SCALING UP BIODIVERSITY- FRIENDLY ENTERPRISES

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

SCALING UP BIODIVERSITY-

FRIENDLY ENTERPRISES

PHILIPPINES

Scaling Up Biodiversity Friendly Enterprises

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the United Nations’ global development network. It advocates for change and connects countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life for themselves. It provides expert advice, training and grants support to developing countries, with increasing emphasis on assistance to the least developed countries. It promotes technical and investment cooperation among nations. UNDP has been working to ensure better lives for the Filipino people since 1965, and has been

committed to helping the country achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as well as national development priorities as set out in the Philippine Development Plan and the UN Philippines Partnership Framework for Sustainable Development.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) was established on the eve of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit to help tackle our planet’s most pressing environmental problems. Since then, the GEF has provided close to $20 billion in grants and mobilized an additional $107 billion in co-financing for more than 4,700 projects in 170 countries. Through its Small Grants Programme, the GEF has provided support to nearly 24,000 civil society and community initiatives in 128 countries.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is the primary government agency responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of the country’s environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the public domain, as

well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos.

The Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) is an agency under the DENR that support’s the Department’s mandate by establishing and managing Protected Areas, conserving wildlife, promoting and institutionalizing ecotourism, managing coastal biodiversity and wetlands ecosystems, conserving caves and cave resources, information and education on biodiversity

and nature conservation, managing the Ninoy Aquino Parks and Wildlife Center, and negotiating biodiversity-related multilateral environmental agreements and monitoring national implementation.

The Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia (ISEA) is a learning and action network set up by social enterprises and social enterprise resource institutions to catalyze knowledge creation, capacity development and movement-building for social entrepreneurship in the region. ISEA envisions a vibrant social enterprise sector making a difference in the lives of the poor and marginalized in the economies of Asia, and creating pathways towards equitable

and sustainable development.

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

SCALING UP BIODIVERSITY-FRIENDLY ENTERPRISES


Editorial Supervision: Atty. Rodolfo Ferdinand Quicho Ma. Theresa Espino-Yap

Production team: Ester Batangan, Alyssa Carreon, Lovelie Zuluyeta, Ericson Faeldan

Toolkit development: ISEA, Ms. Rina Maria P. Rosales

Additional writing, editing and layout: Gerard Jerome Dumlao

Citation:

Global Environment Facility - Small Grants Programme 5 (GEF-SGP5). (2020). Scaling Up Biodiversity Friendly Enterprises. Philippines: GEF-SGP5.

This knowledge product is published by the Fifth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme in the Philippines (GEF-SGP 5), a project implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Biodiversity Management Bureau (DENR-BMB), and funded by the Global Environment Fund (GEF). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UNDP and DENR-BMB.

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

Contents

Acronyms

Foreword

Part 1: Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises

Part 2: Handbook on Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprise Assessment Tool (BEAT)

ObjectivesTheoretical FrameworkBDFE Assessment ToolStatus of BDFEsDiscussion/Key InsightsSample Business PlansConclusion

Part 3: A Handbook on Strategic Planning for Scaling Up Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprise (BDFE) Initiatives

IntroductionStrategic Planning FrameworkSteps in the Strategic Planning for Scaling Up BDFEs

Part 4: Epilogue

Annexes

References

6

10

12

23

24242635394152

53

535560

83

87

97

5


Acronyms

4Ps Pamilyang Pilipino Pantawid Program

ABTV Abaca Bunchy-Top Virus

ACPC Agricultural Credit Policy Council

ACT Adaptive Community Transformation

ADMP Abaca Disease Management Project

AFAES Access Facilities and Enhancement Services

AFG Abaca Focal Group

AMCFP Agro-Industry Modernization Credit and Financing Program

AMSC Abaca Multi-sectoral Coalition

APCP Agrarian Production Credit Project

ARB Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries

ARBO Agrarian Reform Beneficiary Organization

ARMM Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao

ASL Accessible and Sustainable Lending

ASM Abaca Sustainability Manual

ATDF Abaca Techno-Demonstration Farm

AVC Agricultural Value Chains

BAFS Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Standards

BBrMV Banana Bract Mosaic Virus

BDFE Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprise

BDFSE Biodiversity-Friendly Social Enterprise

BEAT Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises Assessment Tool

BMB Biodiversity Management Bureau

BPI Bureau of Plant Industry

BSP Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

BTP Benchmark for Transformational Partnerships

BTP-WEE-AVCs Benchmarks for Transformational Partnerships and Women’s Economic Empow-erment in Agricultural Value Chains

CALP Cooperative Agricultural Lending Program Facility

CAR Cordillera Administrative Region

CARD Center for Agriculture and Rural Development, Inc.

CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CBFM Community-Based Forest Management

CBFMA Community-Based Forest Management Agreement

CBI Community-Based Innovations

CBP Currency Bank Paper

6

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

CCA DRR Climate Change Adaptation - Disaster Risk Reduction

CDA Cooperative Development Authority

CEFA Centralized Farmers Association

CLOA Certificate of Land Ownership Award

CODA Cotton Development Administration

CPH Census of Population and Housing

CPMU Country Programme Management Unit

CRS Catholic Relief Services

CSO Civil Society Organization

CY Calendar Year

DA Department of Agriculture

DAR Department of Agrarian Reform

DBP Development Bank of the Philippines

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DfID Department for International Development of the United Kingdon

DOLE Department of Labor and Employment

DOST Department of Science and Technology

DOT Department of Tourism

DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways

DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

EMS Environmental Management System

EO Executive Order

EVPRD Eastern Visayas Partnership for Rural Development Inc.

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FDG Focus Group Discussion

FIDA Fiber Industry Development Authority

FPE Foundation for the Philippine Environment

FPRDI Forest Products Research and Development Institute

FRT Field Research Team

GBE Grading and Baling Establishment

GEF-SGP5 Global Environment Facility - Small Grants Programme Phase 5

GFI Government Financial Institution

GMA Genetically Modified Abaca

GOCC Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation

HYVRV High Yielding and Virus Resistant Variety

ICTS Information and Communications Technology

IEC Information and Education Campaign

IP indigenous peoples

IPB Institute of Plant Breeding

7


IPLC indigenous peoples and local communities

ISEA Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia

ISP Industry Strategic S&T Plan

Kalahi-CIDDS Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services

KII Key Informant Interview

KRA Key Result Area

LBP Land Bank of the Philippines

LCA Local Conservation Area

LGC Local Government Code

LGU Local Government Unit

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MBS-BDFEI Model Building for Scaling Up Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprise Initiatives

MCIT Minimum Corporate Income Tax

MFI Microfinance Institution

MIS Management Information System

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOV Means of Verification

MPDC Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator

MRI Mutually Reinforcing Institution

MSMEs Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises

MT Metric Ton

NARC National Abaca Research Center

NCR National Capital Region

NGA National Government Agency

NGO Non-Government Organization

NGP National Greening Program

NIA National Irrigation Administration

NICCEP National Industry Cluster Capacity Enhancement Program

NSIC National Seed Industry Council

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

P3 Pondo sa Pagbabago at Pag-Asenso

PAO Provincial Agriculture Office

PAR Philippine Abaca Roadmap

PCA Philippine Coconut Authority

PCAARRD Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic, and Natural Resources

PGS Participatory Guarantee System

PCCAO Provincial Cooperative and Community Affairs Office

PCIP Provincial Commodity Investment Plan

PDC Provincial Development Council

8

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

PDP Philippine Development Program

PEC Personal Entrepreneurial Competency

PGENRO Provincial Government Environment and Natural Resources Office

PhilFIDA Philippine Fiber Industry Development Authority

PNS Philippine National Standards

PO People’s Organization

PPDO Provincial Planning and Development Office

PPMA Philippine Paper Manufacturers Association, Inc.

PPP Public Private Partnership

PRDP Philippine Rural Development Program

PSA Philippine Statistics Authority

PSPI Pulp Specialties Phil., Inc.

