Provincial ENRO Francisco T. Tolentino
EMS I, Provincial ENRO Danilo B. Ramos
EMS I, Provincial ENRO Rommel C. Tamilag
Senior Agriculturist, OPA Fidel G. Ballesteros
Provincial Tourism Office Sharen P. Gonzales
CTIDS, DTI Alberto D. Pamatian
OIC PA Pinky Torralba
Quirino
Governor Hon. Pedro L. Bacani
PPDC Dencio A. Pagbilao
PNREO Yolando Binag
PDO IV, PPDO Ronel M. Ladia
PEO Gilda M. Reola
DILG Ernesto Sadural

Aurora
Governor Hon. Bellaflor Angara Castillo
Former Governor (2001-mid 2004) Hon. Ramoncita P. Ong
Provincial ENRO Teresa De Luna
PFARO Victoriano San Valentin
CDA I, PPDO Teodoro Torio
The Municipal/City LGU Partners
Nueva Vizcaya
Mayor, Diadi Hon. Marvic S. Padilla
Mayor, Bagabag Hon. Nestor Sevillana
Mayor, Solano Hon. Santy Dickson
Mayor, Bayombong Hon. John Severino Bagasao
Mayor, Bambang Hon. Pepito Balgos
Mayor, Dupax del Norte Hon. Jesús V. Bareng
Mayor, Dupax del Sur Hon. Romeo Magaway
Quirino
Mayor, Diffun Hon. May Granase Calaunan

Mayor, Cabarroguis Hon. David Richard O. Longid
Mayor, Aglipay Hon. Leonard Martin
Mayor, Maddela Hon. Florante T. Ruiz
Mayor, Nagtipunan Hon. Rosario K. Camma

Aurora
Mayor, Baler Hon. Arthur J. Angara
Mayor, Ma. Aurora Hon. Ariel S. Bitong
Mayor, San Luis Hon. Mariano Tangson
Mayor, Dipaculao Hon. Danilo Tolentino
Mayor, Dinalungan Hon. Marilyn B. Marquez
Isabela
Mayor, Cauayan City Hon. Cesar G. Dy

permit systems
Central Luzon
Aurora 1. Dinalungan 27.00 07/11/03 1,368,000 Negotiations for Completed Completed Legitimized in Inter-LGU A comprehensive ordinance that Training on BFAR has
inter-LGU (Sept 2003) (Sept 2003) May 2004. Fisheries will support CRM and ILFM plans IEC conducted deputized 48 Fish
CTPs Management was passed in Nov 2004. It for municipal Wardens; 7 more
suspended Plan approved covers formation of Monitoring, IEC to be deputized.
temporarily due by respective Control and Surveillance committees. San Luis
to non- SBs of the 4 Committee, establishment of Followed by underwent Law
agreement LGUs trust fund, registration and action planning Enforcement
between some (Dinalungan- licensing of fishefolks, vessels for IEC Operations
LGUs (I.e., Apr 2004; Baler and gears interventions Planning to
2. Baler 35.20 07/22/03 295,480 Ordinance on
Baler-San Luis, - Mar 2004; deveop system for
registration and
Dipaculao- Dipaculao - Feb apprehension,
licensing of
Dinalungan). 2004 and Aug patrolling and
boats drafted.
2004). Final reporting of
3. San Luis 54.60 07/29/03 402,000 approval of the violations, and the
SB Resolution creation of Mun
by the Mayor of Law Enforcement
4. Dipaculao 49.50 07/22/03 314,958 San Luis is still Unit.
pending.
Sub-Total - Luzon 166.30 4 LGUs 2,380,438
Notes: Kms of coastline are only counted for LGUs which are to undertake any of the three: delineation of municipal waters and its enforcement, CRM planning and fisheries management.

(Date)
Central Luzon
Aurora 1. Dinalungan 2 07/11/03 ** Assessment and bench- Legitimized last Sept. 28, Coordinates of Ongoing Active enforcemenbt
marking completed in 2004. Support ordinance boundary corners through regular patrolling
Oct 2003; follow-up presented in public identified. Bouys to be
assessment in Sept hearing. Ordinance was installed.
2004. passed Nov 2004.
Sub-Total - Luzon 2 1 LGU
Note: ** with counterpart funds included in the total LGU CRM counterpart indicated in Table A.1.


