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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

not one of them had yet been implemented. Projects that were in the implementation stage were of other types, such as health infrastructure, waste disposal, and water-supply systems. Hence, socio-economic impact of investments in watershed protection could not be ascertained. What was assessed instead was the distribution of the funds between environmental and social investments, and the potential of the fund to increase welfare among its beneficiaries through more efficient delivery of basic services and environmental investments. As can be gleaned from the types of projects being funded under RWMHEEF, improvement of the standard of living of people, through the provision of basic necessities, seems to be the main objective of the fund. Environmental protection and conservation do not seem to play a major role, given the very scant projects in this category. Nor is the fund being much used for livelihood- and productivity-enhancement activities, but then again there is a separate fund that addresses directly these objectives. Thus, it appears that in situations where government is remiss in fulfilling its duties of provision of basic infrastructure and services, environmental conservation will not be addressed by poor communities until their basic needs are met. It is thus only logical that environmental-management programmes will have to integrate upliftment of the poor if they are to be successful. On the other hand, such a scheme allows for a more efficient delivery of basic services by the local governments concerned. Because the local governments themselves determined what could be funded under this mechanism, it paves the way for the most pressing needs of the host communities to be met. Furthermore, since the local government has to deal only with the DOE and the generating company, the approval and implementation process is much shorter relative to projects that source funds from either the national treasury and foreign sources. Based on interviews with DOE personnel, payments for the RWMHEEF, along with the other types of funds, are made directly to the treasury division of the DOE (see Figure 4.4). The money does not have to pass through other accounts of the national government. As a corollary to this, disbursements are made directly from DOE to the LGU concerned, upon the opening of a special account exclusively for ER 1-94 funds. 81
Figure 4.4 Flowchart of funds, payment and withdrawal for Development and Livelihood Fund, Reforestation and Watershed-Management Fund, and Health and Environment Enhancement Fund Payment for IPP owned Payment for NPC owned Withdrawal for IPP owned for DLF and RWMHEEF projects For EF projects 82
Page 1 and 2:
Developing pro-poor markets for env
Page 3 and 4:
Acknowledgements The author would l
Page 5 and 6:
MES Markets for Environmental Servi
Page 7 and 8:
Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Backg
Page 9 and 10:
List of tables Table 2.1 List of en
Page 11 and 12:
1.2 Purpose and objectives of resea
Page 13 and 14:
2 Markets for environmental service
Page 15 and 16:
Environmental service Watershed pro
Page 17 and 18:
Environmental service Carbon seques
Page 19 and 20:
Chronology of activities • Presen
Page 21 and 22:
Results of the travel cost model, M
Page 23 and 24:
Box 2.2 Case study of development f
Page 25 and 26:
Accomplishments With ample resource
Page 27 and 28:
workers in some reforestation activ
Page 29 and 30:
have sole commercial bioprospecting
Page 31 and 32:
2.6 Elevation services This last ty
Page 33 and 34:
3 Institutional support mechanisms
Page 35 and 36:
from the PA Profiles and from the P
Page 37 and 38:
Region Protected area Northwest Pan
Page 39 and 40: Region Protected area Location Area
Page 41 and 42: Region Protected area Location Area
Page 43 and 44: Box 3.1 ‘Establishment and Manage
Page 45 and 46: In some areas, such issues are reso
Page 47 and 48: Figure 3.2 shows the flowchart summ
Page 49 and 50: • Initao National Park • Biak n
Page 51 and 52: Region Protected area Area (in hect
Page 53 and 54: in its entirety. To do so, a nation
Page 55 and 56: PAMB. 19 A broad set of guidelines
Page 57 and 58: streams and rivers for their domest
Page 59 and 60: Pangil. A company there was issued
Page 61 and 62: Much remains to be done. The LK cla
Page 63 and 64: placed some boundary markers in the
Page 65 and 66: Another lesson learned is it is nec
Page 67 and 68: 4 Socio-economic framework for eval
Page 69 and 70: during this period because of the r
Page 71 and 72: 4.1.2 Economic profile The populati
Page 73 and 74: Table 4.2 Schedule of fees and char
Page 75 and 76: group representative, the mayor of
Page 77 and 78: Table 4.4 Results of the key-inform
Page 79 and 80: 4.2 Reforestation, Watershed Manage
Page 81 and 82: within 15 days of submission of the
Page 83 and 84: Figure 4.3 Program for Granting Fin
Page 85 and 86: Table 4.5 Preferred development and
Page 87 and 88: Table 4.7 Total generating capacity
Page 89: Table 4.8 Approved reforestation, w
Page 93 and 94: Results of the survey of 100 respon
Page 95 and 96: In the event that allocations of gr
Page 97 and 98: DENR Administrative Order No. 13, S
Page 99: Republic Act No. 9136 (2001), ‘El
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?