PUNLA Program for Unified Lending in Agriculture

PVC polyvinyl chloride

RCIT Regular Corporate Income Tax

RDC Regional Development Council

S&T Science and Technology

SAN Sustainable Agriculture Network

SARED Sustainable Agribusiness and Rural Enterprise Development

SCFMF Special Credit Facility for Marginal Farmers and Fisherfolks

SDG Sustainable Development Goals

SEC Securities and Exchange Commission

SE Social Enterprise

SEI Social Enterprise Institution

SEPPS Social Enterprises with Poor as Primary Stakeholders

SILCAB Social Infrastructure and Local Capacity Building

SINP Samar Island Natural Park

SPMI Specialty Pulp Manufacturing, Inc.

SPPI Sentro ha Pagpauswag ha Panginabuhi, Inc.

SSF Shared Service Facilities

TESDA Technical Education and Skills Development Authority

UEP University of Eastern Philippines

UK United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UPLB University of the Philippines at Los Baños

USAID United States Agency for International Development

VMG Vision, Mission, Goals

VCA Value Chain Analysis

VSU Visayas State University

WEE Women Economic Empowerment

9


The GEF - Small Grants Programme is a grant making facility established and

funded by the Global Environment Facility (www.thegef.org) to support the environmental initiatives of civil society organizations (CSOs), people’s organizations (POs) and community-based organizations that contribute to global environmental benefits, particularly the global targets under international conventions. Since its establishment in 1992, GEF-SGP had completed five operational phases and is now being implemented in some 125 countries. The Philippines is one of the pioneer countries of GEF-SGP.

The Fifth Operational Phase of the GEF - Small Grants Programme (GEF-SGP5) in the Philippines, which was implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) from October 2013 until December 2019, worked on five outcome areas. The first outcome area referred to the establishment and strengthening of management of community protected areas; the second on the establishment and community management of production landscapes and seascapes; the third on the production and marketing by local communities of forestry, fishery and agricultural products that do not compromise

Foreword

the integrity of biodiversity; the fourth on capability-building of the grantees and their partners; and the fifth on establishing a monitoring and evaluation system for the project that can be pursued by the grantees themselves.

This publication concerns the third outcome area. In implementing the said outcome area, GEF-SGP5 used the terminology “Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises (BDFE)”, which was coined by the Biodiversity Partnerships Project (BPP), also funded by GEF and implemented by UNDP and DENR. Relative to this, GEF-SGP5 supported 41 grantees that integrated BDFEs into their biodiversity conservation projects in partnership with 141 communities.

10

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

By the end of 2017, these grantees’ BDFE initiatives had reached various degrees of progress, with a good number of them ready to scale up. GEF-SGP5 deemed it a strategic response to provide the grantees models that can guide them in scaling up their BDFEs beyond their projects. The challenge is how to scale-up these BDFEs to give maximum economic benefits to the communities, but still retain their BDFE character of being ecologically responsible and equity-oriented endeavors.

Along this line, GEF-SGP5 partnered with the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia (ISEA), which innovated on its previously tested tool, Benchmarks for Transformational Partnerships and Women’s Economic Empowerment in Agricultural Value Chains (BTP-WEE AVC) and modeled scale up planning using subsector action research.

In addition, GEF-SGP5 engaged the services of Ms. Rina Maria P. Rosales, who developed the Biodiversity Enterprise Assessment Tool (BEAT) to identify the required processes and enabling conditions for the development and scaling up of BDFEs as guide to business planning.

This publication contains the results of the abovementioned interventions. It is worthy to note that these tools were piloted with the direct participation of local communities implementing BDFEs. It is therefore hoped that this publication will be useful as a guide for determining the pathways for initial biodiversity-friendly livelihoods into blossoming as sustainable BDFEs.

11


Part 1

Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises (BDFEs)1

While large scale extractive industries like mining, plantation agriculture and logging have a lot to do

with the destruction of biodiversity areas in the Philippines, it cannot also be ignored that ordinary people can share the blame as well. Biodiversity is a source of life and livelihood. People, especially the poor, live off it. It is actually part of the natural order of things.

People living in biodiversity areas – small farmers, fishers, and indigenous peoples (IPs) – are often the poorest of the poor, the most vulnerable members of society, and have no choice but to depend on their surroundings for their daily subsistence needs. However, in the quest for survival, biodiversity suffers.

Thus, it is imperative that a balance be struck between protecting the ecosystems where the most vulnerable people live and depend on, and enabling them not only to subsist but eke out a living as well.

The Biodiversity Partnerships Project (BPP), which was funded by the Global Environment Fund (GEF) and implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), introduced the concept of “Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises”. DENR

Technical Bulletin 2017-11 defines BDFEs as:

“Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises are economic activities and practices of micro-, small-, and medium-enterprises, local government units (LGUs), and people’s organizations (POs) that promote the sustainable use of biological resources, create wealth and value, and open opportunities for the equitable sharing of benefits among shareholders.”

BDFEs can be found in three main industry sectors:

1. Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Coastal/Marine Resources (primary sector): these are economic activities that rely on agricultural, forest, and marine resources for raw materials but at the same time engage in practices to maintain or

12

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

replenish these resources.2. Manufacturing (secondary sector):

includes economic activities that promote the use of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) as raw materials from areas not designated as strict protection zones within protected areas and critical habitats, and abundant resources from coastal and marine areas.

3. Services (tertiary sector): includes economic activities that can generate fees for biodiversity services.

The BPP developed a set of criteria for a livelihood activity to be considered a BDFE (see Annex 1). The GEF-SGP 5 then adapted the criteria, but instead of using the point system, it framed said criteria into a checklist because it was apparent that establishing a BDFE is a journey considering the standards.

The main guiding framework for the BDFE project is the sustainable development (SD) framework. As such, BDFEs contribute to the objectives of environmental protection, economic development, and social development through the conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of resources, and at the same time promote sustainable businesses that support environmental protection, economic growth, and social equity.

The three pillars of BDFEs are:

1. Environment – the business must protect ecology

2. Economy – the business must provide economic benefits for the community

3. Equity – the business must provide equal benefits for all stakeholders, especially women and indigenous peoples

There is an increasing acceptance that businesses also possess biodiversity-relevant knowledge, technical resources, and management skills that can be used to better manage biological resources.

At the project’s inception, a scoping activity was conducted on biodiversity-friendly enterprises in the BPP sites. Among the findings of the scoping activity was that enterprises or livelihood projects that incorporate conservation components already existed but are not consciously considered as biodiversity-friendly. The scoping activity also determined that there are potential BDFEs that can be developed with the right push and policy support.

The BPP was grounded on the recognition that biodiversity resources are the major sources of livelihood and income of upland and coastal communities, and that conservation is a viable economic proposition. The project aimed to provide guidance in the identification, assessment, and promotion of BDFEs, provide for an enabling environment and incentives, and encourage communities in and around biodiversity-rich areas to engage in BDFEs.

The BPP prioritized enterprises and livelihood activities of communities dependent on the ecosystems services provided by biodiversity situated within Protected Areas (PAs), Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), and the wider landscapes and seascapes. Local communities, industries utilizing resources or benefitting from the protected areas, critical habitats, and other ecosystems were also included in the scope of the project.

