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

Withdrawal for NPC owned
Source: Interview with Delia Arenos, EIAB-DOE, 16 August 2002.
On the whole, it appears that the RWMHEEF is contributing to an increase in social welfare.
It is able to address basic needs of the host communities through health and water-supply
projects, both of which tend to serve the majority of the population of the area concerned.
One does not need to delve deeper into this subject matter, since provision of basic health and
water-supply services would always have positive effects on people’s lives. Second, it allows
for efficient delivery of LGU services, which could normally take longer to deliver if routed
through usual government budget allocations. Be that as it may, such results are borne out of
direct investments in projects other than watershed management. The scheme has not yet
been used in such a way that a direct connection between enhancement of environmental
services, for which the fund was created, and addressing poverty can be established. In a
situation where watershed-protection projects compete directly with health-related ones at the
same time, the latter will always be addressed first. As to whether this is good or bad should
be assessed within the larger picture of economic development and environmental
management of this country.
The DOE conducted its own impact study of the implementation of the three funds in March
of 2002. 58 The objectives of the study were the following:
• To determine the impact of projects funded under ER 1-94.
• To determine whether the goal of improving communities’ living conditions has been
achieved.
• To determine the most effective ways of delivering the programmes and services
provided under ER 1-94.
There was an attempt made to get a copy of the detailed study. Unfortunately, the
interviewees did not want to release the whole report, because it lacked the signatures of the
department heads, which would have made the study official and available for the public.
Instead, the executive summary was provided, the contents of which are discussed below.
Five host barangays were selected as the sample of the survey. All these barangays gained
access to each of the three types of funds, which was the basis of the selection. They were
mainly third-class municipalities, with above average household sizes, relying mostly on
farming and fishing. Average family incomes were way below the national average, and did
not go beyond the poverty threshold level.
58
Taken mostly from ‘An Impact Evaluation of Projects Funded Under ER No. 1-94’, prepared by the EIAB- DOE, March
2002.
83