(Ha) (P)
status
Northern Luzon
Nueva Vizcaya 1. Dupax Sur 36,572 08/25/03 468,881 Completed Completed Plan drafted. IEC for
barangay
captains
2. Quezon 17,467 05/30/03 245,000 Completed Completed Plan endorsed Site for co- IEC for
to MDC and management barangay
SB. identified captains
Quirino 3. Cabarroguis 16,364 04/29/03 916,011 Completed (Feb
2004)
4. Diffun* 19,506 04/29/03 531,100 Completed Plan for IEC on FLUP
review by SB. among
barangay
captains
conducted
5. Aglipay* 13,622 04/29/03 634,818 Completed Plan for
review by SB.
6. Maddela* 59,292 04/29/03 747,100 Completed Legitimized FLUP Initial

(Sept 20, approved by meetings with
2004). Action DENR subject barangay
plan prepared. to refinement officials on
identified
area.
7. Nagtipunan* 139,318 04/29/03 492,184 Completed Legitimized on MOA signed; Community

9/23/04 endorsed to watershed
NCIP for identified for
signature co
management
Prov'l Gov't 04/29/03 265,390

Central Luzon
Aurora 8. Baler 4,579 7/22/03 687,520 Completed Completed FLUP under IEC on FLUP
review by SB among
barangay
captains
conducted
9. Ma. Aurora n.a. 7/29/03 768,199 LGU was provided orientation on TAP-enhanced FLUP. Further TA on FFM to LGU limited to GIS training so LGU can build its spatial database from databases
available in various Aurora projects.
Sub-Total - Luzon 306,720 11 LGUs 5,756,203
Notes: * Target LGUs for FLUP completion and legitimization



Completed Consensus on Legitimized Functioning SWM Municipal/ SWM SWM IEC NTPs for MRFs NTPs for Assessment of
solid waste SWM options ISWM plan ESWM Board Barangay City ENR ordinances, issued by Disposal proposed
assessment (including Committees Office creation actions on DENR Facility SLF(including
(Date) ment (P)
n)
Northern Luzon
Nueva Vizcaya 1. Bayombong 07/07/03 70,000 Completed Competed (Mar Legitimized Oct Reconstituted Comprehensive IEC campaign Ongoing NTP Ongoing NTP
(June 2004) 2004) 2004 (Feb 2003); SWM Ordinance ongoing processing processing
active. drafted
2. Bambang* 07/07/03 26,200 Completed (Feb Completed (July Legitimized Oct Reconstituted IEC campaign Ongoing NTP Ongoing NTP
2004) 2004) 2004 (Dec 2002); ongoing processing; processing
active. completedbiddin
g of materials for
construction of
MRF.
3. Quezon 05/30/03 338,200 Completed (Feb Reconstituted
2004) (Mar 2004);
active.
4. Dupax del Norte 06/02/03 1,516,200 Completed (Jan Completed (June Reconstituted IEC campaign
2004) 2004) (Mar 2004); ongoing
active.
5. Bagabag 05/30/03 75,000 Completed (Feb Reconstituted
2004) (July 2003);
active.
6. Solano 07/07/03 860,449 Completed (Jan Created (Oct IEC campaign
2004) 2002); active. ongoing
Prov'l Gov't 07/07/03