Taking off from the key pillars, the criteria1developed by the DENR-BMB for

1 DENR-BMB Technical Bulletin 2017-1113


the identification and evaluation of BDFEs are:

1. Ecological criterion – deals with the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of biological resources. It looks into the implications of the enterprise’s operations (i.e. inputs, process, and outputs) on ecology (the interaction of organisms and the environment).This criterion has two non-negotiable indicators, namely, Spatial and Species: a. Spatial – Enterprise should be

within the Multiple-use Zone/Buffer Zone. It should be noted that there is a basic distinction between BPP project sites and GEF-SGP5 project sites. In BPP, the areas were within or surrounding NIPAS sites. In GEF-SGP5, the project sites were situated in all sorts of areas. The nearest to the BPP models, in terms of space, is that many of these projects were in or near community protected areas. Be that as it may, “spatial” is still a valid indicator.

b. Species – Resources should be

indigenous but not threatened, and not indicator species

The Ecological criterion also has four other indicators:

c. Impact to biodiversityn Complement the conser-

vation of biodiversity-rich areas and its threatened, indigenous and indicator fauna and flora species, if any

n Promote the rehabilitation of degraded or fragmented habitats of threatened,

indigenous, and indicator fauna and flora

nInvolvement in the prevention or mitigation against biodiversity damages/ impact from natural and anthropogenic causes

n Discourage alteration of the natural landscapes

nAwareness on the concept of wildlife corridors

d. Input (raw material sourcing, extraction process, and assembly of product)n Awareness of raw materials’

natural regeneration (e.g. maturity of timber and non-timber products, breeding season of fish)

n Awareness and practice of sustainable extraction and utilization of resources/raw materials

nMethod of extraction will have no impact on the genetic make-up/composition and population of flora and fauna species (e.g. cross-breeding)

nSecondary raw materials used do not cause any harmful effect to biological resources (human, flora, fauna, and the environment) and will not degrade the quality of the raw materials

n Mechanism for sustainability of raw material is in place (e.g. nursery establishment)

n Promote the sustainable use of indigenous and traditional flora and fauna species

n Promote efficient use of renewable energy and materials

14

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

e. ProcessThe production process:n Does not cause any harm to

the population and habitats of threatened, indigenous, indicator flora and fauna species

n Promotes conservation of Philippine biodiversity

nConsiders women and men’s health and safety in environmental aspect

n Does not use strong and harmful chemicals

n Considers technological innovations and best practices that are gender responsive, culturally sensitive, and environmentally sound

n Considers the indigenous knowledge systems and practices relevant to biodiversity

n Undergoes government regulatory systems and procedures, when appropriate

f. Output n Finished product may

likewise serve as raw material for another BD-friendly project

n By-products may be recyclable; otherwise, the enterprise should have a system for proper disposal of wastes

2. Economic criterion – deals with the viable, sound, and broad-based development of the enterprise that creates wealth and value and positive financial returns that benefit the community, the local government, and biodiversity.

This criterion has two indicators:

a. Employmentn Fifteen percent of the

households within the immediate barangay/s are employed and engaged

n Offers equal opportunities for women, men, indigenous peoples, and other marginalized sectors

n Provides favorable working conditions to workers that can address their concerns on health, safety, and welfare

b. Incomen Provides additional or

alternative sources of livelihood and income to household (at least 10% increase in household income)

n Provides additional sources of income or own-source revenues for host local government units (at least 10% increase in LGU revenue)

n Provides additional sources of income to Protected Area (if applicable)

3. Equity criterion – deals with the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources. It emphasizes the benefits for men and women, indigenous peoples, and other stakeholders in all stages of the business enterprise. This also includes the impact of the business enterprise to the conservation of biodiversity in a certain locality, Protected Area, Key Biodiversity Area, or wider production landscapes and seascapes.

15


This criterion has five indicators:

a. Increased participation of women and indigenous peoples (IPs), from planning to implementation

b. Develop or enhance knowledge and skills of both women and men, as well as IPs

c. Could enhance the capability of LGUs as well as local communities in managing and conserving biodiversity resources

d. Respect the rights and promote the welfare of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC)

e. Ensures that benefits accrue back to the IPLC protecting the raw materials

In addition, legal and institutional criteria may be used encompassing the foregoing three criteria.

BDFE Form 2, the form prescribed by DENR-BMB in identifying/evaluating BDFEs, is presented in Annex 1.

Projects supported under GEF-SGP5 were characterized as follows:

1. Sustainable agriculture, forestry, and fishery

a. Application of biodiversity-friendly agricultural practices such as diversified farming (intercropping), multi-cropping, agro-forestry, including sloping agricultural land technology (SALT), among others

b. Sustainable fisheries and fish farming/aquaculture practices that reduce the pressure and overexploitation of aquatic resources, seaweed farming, Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA), closed-cycle fish rearing systems, RAS, among others

c. Sustainable fishing and enterprise developed using marine products as raw materials

d. Wildlife farming (with appropriate permit)

e. Establishment of community-based or household/backyard nursery of indigenous trees/plants

f. Planting of indigenous trees Growing traditional/indigenous agricultural crops

g. Growing and sustainable harvesting of raw materials for medicinal/pharmaceutical use Establishment of “wild flora gallery/production centers”, sustainable horticulture or floriculture enterprises

h. Production of organic products (integrated organic agriculture)

i. Production of charcoal briquettes using waste materials

Use of invasive or other introduced species is not allowed. Monoculture plantations are discouraged. Plantations shall only be allowed in public lands covered by tenurial agreements.

2. Manufacturinga. Manufacture of food products

n Processing of fruits into jam, vinegar, and candies

n Processing of coffee and tean Agro-products made into chipsn Gourmet tuyo (dried fish)n Canned fish

b. Manufacture of beveragesn Processing of fruits into winen Processing of vegetables/fruits

into juicesc. Manufacture of textiles

n Production of handicrafts and other souvenir items/products

d. Manufacture of appareln Production of clothing apparel

using traditional/non-traditional raw materials abundant in the area

n Production of bagsn Production of footwear

16

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

e. Manufacture of non-timber forest productsn Sap, resin, and natural dyesn Skin and body care productsnEssential oils

3. Servicesa. Tour guidingb. Homestayc. Boatingd. Habitat restoratione. Reforestationf. Health and wellness g. Agri-tourismh. Community-based ecotourismi. Public-private-community partnership

for park development and managementj. Allowances generated as forest/sea/

lake guard/guide with priority hiring of indigenous peoples

k. Fees collected from tour guiding/park interpretation, and assistance in spelunking

l. Payment for monitoring/assuring the survival of trees planted in the reforestation areas

Based on the criteria, 41 of GEF-SGP5 grantees integrated BDFEs/livelihood programs into their biodiversity conservation projects in partnership with 141 communities. These BDFEs/livelihood programs directly or indirectly benefitted 17,217 individuals, of which 57 percent were men and 43 percent were women (FPE Terminal Report).

These projects were located in various communities in the priority sites of Palawan, Samar Island (in the provinces or Northern and Eastern Samar), and the Sierra Madre Mountain Range of Northeastern Luzon (in the provinces of Rizal, Quezon, Aurora, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, and Isabela).

These projects were intended to demonstrate the social and economic rewards of biodiversity conservation to

poor, marginalized, and natural resource dependent communities against the backdrop of large socio-ecological landscapes and seascapes. They covered a wide range of livelihood endeavors – production, processing, marketing, and tourism in various ecosystems (coastal and marine, forest, wetlands, and agricultural lands).

By the end of 2017, when most of the projects were winding down, a good number of the BDFE endeavors were already showing potential for scaling up. In some cases, the GEF-SGP5 grantees and their partner communities were already dealing with the private sector to market their products, government agencies, such as the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Philippine Fiber Industry Development Authority (PhilFIDA), were already taking notice of their initiatives and helping them in their product development. Some local governments have also expressed interest in expanding the interventions through additional funding support. In many cases, more community members have shown interest in adopting the technologies introduced by the BDFEs mainly due to the additional household income generated by the projects. Funding institutions have also expressed interest in continuing the projects after GEF-SGP5.

That, of course, was a welcome development. The desire of GEF-SGP5

17


was to uplift the economic condition of as many community members as it can reach by including them in the production of biodiversity-friendly products and bringing them higher in the value chain as they contribute to global environmental benefits.

Considering, however, the BDFE criteria, scaling up was and is not an easy proposition. As early as the initial evaluation of the project proposals, the Project Technical Review Committee – a panel of technical experts in various fields of biodiversity conservation and social enterprises – and, especially during the implementation of the projects, the National Steering Committee already expressed concerns about the potential adverse impacts of some projects at scale. Overharvesting, soil degradation, monocropping, introduction of Invasive Alien Species, and pollution were among the concerns raised that would not only impact the environment but might also have equity implications. On the business side, overestimation of the market, lack of access to capital and inadequacy of entreprenurial skills were foreseen to imperil the economic prospects of the communities.

