Developing pro-poor markets for environmental services in the ...

will increase, as populations climb and resources become more scarce. The problem gets
bigger, so will bigger budgets be required, and the vicious cycle continues until it becomes
too late to save both the human and natural resources for which these budgets were
earmarked in the first place.
A major problem is the centralised nature of the system. The process calls for a multi-layered
process of approval for funds raised locally, to be disbursed at the local level eventually.
Even at the local level, i.e. the PAMB, the provincial and community officials of the DENR,
and the regional officials of the DENR, there are enough checks and balances to ensure that
the funds will indeed be used for the purpose for which they were raised, and to ensure
financial and accounting consistencies. There is really no need for all requests to pass through
national offices anymore. Besides, it defeats the purpose of creating local-level management
bodies if they are not to be equipped financially anyway. In the end, the process becomes
inefficient, and more costly to maintain.
3.1.6 Potential solutions on issues regarding NIPAS Act implementation
Based on the current situation and the clamour of protected areas under the NIPAS System
for a more efficient process to be put in place, the following options are presented for
consideration of the DENR and the DBM.
An obvious option is to remove the DENR central office from the entire approval process.
Within the whole DENR system, there are more than enough checks and balances to ensure
that the WFP is well within the framework for sustainable development, and that the budget
requests are consistent with those of the various levels of government, i.e. from municipal to
provincial to regional to national. It is thus suggested that the first level to be removed should
be the central DENR office in Manila. An interview with Dir Erlinda Meram of the Financial
and Management Service Bureau was conducted last 16 August 2002. She was in fact of the
opinion that such budget requests should not go through her office anymore, and that the
DENR secretary’s office should not be involved either as well. On average, this can shorten
the process by a month.
This step, however, can be fulfilled only upon the reversal of a memorandum issued by the
DBM on 23 August 1999, which states that all budget requests from special allotment funds
should be made directly by the secretary of the department concerned (see Appendix D 18 ).
Given that the DBM issued the memo, it will need the DBM itself to reverse it.
An additional step could be to remove the PAWB from the approval process, and leave the
DENR regional office to transmit the requests to DBM. However, PAWB should still be
furnished copies of all requests, along with attachments, for monitoring purposes. They could
strengthen their role in the monitoring process, while delegating their endorsement function
to the regional offices. This should not prove to be difficult, given that the regional offices are
already involved in any case. Again, this can shorten the process by another month, on
average.
During the interview with PAWB personnel, the chief of the administrative division
expressed apprehension on removing the PAWB from the IPAF approval process. This is
understandable, given that there is really a need for a body that can oversee the whole process
18 Available at http://www.iied.org/eep/.
43