Isabela 7. Cauayan City 12/03/03 300,000 Completed (Feb Reconstituted
2004) (Feb 2004);
active.
Quirino 8. Diffun* 04/29/03 150,000 Completed (Nov Completed (Feb Legitimized Reconstituted 2 Brgy. SWM Comprehensive IEC campaign LGU allocated Ongoing NTP
2003) 2004) June 2004 (May 2003); Committees SWM Ordinance ongoing P350,000 for processing
active. formed (Rizal drafted MRF
and Aurora establishment
9. Maddela* 04/29/03 150,000 Completed (Nov Completed (Feb Legitimized Reconstituted W t) SWM
2 Brgy. Comprehensive Ongoing NTP
2003) 2004) June 2004 (May 2003); Committees SWM ordinance processing
active. formed drafted;
(Poblacion collaboration with
Norte and Maddela Inst of
Poblacion Sur) Tech -
Composting
Center
formalized
through a MOA
signed Sept 21,
2004
10. Cabarroguis* 04/29/03 368,651 Completed (Nov Completed (Feb Legitimized July Reconstituted Ongoing NTP
2003) 2004) 2004 (May 2003); processing
active.
Prov'l Gov't 04/29/03 230,290
Central Luzon
Aurora 11. Ma. Aurora 08/19/03 633,061 Completed (Jan Completed (July Reconstituted
2004) 2004) (Oct 2003);
active.
Sub-Total - Luzon 13 LGUs 4,718,051
Notes: The MOA with the Nueva Vizcaya Prov'l Gov't does not have a budget. The LGU however gave assurance that financial support will be provided to EcoGov activities in the province (placed as P390,000 for both
ISWM and FFM).
Annex 2D - Page 1 of 1

Completion Report of EcoGov 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Completion Report of EcoGov 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Completion Report of EcoGov 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMPLETION REPORT OF THE PHILIPPINE

December 28, 2004

Orient Integrated Development Consultants, Inc. n

The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUsi i

II. Vision provides perspective and direction in local environmental

The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUs 1

2 The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUs

All these prove that LGUs can make things happen.

The implementation of EcoGov 1, which focused heavily on LGUs, showed a

The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUs 3

IV. Local environmental governance may just be a matter of public

4 The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUs

V. Creating and establishing social enterprises may be the future of

The effective governance of forests and coastal resources requires sustainable

The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUs 5

It is therefore imperative that the governance and management of forests and

VI. Shifting environmental governance from compliance to results-

EcoGov 1 has generated baseline information for key performance indicators in

6 The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUs

VII. DENR has to re-engineer itself to be responsive to the increasing

The recent disasters—flashfloods and landslides—that took place in Quezon and

Based on observations in EcoGov 1, improving local environmental governance at

The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUs 7

• What can be done at the local level to improve local environmental

8 The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUs

Durant, R.F., D.J. Fiorino, and R. O’Leary. 2004. Environmental governance

The Challenge of Environmental Governance: Making It Work with LGUs 9

• PROMOTING GOVERNANCE-ORIENTED COASTAL RESOURCE

• LAYING THE FOUNDATION OF A GOVERNANCE-ORIENTED AND

• HELPING LGUS IMPLEMENT RA 9003: THE ECOLOGICAL SOLID

Promoting Governance-Oriented Coastal Resource Management i

Promoting Governance-Oriented Coastal Resource Management 1

EcoGov 1 is designed to support GOP’s and USAID’s goal of revitalizing the

• Kilometers of coastline under improved management, and

Supplementary indicators that were proposed include:

• Area (in km2) of municipal waters under management, and

As defined in the Project’s Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP), kilometers of

• Municipal waters delineated and supported by LGU ordinance,

2 Completion Report of the EcoGov Project CRM Team

Promoting Governance-Oriented Coastal Resource Management 3

III. Targets and Deliverables

The overall life-of -project biophysical targets set in 2003 are:

• 525 km of coastline with improved management, and

Subsequently, as firmer estimates became available, total target kilometers of

Key performance indicators Number of LGUs

4 Completion Report of the EcoGov Project CRM Team

Internally, the EcoGov 1 Team adopted a two-pronged approach in implementing

Demand Driven Technical Assistance (TA)

Delivery of CRM TA Modules

Promoting Governance-Oriented Coastal Resource Management 5

Module 1: Coastal Resources Management Planning (detailed steps in Figure 2)

Module 2: Marine Protected Area Establishment & Management

Municipal water delineation Municipal Water Delineation

MPA and fisheries manage-

and/or enactment of enabling

6 Completion Report of the EcoGov Project CRM Team

V. Status and Accomplishments

The accomplishments of the CRM EcoGov 1 component are discussed in relation to

• Results of technical assistance to LGUs as quantified by the biophysical targets;

A total of 26 LGUs in northern Luzon (4 LGUs), Central Visayas (8 LGUs), Western