The challenge for GEF-SGP5 was to ensure that scaling up would not veer away from the BDFE character of the livelihood initiatives. Instead, these endeavors should progress towards becoming more biodiversity-friendly, considering that attaining BDFE status is a long process. The premise is that attaining the triple outcome of profit, ecology, and equity makes good business sense because it helps ensure the sustainability of the enterprise and builds the resiliency of the community.

Along this line, GEF-SGP5 provided a grant to the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia (ISEA), a non-profit based at the Ateneo de Manila University that has a long and formidable track record in providing expert support to community-based social enterprises in Asia through a project entitled “Model Building for Scaling Up BDFE Initiatives”, which innovated on its previously tested tool, Benchmarks for Transformational Partnerships and Women’s Economic Empowerment in Agricultural Value Chains (BTP-WEE AVC) and modeled scale up planning using subsector action research.

In addition, GEF-SGP5 engaged the services of Ms. Rina Maria P. Rosales, one of the most active developmental economists in the country specializing in community-based and natural resource-related social enterprises. This engagement developed the Biodiversity Enterprise Assessment Tool (BEAT) to identify the required processes and enabling conditions for the development and scaling up of BDFEs as guide to business planning.

Both ISEA and Ms. Rosales worked closely with select grantees with BDFE initiatives to pilot their tools, which led to participatory business planning.

This publication contains the final reports of these modeling projects. It is hoped that this will help communities scale-up their initiatives by moving towards making their initial livelihood ventures into real BDFEs and expanding these with a view to sustainability and profitability.

18

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

EXAMPLES OF BDFE PROJECTS OF GEF-SGP5:

It pays to be organicThe Cabayugan Farmers Association (CFA) is an organization of 108 farmers from Sitio Sabang, Barangay Cabayugan, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. It was organized in February of 2012 and is registered with the Department of Labor and Employment.

Of the CFA’s 108 members, 37 (32%) are women.

Its members are involved in organic rice farming, with an average annual income of Php80,000 per household from two harvest cycles per year.

Their product is 100 percent organic. They produce their own vermicast, which they use as fertilizer. CFA members also use a mix of chili, kakawate leaves, ginger, and vines as insecticide. They also shun mechanized farming methods which use fossil fuels, utilizing the traditional carabao and plow instead in land preparation.

This is a crucial decision for the good of the environment on the part of CFA, given their proximity to the world heritage Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park (PPSRNP). “By doing traditional methods, we avoid having fuel and oil, says CFA president Fileberto Caniedo.

The association members sell their produce themselves, with restaurants and hotels in the Sabang area as their market. They also sell vermicast to farmers in the area. To increase their income and encourage more farmers to plant organic rice, they went into rice trading as their BDFE, which was funded through GEF-SGP5.

The association wanted to go into rice trading to increase the income of its members, so that they would no longer resort to activities that harm the environment such as charcoal-making, which entails the cutting of trees.

From the SGP’s assistance, CFA expanded its warehouse and purchased a mechanical dryer, a scale, sacks, a rice mill, and rakes.

The association has ambitious goals for their rice trading business. In its business plan, the members project annual revenues of Php84 million in its first two years. After expenses, CFA projects a profit of Php27.37 million in its first year of operations and Php26.22 million in its second year of operations.

CFA’s rice trading operations is just starting, but if everything comes to fruition, then going organic not only protects biodiversity, it can make millionaires out of ordinary rice farmers as well.

Paddling their way to mangrove conservation

For most visitors to Puerto Princesa City in Palawan, the underground river tour is the highlight of their trip. But near the underground river, often overlooked, is another tour in Sitio Sabang, Barangay Cabayugan, that is equally worthy of the tourists’ time – the Sabang mangrove forest.

The Sabang mangrove forest is composed of age-old and large mangroves that have remained untouched largely due to the protection of local fishers. One of the groups that conduct tours in this valuable ecosystem is the Sabang Mangrove Paddle Boat Tour Guide Association (SMPBTGAI).

SMPBTGAI is one of the oldest people’s organizations among the GEF-SGP5 grantees, having been established way back in December 4, 2000 with 19 members. However, due to a number of factors, most of the members became inactive until only three remained.

In August of 2008, with the help of the Puerto Princesa City Tourism Office (CTO), new members were recruited and trained, which revitalized the organization. With support from the CTO, more tourists joined the Sabang mangrove paddleboat tour. The tour even received a Wildlife Friendly Award.

19


With these enhancements, SMPBTGAI estimates that annual revenue will improve to over Php4 million in the first two years, with net income at over Php2 million. With added revenue and income, the group can ensure that the mangroves will be effectively managed and protected because keeping the ecosystem healthy will be their cash cow.

So next time you visit Palawan, take the mangrove paddleboat tour. You not only help the fisher folk, you also get to appreciate the wonderful and valuable ecosystem that they are protecting.

Delicious crustacean helps preserve a precious marine resource

The Pasay, Kinis and Bangus Association (PAKIBA) has shown that protecting mangroves not only helps preserve biodiversity in this important ecosystem, but is financially rewarding as well.

PAKIBA is based in Sitio Macpao, Purok 8, Barangay P. Tingzon, San Jose, Northern Samar, was organized in 2010 and registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in June 2011. It is a fully legitimate organization with accreditation and business permit from the Barangay and Municipal Local Government Units (LGU), and registration with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). It is composed of 28 members, made up of fisher folk and farmers.

In 2012, the association was granted a project by the National Greening Program (NGP) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to protect and rehabilitate mangroves in their area. To-date, PAKIBA manages 300 hectares of mangrove forests and has rehabilitated 100 hectares.

In 2015, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP) gave 20 members

20

each Php10,000 in seed money for crab fattening.

In 2016, the group was able to get funds from GEF-SGP5 for the project “Community-Based Mangrove Management and Protection for Sustainable Utilization”. This was followed by another grant from the BUB-Department of Agriculture 2017-2018 “Sustainable Agri-Fishery Based Livelihood and other Agri-Fishery Business Investments.”

The association decided to go into crab fattening due to the immense supply of crablets from the mangroves that they are managing. Out of the 300 hectares, only around 3.8 hectares are utilized for crab fattening, which benefits 40 households (including non-members).

PAKIBA also has a bangus (milkfish) in oil business, which benefits 20 women members.

The average income of each beneficiary from the two enterprises is Php3,000 to Php3,500 a month.

With assistance from GEF-SGP 5, the association is expanding its crab fattening, bangus in oil, and fingerlings operation. Currently, they already have three buyers. PAKIBA’s goal is to be a consolidator of mangrove crabs. At present, PAKIBA can supply seven kilograms of mangrove crabs a week. However, the demand can reach as much as 100 kilograms a day, and that is what PAKIBA wants to tap into. Supply is not a problem since the mangroves contain lots of crablets that the association can fatten. Their problem is they do not have enough funds to buy more crablets.

PAKIBA believes that crab fattening will contribute to biodiversity conservation because fisherfolk will protect the mangroves as these supply the crablets which they can sell to the association for fattening. Mangrove crabs from PAKIBA are in demand because these are fat, delicious, and fresh. As people in the area recognize the

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP 21

income-generating potential of mangrove crabs, they no longer eat female crabs because these can breed more crablets.

Mangrove crabs can be sold for as much as Php600 to Php700 a kilogram. Thus, the association projects that if they can deliver at least 95 kilograms a month for one fattening cage, then they can generate revenues of at least Php57,000 a month for one cage only (at Php600 selling price per kilogram).

Eventually, they intend to ramp up their production, not only of mangrove crabs, but of bangus in oil as this is also in great demand. To do this, they have to purchase land for a production facility, build the production facility, purchase the necessary equipment, and even have a bigger boat for the bangus catch.

PAKIBA members are optimistic that all their plans, no matter how ambitious will be accomplished in due time as long as there are mangroves, which they intend to manage and protect.

