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

Results of the survey of 100 respondents from the five barangays showed that the majority
found the water-system projects very helpful in providing direct access to potable water, as
well as water for gardening and animal production, and reduction of water-borne diseases.
An overwhelming number showed great appreciation for the solid-waste management
projects because of the improvement in sanitation. The dump trucks likewise served as
vehicles for relocating victims during times of calamities, and for construction and repair of
infrastructure projects. Hence, there were positive results experienced from such projects.
Finally, the health centres were beneficial not only in terms of serving as a venue for curing
the sick, but also as venues for improving family health care in general.
In general, the RWMHEEF and DLF programmes of the DOE were deemed helpful by the
beneficiaries themselves in terms of providing basic needs and improving their standards of
living. However, the study believes that the benefits could be maximised if more people are
made aware of the existence of such projects, and if government agencies were more
coordinated in their efforts to spread the benefits throughout the widest range of beneficiaries
possible. Monitoring plays an important role, and although the MOAs provide for LGUs and
the NPC to undertake monitoring activities, compliance has been very poor so far.
4.2.8 Conclusion
The NPC case is illustrative of how markets for watershed services are being introduced in
the country, whereby the government acts as an intermediary between the buyers, in this case
the energy producers, and the sellers, i.e. the communities hosting the energy projects.
Unfortunately, there is still a weak link between the ‘payment’ to the communities and
watershed protection. The mechanism has been set up, but the interplay of market forces is
still not as dynamic as it is hoped it would be. The fund is hardly used for watershedprotection
projects, rather basic needs are given a much higher priority. Although this has
nothing to do with the DOE’s management of the fund, it somehow reflects how
environmental objectives are not yet given priority in the use of the fund. It is thus difficult to
determine now if this particular economic instrument, in meeting its environmental
objectives, entails economic and social costs to the affected communities, or if welfare is
improved simultaneously with conservation.
Nevertheless, there is reason to believe such markets will develop. Government policies are
now geared towards valuing such services and realising these values for community benefits.
In a very minimal sense, the small amount of one centavo per kwh represents what can be
seen as part of a nascent value of watershed-protection services, which is now being diverted
back to the host communities. Direct environmental investment from these power producers
would constitute the other portion of the value of watershed protection.
Another insight drawn from this case study is the fact that environmental investments are
difficult to come by unless basic social services of communities are met. The RWMHEEF
illustrates this point. Although the fund allowed for environment-related projects, most local
governments chose to invest in basic services, such as provision of water-supply and healthrelated
infrastructure for their constituents. Some government personnel may perceive this as
anomalous, but political reality dictates that projects that are perceived to have greater impact
on current generations will always be preferred over those for future generations, especially if
the belief is that such projects will affect the quality of life of the communities in question. If
host LGUs and communities can be convinced that investments in watershed-protection and
other environment-related projects can have direct and immediate impacts on livelihood,
there might be a chance that such environment-related investments will increase in the future.
84