18.11.2012 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Location/ type of fund<br />

Allocation <strong>in</strong> highly<br />

urbanised city<br />

Allocation <strong>in</strong> non-highly<br />

urbanised city<br />

Electrification Fund (EF) 75% 50%<br />

Development and Livelihood Fund<br />

(DLF)<br />

12.5% 25%<br />

Re<strong>for</strong>estation, Watershed<br />

Management, Health and/or<br />

Environment Enhancement Fund<br />

(RWMHEEF)<br />

12.5% 25%<br />

A hierarchy of geographical areas <strong>for</strong> application of each type of fund is listed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> IRR.<br />

In general, <strong>the</strong> three types of fund are meant to supplement <strong>the</strong> <strong>pro</strong>vision of basic needs <strong>in</strong><br />

communities host<strong>in</strong>g energy <strong>pro</strong>jects. In review<strong>in</strong>g what would constitute basic needs, <strong>the</strong><br />

DOE came up with electrification, livelihood, health, and <strong>environmental</strong> enhancement (which<br />

perta<strong>in</strong>s more to waste disposal) as <strong>the</strong> ma<strong>in</strong> types of development <strong>pro</strong>jects that would be<br />

allowed under ER 1-94. With regard to re<strong>for</strong>estation and watershed <strong>pro</strong>tection, it is not clear<br />

whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>se were considered as basic needs, or whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>se were objectives that would<br />

primarily serve <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terests of <strong>the</strong> energy <strong>pro</strong>jects. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly, <strong>the</strong> NPC has its own list of<br />

obligations <strong>for</strong> energy-generat<strong>in</strong>g companies to <strong>in</strong>vest <strong>in</strong> environment-related <strong>pro</strong>jects <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

area of operations, which would answer <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> susta<strong>in</strong>ability of <strong>the</strong> energy <strong>pro</strong>ject. The<br />

environment-related <strong>pro</strong>jects under <strong>the</strong> RWMHEEF are over and above <strong>the</strong> NPC list. Hence,<br />

<strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>tended beneficiaries of <strong>the</strong> fund extend beyond <strong>the</strong> private energy companies.<br />

The EF is solely meant <strong>for</strong> electrification <strong>pro</strong>jects <strong>in</strong> host communities. The ma<strong>in</strong> objective is<br />

to <strong>pro</strong>vide electricity to host rural areas with grow<strong>in</strong>g populations. The DLF is ma<strong>in</strong>ly <strong>for</strong><br />

livelihood <strong>pro</strong>jects, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>frastructure <strong>pro</strong>jects that are meant to <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>pro</strong>ductivity.<br />

F<strong>in</strong>ally, <strong>the</strong> RWMHEEF is meant to serve a mix of objectives, which <strong>in</strong>cludes <strong>environmental</strong><br />

and health-related goals alike. It is more of a catch-all fund that was created to supplement<br />

<strong>the</strong> <strong>pro</strong>vision of basic needs of communities (o<strong>the</strong>r than electrification and livelihood), as<br />

well as im<strong>pro</strong>ve <strong>environmental</strong> conditions where deemed necessary.<br />

4.2.2 Institutional set-up<br />

DOE is <strong>the</strong> sole agency that adm<strong>in</strong>isters all types of funds. The actual money is held <strong>in</strong><br />

special accounts <strong>for</strong> each type of fund which does not have to be deposited <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> national<br />

treasury, thus mak<strong>in</strong>g disbursements more efficient.<br />

The IRR fur<strong>the</strong>r states that annual work plans should be prepared jo<strong>in</strong>tly by <strong>the</strong> generation<br />

company and <strong>the</strong> LGU concerned, to be submitted to DOE not later than March 15 every<br />

year. For watershed-management and re<strong>for</strong>estation <strong>pro</strong>jects, such work <strong>pro</strong>grams should be<br />

coord<strong>in</strong>ated and endorsed by <strong>the</strong> concerned DENR Regional Office or watershed<br />

management adm<strong>in</strong>istrator <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> area. However, <strong>the</strong> LGU is solely responsible <strong>for</strong><br />

implementation, supervision, and adm<strong>in</strong>istration of all <strong>pro</strong>jects ap<strong>pro</strong>ved. Local participation<br />

<strong>in</strong> <strong>pro</strong>ject selection is not explicitly required, and it will depend on <strong>the</strong> LGU officials on<br />

whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong>y get local residents <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> select<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>pro</strong>ject/s. All DLF and<br />

RWMHEEF <strong>pro</strong>jects should be implemented with<strong>in</strong> one year of receiv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir funds.<br />

Upon completion of <strong>the</strong> documents, a MOA is entered <strong>in</strong>to by <strong>the</strong> DOE, <strong>the</strong> generat<strong>in</strong>g<br />

company, and <strong>the</strong> concerned LGU. Release of <strong>pro</strong>ject funds is made directly to <strong>the</strong> LGU<br />

71

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!