Traditional weaving as a solution to environmental degradation

The Dimasalang Egongot Tribe Farmers and Weavers Association (DETFAWAI) is an organization of Egongot indigenous peoples deep in the heart of the Sierra Madre mountains – in Sitio Dimasalang, Barangay Diananan, Maria Aurora, Aurora province. It was formed on June 15, 2015, registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on March 10, 2016, and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) five days later on March 15, 2016.

The Egongots subsist on hunting, gathering, and small farming on their ancestral land.

DETFAWAI’s foray into enterprise development started with the establishmentof a tree nursery, subsequently expanding into dragon fruit farming and weaving. The association now has a training hall, an office, and four full-time staff.

For a small organization made up of 25 women and 6 men, DEFATWAI’s path to success is inspiring. With a P200,000 grant from GEF-SGP 5, the association established a tree nursery and started reforestation activities.

Due to these activities, the Egongot were able to restore the forests and take care of the natural resources within their ancestral land. Also, with a steady source of income, the association started to dream bigger.

They have started a weaving enterprise, creating hand-woven products from sabutan, a native material found in the area. Using indigenous methods handed down from generations, the Egongots weave the sabutan into eco-friendly bags (bayong), sleeping mats (banig), hats, and wallets.

The sabutan, a type of grass that grows freely within their ancestral domain, but wihich the Egongots have cultivated for weaving purposes, is biodegradable and will not add to the trash that clogs vital waterways and fills up landfills.

The grant from GEF-SGP 5 was primarily used to buy machinery and equipment for sewing the woven sabutan into finished products.

The enterprise is poised to make the Egongots financially stable, if not downright rich. Initial revenue projections are pegged at Php8.4 million annually for the first two years. If they meet those revenue targets, the Egongots should earn Php1.18 million on the first year and Php1.24 million on the second year.

Traditional weaving as a solution to environmental degradation

Deep in the Sierra Madre mountain range, in Sitio Alas-asin, Barangay Daraitan, Tanay, Rizal, is a group of indigenous peoples and upland farmers that have embraced the tenets of conservation.

Scaling Up Biodiversity Friendly Enterprises22

The Katutubo ng Daraitan para sa Kalikasan, Kabuhayan, at Kalusugan (4K) was founded as an organic farmers’ group in response to the call for beneficiaries of the Organic Farming project of the UPLBFI under the GEF-SGP 5 in 2016.

The three tribal chieftains of the barangay selected four representatives from each of their sitios who later on made up the 12 pioneers of the Organic Farming project in Barangay Daraitan.

They were taught the basics of organic farming, crop quality assurance, crop propagation techniques, postharvest handling, product delivery, customer relations, basic marketing, and basic financial literacy.

When the project’s funding formally ended in February 2018, majority of the pioneers still chose to continue with organic farming because they found value in what they started. Thus, they organized themselves into a group of organic farmers. Not long after, additional members were welcomed because of the growing market.

The group now has 20 members. The average income of the members from organic farming is P1,000 a week. Of the 20 members, seven are women.

The UPLBFI Organic Farming project is tailor-made for the group because it incorporates marketing and has follow-through and monitoring mechanisms which previous projects did not offer. The project went the extra mile because it brough back the sense of self-worth of the IP farmers by making sure that their buyers know the faces behind their food.

To facilitate marketing even though they are now connected to premium outlets such as Healthy Options in Manila and Sierreza in Los Baños, Laguna, the group conceptualized an on-site eco-friendly sari-sari or convenience

store that can showcase their products, and at the same time promote a “zero-waste” culture.

Aptly named “Zero-Waste Sari-Sari Store (ZWSSS)”, the group’s newest endeavor is a budget-friendly neighborhood convenience store that offers staple food products that are package-free or can be bought refill style, as well as organic produce, both fresh and processed, grown or made by local producers.

Customers can bring and reuse their own containers to buy only the amount they need, thus helping them budget their money while reducing the use of single-use non-biodegradable plastic packaging.

The ZWSSS offers a wide-range of products that can be bought package-free, such as:

1. Locally-produced organic crops (rice, vegetables, fruits, root crops)

2. Locally produced tea, coffee, and herbal medicines

3. Grocery items such as instant coffee, milk, sugar, and condiments

4. Home and personal care products that are made in the community and use natural ingredients (shampoo, soap, cleaners)

5. Drinks and snacks (coconut watre, sweet potato fries, turon)

The ZWSSS further contributes to biodiversity conservation by providing a venue to market the products of local eco-friendly producers, hence creating a greater sense of unity as well as appreciation for sustainably-produced products in the community and encouraging others to choose eco-friendly products and livelihoods.

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

Part 2

Handbook on Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprise Assessment

Tool (BEAT)1

The Fifth Operational Phase of the GEF – Small Grants Programme in the Philippines (GEF-SGP-5) supported some

141 community-based, biodiversity-based, or biodiversity-related livelihood or enterprise projects (also referred to as biodiversity-friendly enterprises or BDFEs) in various communities in its priority sites in Palawan, Samar Island (in the provinces of Northern Samar and Eastern Samar) and the Sierra Madre Mountain Range (in the provinces of Rizal, Quezon, Aurora, Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino, and Isabela).

These projects, which are intended to demonstrate the social and economic

rewards of biodiversity conservation to poor marginalized and natural resource-dependent communities against the backdrop of large socio-ecological landscapes and seascapes, cover a wide range of livelihood endeavors – production, processing, marketing, and tourism in various ecosystems (coastal and marine, forest, wetlands, agricultural lands).

Based on the reports submitted by its 41 project holders that pursue these projects, these BDFEs are at various stages of progress. Some are in advanced stages of enterprise development, entering into formal contracts with private sector entities such as the case

of the the Eastern Visayas Partnerships for Rural Development (EVPRD) for abaca production. On the other extreme, some BDFEs have not gone beyond reforestation efforts and establishment of nurseries, which may be admirable in terms of raising awareness on the importance of forest conservation but have not demonstrated any capacity in building a business out of the reforestation activity. Still, other grantees have yet to improve their business operations before becoming sustainable enterprises.

GEF-SGP5 thus aimed to have a wider and deeper understanding of the challenges of pursuing BDFEs. Along this

1 Prepared by Rina Maria P. Rosales, with research assistance by Ina Judith Calabio.

23


line, it would like to know the problems faced by its projects and how these problems can be addressed through business and marketing planning at the community level. This is aimed to inform the impending successor operational phase of SGP and hopefully other grant making mechanisms that support BDFEs. The Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), for one, has started to embed its programming with support to BDFEs as in the case of the Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Management Program (CMEMP).

This handbook is divided into seven parts. The succeeding section outlines the objectives of the assessment tool, followed by some relevant definitions and the theoretical framework that informs the indicators included in the tool. The fourth section discusses the assessment tool itself, along with the indicators for the enabling conditions and meeting outcomes. Results of the assessment of the covered BDFEs are presented in Section 5, while Section 6 contains some key insights and discussion deemed relevant in the conduct of the assessment. The last section outlines some next steps for the consideration of UNDP, the succeeding operational phases of the GEF-SGP and other projects or grant making vehicles interested in BDFEs.

OBJECTIVES

This tool aims to provide a framework in assessing BDFEs in terms of: 1) the required processes and enabling conditions for the enterprises to develop and be established; and 2) measuring the success of BDFEs in achieving economic, social and environmental outcomes.

