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

4.2.4 Guidelines in approving project proposals
For projects to be eligible under the RWMHEEF, they should be classified under any of the
following programmes:
• Reforestation and watershed management, with the objective of improving either forest
cover or resource management.
• Health-related projects.
• Environment enhancement-related projects, e.g. waste disposal.
In prioritising the types of projects in an area, the guidelines are specific on the ranking for
areas that host either hydro- and geo-thermal power plants. For areas with other types of
power plants, the concerned LGU will decide on how to prioritise project proposals for its
area. As far as the maximum amount per area is concerned, LGUs can propose projects that
do not exceed the amount generated by the power plant they host. However, this is not being
followed strictly, given that only 38 host communities, or roughly 25 per cent of total power
plants in the country, have availed of the fund. Appendix K 51 contains the full set of
guidelines for RWMHEEF and DLF, as well as the list of requirements per type of allowable
project under each fund.
Interviews with Gregory Paredes, 52 head of the Watershed Management Department of the
National Power Corporation and Noel Umali, 53 his deputy, revealed that the drafting of the
IRR, particularly in coming up with the list of allowable projects as contained in Annex K,
was done through consultations with the LGUs themselves. Noel Binag of the DOE 54 added
that the list of allowable projects was based on the ‘wish list’ of local government offices. 55
When asked why the RWMHEEF was set up, they admitted that a huge factor being
considered was the political acceptability of energy projects to the host communities. The
same response was elicited from Yolanda Villaseñor, 56 the assistant director of the EIAB of
the DOE. She claimed that the fund is being used by the DOE as bargaining leverage with the
LGUs to get their energy projects endorsed by the host community. Hence, the types of
projects they want to be funded are those with highly visible impact and could be
implemented and made tangible in the short-run, mostly social-development projects. Given
the political cycle in the country, with three-years ontervals between elections, it is expected
that LGUs would want to implement projects that could be completed within this three-year
period.
For projects in the DLF category, the list of preferred development projects and preferred
livelihood projects are contained in Table 4.5. A noteworthy emphasis of the fund is on
projects that are aimed to improve productivity and provide livelihood opportunities to host
communities. Thus, DLF projects are expected to translate into higher incomes, while
RWMHEEF projects are expected to translate into improved standards of living through
provision of basic necessities and environmental enhancement.
51 Available at http://www.iied.org/eep/.
52 Interview conducted on 26 July 2002 at NPC, Quezon City.
53 Interview conducted on 10 July 2002 at NPC, Quezon City.
54 Interview conducted on 29 January 2003 at DOE, Fort Bonifacio, Makati City.
55 LGUs are required to come up with a priority listing of development projects for their area every year.
56 Interview conducted on 30 July 2002 at DOE, Fort Bonifacio, Makati City.
75