The first part of the tool was piloted among select BDFEs funded by GEF-SGP5,

and the results are presented in the latter part of the handbook. As to the second part of the tool, it was deemed too early for outcomes to be assessed, as BDFE establishment commenced only two years ago. It is however recommended that a follow-up assessment or evaluation be done with the GEF-SGP5 beneficiaries after a considerable amount of time, e.g. one to two years later, to measure whether the target outcomes have been met.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Definition of BDFEs

GEF-SGP5 in the Philippines adopted the definition of BDFEs articulated by the Biodiversity Partnerships Project (BPP), which states that BDFEs are “economic activities and practices of micro, small, and medium enterprises, that promote the sustainable use of biological resources, create wealth and value, and, open opportunities for the equitable sharing of benefits among stakeholders” (DENR-BMB Technical Bulletin 2018-03). The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has a stricter definition for what they term as conservation enterprises, i.e. enterprises that generate economic and social benefits in ways that help achieve conservation outcomes (Boshoven July 2018). Social enterprises, on the other hand, do not have a conservation objective in its definition; rather, as the term implies, the social objective is what distinguishes it from ordinary micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). The Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia (ISEA) defines social enterprises as those that “contribute to creation of wealth through the sale of products and services, just like any business; but the social component is equally important, whereby profits are distributed equitably to alleviate poverty” (ISEA September

24

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

2017). The DENR definition equates the three objectives (economic, social and environmental) equally and does not specify which one leads to the other, while USAID seems to believe that there is a causality that should happen, i.e. the occurrence of economic and social benefits will lead to conservation.

Objective of BDFEs

The establishment of BDFEs is one of the main strategies employed by GEF-SGP5 in promoting biodiversity conservation. This stems from the idea that poverty is one of the main threats to biodiversity, particularly emanating from communities living within and near areas targeted for conservation. The hypothesis is that addressing the economic needs of these communities can transform them into partners for conservation, or at least minimize the threats of excessive resource extraction or pollution.

Stemming from the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) adopted by the Department for International Development (DfID) of the United Kingdom, the World Bank, and other development agencies in the early 2000s, the main objective of BDFEs is to increase household assets (Scoones 1998 Carney 1998, 2003, Ashley and Carney 1999; in Lim Chon Pung 2018) while simultaneously contributing to biodiversity conservation. In general, economic assets are defined to be “entities functioning as stores of value…and from which economic benefits may be derived by their owners by holding them or using them over a period of time” (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development or OECD 2001). They can therefore be in the form of money, household items or structures, or even knowledge and networks that can be used in improving quality of life of household members.

Capital Requirements for Establishing BDFEs

Once a business idea has been conceptualized, the next big challenge is to procure capital. Ordinarily, one would equate this to be in material form: financial capital, i.e. money to purchase whatever inputs are needed for production, and physical capital, i.e. whatever human-made equipment or facilities are needed in production. Both are necessary ingredients before any enterprise can be established. In the context of BDFEs, however, capital will have to take on a much broader meaning. Aside from financial and physical capital, there are other forms of capital that are needed before BDFEs can take off.

The need for increasing skills among those directly participating in BDFEs is a given. Owners of, and participants in the BDFEs are the members of the people’s organization (PO) themselves, who usually lack managerial and technical skills taught in formal educational institutions. Technical skills training will be required for production activities that go beyond the traditional practices of the community, as well as in using machinery and equipment required by the enterprise. Management skills will now be essential, particularly sound financial management and bookkeeping. Knowledge on networking and marketing will have to be built if the enterprises are to be sustained and expanded later on. Finally, PO members should have a unified version of biodiversity conservation, including the basic whats (of biodiversity), hows and whys (of conservation), to enable them to self-police and self-monitor themselves against would-be violators of BDFE objectives. All these constitute the need for human capital build-up as part of the BDFE capital requirements.

25


Equally important is the conservation objective of BDFEs. The aim is to contribute to biodiversity conservation, either directly or indirectly, through the operations of the BDFEs. It is further often the case that natural resources or ecosystem services are direct inputs to BDFEs, given their very definition and the characteristics of the target beneficiaries. In this regard, the value of the existing natural capital should not go lower than the level prior to the BDFE’s operations, at the very least. Ideally, the value should go higher, i.e. the BDFE will directly and positively contribute to enhancing the value of natural capital. However, in reality, this is still difficult to achieve and measure. For one, there are almost always tradeoffs in any intervention involving community-based economic activities.

More difficult would be the measurement of natural capital values before and after the BDFEs are introduced. It might be more prudent to aim for natural capital not being further degraded by BDFEs, at the minimum. This is particularly important in cases where natural resources are direct inputs to the BDFE. It may appear to be less important if the BDFE is in the service industry, or some other economic activity that does not require direct inputs from the natural environment. But to qualify as a BDFE, there has to be some link between the enterprise and biodiversity conservation. In any case, the main point here is to include natural capital as part of the capital requirements in establishing BDFEs, whether as direct or indirect inputs to production.

Finally, the social objective of BDFEs is to empower marginalized communities and transform them into partners in biodiversity conservation. A unique feature of BDFEs is that they are operated by POs or local community groups

organized for a specific characteristic, e.g. farmers’ or fishers’ associations, women’s groups, among others. It is thus imperative that the “entrepreneurs” or POs, be equipped with enough social capital to be able to achieve that transformation, as they implement their BDFEs. Social capital is loosely defined to “consist of a stock of trust, mutual understanding, shared values, and socially held knowledge” (Goodwin 2003). It is probably the most controversial form of capital because of the difficulty of measuring it.

BDFE ASSESSMENT TOOL

The theoretical framework outlines five types of capital needed for BDFEs to be established successfully: social, human, financial, physical, and natural. On the other hand, the strategy of using BDFEs is meant to achieve three types of outcomes: economic, social and environmental. This section proposes indicators for each type of capital requirement in assessing whether BDFE establishment contains all the necessary elements, as well as indicators for each type of outcome in evaluating whether the BDFE strategy is achieving its objectives.

The proposed assessment tool is composed of two parts:

1. Indicators that lead to the build-up of the five capital requirements; and

2. Evaluation of the BDFE’s outputs and outcomes, in terms of economic, social, and environmental indicators

Part 1: Assessment of BDFE Establishment

For Part 1 of the assessment, the following activities should be present in establishing BDFEs:

26

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

1. Social capital build-up. This refers to the improvement of the cohesiveness of the PO, i.e. improved intra-relationships inside the PO, as well as the network they develop, i.e. improved inter-relationships in the community. Indicators include the following:a. Organizational development,

to include training sessions, workshops, and other social preparatory activities that may result in strengthening and consolidation of the organization

b. Networking and advocacy, which includes working with the private sector, government institutions, and other community organizations in the area. In particular, networking with the government provides legitimacy to the PO, which may lead to supportive policies for the BDFE later on. On the other hand, networking with the private sector may lead to improving the PO’s business skills, technical skills, marketing opportunities, and may even lead to scaling up in the future. Finally, the presence of an NGO as a partner is crucial in sustaining BDFEs, as their role evolves into supporting the formation of business partnerships after TA for organizational development has been provided

c. Equitable distribution of benefits, to ensure poverty alleviation, social justice, and democratic objectives can be attained for all active members of the PO

2. Human capital build-up. This refers to the upgrading of skills of PO members in all aspects of the BDFE. Increasing their knowledge on

biodiversity conservation also forms part of the build-up of human capital.

3. Physical capital build-up. This refers

to the procurement of all necessary equipment and facilities for the operation of the BDFE. Included in this is the indicator on PO ownership of the enterprise’s assets.

4. Financial capital build-up. This refers to the whole set of indicators that ensure the provision of financial capital needed by the BDFE.

5. Natural capital build-up. This includes indicators that ensure the BDFE is positively contributing to biodiversity conservation. Reduction of waste and pollution, increase in resource productivity, climate change adaptation, sustainable use of natural resources, and decrease in illegal activities should all be met in order for an enterprise to be considered biodiversity-friendly.

Table 1 on page 29 contains the details of the indicators proposed under each type of capital, as well as suggested means of verification for each indicator. The list of means of verification (MOVs) is by no means complete. The users of the assessment tool are encouraged to add or delete from the list of MOVs as they see fit.

Part 2: Evaluation of BDFE Outcomes

For Part 2, the following indicators are proposed to evaluate whether BDFEs are achieving the outcomes they were created for:

1. Economic outcomes. Economic indicators refer to increases in income, employment, financing, and assets – both at the household and

27


Indicator Description/ Objectives Means of Verification

A. SOCIAL CAPITAL BUILD-UP

1. Organizational Development

a. Vision, Mission, Goals (VMG) formulation

n The PO recognizes the BDFE as a goal that will lead towards the accomplishment of its mission and realization of its vision

n The type of BDFE will depend partially on the desired biodiversity conservation outcomes, the type and level of threat reduction required, and the type and level of behavioral change needed

VMG in a document

b. Values formation The shared values of the organization are aligned with biodiversity conservation and community development

n Training documents/ attendance sheet

n Values on conservation reflected in a document

c. Leadership training

Selected PO members are trained to lead their organization and their BDFE

Training documents/ attendance sheet

d. Organizational diagnosis

n Organizational structure is definedn Organization’s rules and regulations,

including membership fees and penalties for non-compliance, are clearly defined in a document

n Organizational structure

n Rules and regulations written down

e. Mainstreaming gender

PO undergoes gender sensitivity training; women are part of the leadership; women are paid according to their effort, or at least all their effort is valued (including cooking meals for the PO, cleaning the office, etc.)

n Percentage of female members and leaders


n Women included in the payroll

f. Sustainable community management systems and participatory governance

PO has a governance system in place, with clear measures on accountability, transparency, and benefits distribution

PO rules and regulations, benefit sharing scheme

g. Networking and advocacy

n PO is trained on the value of networking with various stakeholders: their co-POs, target markets, potential private sector partners, government institutions, etc.

n Includes identifying missing relations in the organization


h. Conflict management

PO has systems in place to manage and resolve conflicts within the organization

Training documents/ PO systems on conflict management

Table 1. Assessment of BDFE Capital Requirements

28

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

i. Team building PO undertakes team building activities to strengthen their cohesiveness


n Testimonials

j. Community social enterprise protocols and legal requirements

Compliance with government registration and/or certification requirements

n Registration certificate of PO and BDFE

n BDFE rules and regulations

k. Training on Financial management, bookkeeping, enterprise budgeting

PO is trained on financial management, bookkeeping, and budgeting


l. Clear resource use rights

PO holds on to a legal instrument that proves ownership or use rights

Tenure instrument

2. Networking

a. Private Sector n Business partners for inputs/ skills development/value addition/product aggregation/ markets (business development)

n Business partners to support advocacy

Memoranda of Agreement (MOA), contracts, partnership letters

b. Government n PO plays a role in local economic development

n PO is mainstreamed in government committees, councils, etc.

n Policies, Local Development Plans (LDPs), documents from local government units (LGUs) that mention BDFE certificates/ awards

n MOAs with government units

n Membership in a government body/ committee/ council

3. Equitable Distribution of Benefits

n Profit sharing schemes agreed upon by the membership

n Benefits distributed across the larger membership

n Benefit-sharing scheme documented

n Other benefits funded by the BDFE, e.g. healthcare, education, public works, etc.

B. HUMAN CAPITAL BUILD-UP

1. Value chain analysis

BDFE leaders are aware of the various parts of the supply chain

Value chain write-up

2. Technical training for production, skills training

n Training on technical skills needed for production

n Includes skills for production that are non-depleting

n Training certificaten Production process

in place

29


3. Orientation on biodiversity conservation strategies

PO members undergo orientation workshops on conservation directly related to their area and their BDFE

Workshop documents/ attendance sheet

C. PHYSICAL CAPITAL BUILD-UP

1. Provision of equipment and infrastructure needed for production

PO has the equipment or machinery needed for production

Presence of equipment

2. Ownership of assets

n POs own land, or are provided with tenurial instruments

n POs own machinery and equipment used for production

n POs own the rights to use the natural resources being used for production

n Tenure instrumentsn Receipts for

equipment purchased

D. FINANCIAL CAPITAL BUILD-UP

1. Updated financial records

PO has accomplished financial records, including sources of funds indicated in records

n Accounting journals

n Electronic record keeping

n Audited financial statements

n Bank account

2. Business Plan formulation

n Business plan draftedn Should demonstrate profit potential

Business plan

3. Marketing Plan formulation (with recognition of competition)

n Target market for the product or service identified

n Should be part of the business plan

Marketing plan

4. Social marketing, branding, fair trade standards

To align with social development, conservation

Participation in trade fairs, social media accounts, branding

5. Access to financing

PO has sources of financing for capital requirements

Financing sources

6. Credit applications, credit lines

PO has an existing credit line with a bank/financial institution

n Bank certificaten Letter from

financial institution stating credit line

7. Formal market arrangements/ contracts

PO enters into formal agreements with buyers

MOAs, contracts

E. NATURAL CAPITAL BUILD-UP

1. Pollution and Waste Reduction, Increase Resource Productivity

n PO practices waste management: solid waste, hazardous waste, wastewater

n Power consumption does not excessively contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

n Water consumption does not compete with domestic water demand

n Waste management system

n Source of powern Water billn Land/water arean Accounting of raw

materials used

30

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

n BDFE does not reduce area for conservation

n Productive use of raw materials, i.e. minimization of wastage

n Organic inputs are used for production

2. Resilience to Climate Change

Climate change adaptation measures are adopted, e.g. diversification of crops and income sources

Production processes

3. In cases of BDFE using biodiversity resources: Linkage with sustainable use of natural resources

When BDFE directly uses natural resources or ecosystem services, e.g. ecotourism, agroforestry, fishing:n Production inputs should be

sustainably sourced; e.g. wood is from production forests, not natural forests

n Quantity of inputs extracted is based on carrying capacity of the resource

n Production processes

n Sources of inputs identified

n Carrying capacity estimates are available, and BDFE extracts below the capacity

4. In cases of substitute enterprises: clear quid pro quo on conserving in exchange for the BDFE

In cases where beneficiaries are being weaned away from destructive or extractive activities, and are given enterprises to substitute for former extractive livelihoods:n Agreement with/promise by

beneficiaries to reduce time in destructive or extractive activity

n Condition imposed on beneficiary to reduce time in destructive or extractive activity

n Clear penalties imposed/ expulsion from BDFE in cases of repeated violations

n Contracts n MOAsn Statements from

membersn BDFE rules and

regulations

PO levels. Food security and security of tenure are likewise part of the economic outcomes, particularly in communities where food insecurity and lack of resource use rights are characteristic of the poverty situation.

2. Social outcomes. The list of social indicators is intended to reflect the build-up of social capital within the larger community where the BDFE operates. In Part 1, social capital build-up is focused on the PO implementing the BDFE. In Part 2, the build-up is expected to extend beyond the PO, whereby the operation of the BDFE is aimed at improving social relations with other

stakeholders and contributing to a more cohesive community where the PO operates.

3. Environmental outcomes. Finally, the last set of indicators refers to the achievement of biodiversity conservation objectives of the BDFE. Some indicators are easy to discern, such as waste management systems, power sources or even increased sizes of protected areas. Some indicators, such as those on increased environmental awareness, rely on testimonials and key informant interviews to measure. However, some indicators may prove to be difficult to measure, e.g.

31


improvement in ecosystem services and increased volume of natural resources being used by the BDFE. Both will entail measurement and valuation of natural capital accounts, data for which is not yet regularly gathered by statistical agencies of the country. Nevertheless, they are included here for purposes of completing the picture of evaluating the effectiveness and success of BDFEs in meeting their three major objectives.

Table 2 contains the detailed list of indicators for the evaluation of BDFE outcomes. Similar to Part 1, the list of means of verification (MOVs) may stand improvement, and the users of this evaluation tool may wish to add or delete from the MOV list, as they see fit.

For Part 1, scoring is purposely made simple, so as not to complicate the long tool. Only presence or absence is noted, i.e. “1” is given if the PO has undergone that particular training or has drafted that specific document, while “0” is given if there has been no experience for that particular indicator. Admittedly, the tool does not make distinctions with respect to levels or quality. For instance, it does not indicate whether an organizational structure is effective in managing the PO or not, or whether the marketing plan is effective in selling or not. The main objective of BEAT is to establish the list of requirements in establishing BDFEs so that they comply with all three objectives: economic, social and environmental. The quality of performance of BDFEs is better assessed in Part 2 of the tool.

Other Enabling Conditions

Aside from the indicators in the assessment tool, there are other enabling

conditions that are necessary for the BDFE strategy to succeed.

First, the involvement of a third party, e.g. an NGO, as an implementing partner of the donor is crucial. The third party initially serves as the partner in providing technical assistance in the beginning of the project, particularly in guiding social preparatory activities, and in sourcing other partners to provide the needed skills and financing. Admittedly, most, if not all of BDFE interventions are project-driven, hence have limited timeframes for implementation. The presence of NGOs ensures the strategy can be sustained beyond the project’s life. Furthermore, NGOs usually evolve into assisting the formation of business partnerships and building local leadership capacity, including managing leadership transitions over time (Boshoven 2018). GEF-SGP5 used this model in implementing their BDFE strategy, hence there is a high probability that the BDFEs started will be sustained after the project ends.

Second, government policies should be congruent with the BDFE’s vision and goals if the enterprise is to succeed in the long-term. A sudden change in land use can spell the end of the enterprise if the BDFE is anchored on the current land use model. Enforcement of rules and regulations should likewise be the norm to ensure the success of BDFEs, given their link with conservation.

Third, both USAID and ISEA studies suggest the need for longer gestation periods for BDFEs to eventually transform into poverty alleviation and conservation tools. The usual two to three-year project cycle is not enough, particularly in building up social and human capital. Skills upgrading, empowerment of POs, and transformation of values all take considerable time to occur. If BDFE is

32

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP


A. ECONOMIC

1. Increase in Income of PO Profits are being reported in the operation of the BDFE

Financial statements of the BDFE

2. Increase in income/savings of members

n PO members actively contributing to the BDFE are being paid salaries accordingly

n Dividends are distributed to members, contributing to an increase in their income

n Cash flow journalsn Detailed financial

statementsn Vouchers

3. Increase in employment opportunities

BDFE creates employment for PO members and other community members

Record of BDFE employees

4. Increased food security BDFE beneficiaries have bigger budget for food for their households

Survey of household budget for food

5. Increase in household assets

BDFE beneficiaries have more household assets

Survey of household assets, including date of purchase

6. Improved security of tenure

BDFE beneficiaries have titles to their land or at least secure resource use rights for the long-term

Titles, tenure instruments

7. Increased access to capital, credit

BDFE has established credit lines or ready access to financing

Certificate of credit line

8. Increase in PO assets PO has increased its assets since it started BDFE operations

List of PO assets

9. Increased benefits through improved community services, e.g. infrastructure, education, healthcare

Increased income is necessary for enterprise to succeed, but non-cash benefits (funded by the enterprise) are what ensure sustainability and are more powerful in causing behavior change

Non-cash benefits offered by the BDFE

B. SOCIAL

1. Increase in social standing/ recognition

PO or some of its members are recognized in the community

Certificates, awards

2. Increase in PO membership/number of groups

n PO membership increasesn Number of POs increase

n List of PO membersn List of accredited

POs

3. Emergence of community leader/s

A community leader originating from the PO is recognized by non-PO members

Testimonials

4. Improvement of social interactions

n PO members share information among themselves

n BDFE operation leads to collective actions directed towards biodiversity conservation

n Highlights of PO meetings

n Testimonials

Table 2. Evaluation of BDFE Outcomes

33



5. PO becomes part of formal governance

National and/or local government invites or nominates PO to be part of government bodies due to successful BDFE operations

Membership in local committees or councils

6. Increased role of women in the enterprise

Women become part of BDFE management

List of BDFE officers

C. ENVIRONMENTAL

1. Contribution to biodiversity conservation

BDFE is recognized as contributing to biodiversity conservation

n Conservation activities of PO

n Testimonials

2. Environmental awareness enhanced

PO members demonstrate high awareness

n Highlights of PO meetings

n Conservation activities of PO

n Testimonials

3. Increased natural resources needed by enterprise

Natural resources being used by BDFE are increasing, or at least sustained

Inventory of natural resources

4. Lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

BDFE does not contribute to GHG emissions

n Waste management system

n Power consumption, source of power

n Larger strict protection zones in Protected Areas (PAs)

5. Improved ecosystem services

Ecosystem services, e.g. provisioning for food, regulating functions such as watershed protection, fish habitats, etc. improve because of the BDFE

Measurement and valuation of natural capital

seriously pursued as a strategy, longer project timeframes are needed.

Finally, conservation or biodiversity-friendly enterprise development should be viewed as only one of a mix of conservation strategies that should be implemented in an area meant to deliver ecosystem services. BDFEs should still fall within carrying capacity limits, and should always be consistent with the ecosystem approach to environmental management. If BDFE expansion will result in overharvesting of natural resources,

it should not be allowed. On the other hand, if BDFE expansion will displace overharvesting and over-extraction, then it should be supported and replicated to the extent possible. The PO should always situate their BDFE in the larger context of environmental and natural resources management using the ecosystem approach.

Results

Out of the total 28 grantees that were provided seed funds for BDFE establishment, 19 were interviewed for

34

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

the pilot-testing of BEAT. Results are presented in Table 3.

GEF-SGP5 successfully targeted grantees that have a high probability of success by choosing highly organized POs as beneficiaries. High scores are noted for social capital build-up in almost all of the indicators. However, around a quarter of grantees still need to secure their rights to use natural resources for their BDFEs. Human and physical capital build-up were likewise successful, although there are still substantial needs indicated for physical capital as reflected in the individual business plans. Financial capital is still low, with less than half of the grantees having access to financing and formal market arrangements. Marketing plans still need to be formulated, with only a fifth of the grantees having a clear vision of how to sell their products. Natural capital build-up has mixed results. Most grantees are now using organic inputs for their BDFEs, but waste management and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are still challenges that face them. Linkages with sustainable use of resources are present, but penalties for violating environmental rules are usually not imposed.

Table 4 presents the BEAT results for the individual PO assessment. Note that there are some cases when the list of indicators is not relevant to the grantee. For instance, NAC scored low in social capital build-up simply because they were dealing with individual farmers for their BDFE. TCD scored low in financial capital because they have not set up their BDFE, and GEF-SGP5 funding was targeted towards delineating their ancestral land. Hence, the results should not be used to compare POs with each other, but rather should be used on a case-to-case basis in assessing completeness of BDFE establishment.

Palawan and Samar grantees all scored

relatively high, except for GDFI. SMPBTGAI may need more assistance in social and natural capital build-up, while CANDIS III needs assistance in training and knowledge build-up. NAC may have scored low in social capital, but as mentioned earlier, many of the indicators may not be relevant to their group because they deal with individual farmers for their BDFE. LAPAS needs assistance in financing, and SPPI may need to increase the linkage of their conservation practices with their BDFE. SPPI did, however, indicate pursuing plans for waste management and zoning in the coming years. The Sierra Madre POs seem to require more assistance in the financial arena, as well as in ensuring their BDFEs are contributing to biodiversity conservation on the whole.

STATUS OF BDFES

The BDFEs under the GEF-SGP5 project are at various stages of development. Some are in advanced stages of enterprise development and have even entered into formal contracts with private sector entities, such as the Eastern Visayas Partnerships for Rural Development (EVPRD) for abaca production. Other grantees have yet to improve their business operations before becoming a sustainable enterprise, such as the case of the Culion Foundation, Inc. (CFI), which admits to the need to work more on the quality of handling their raw materials. In many cases, the level of production and marketing remain limited for one reason or another.

After two years of the project’s implementation, an assessment was made utilizing the BDFE Assessment Tool (BEAT) created under the project.

The BEAT measured the BDFEs in terms of (1) whether the five capital requirements are met (and to what extent), and (2)

35


BEAT Indicators Totals % to Total Interviewed

SOCIAL CAPITAL

1. Organizational Development

a. Vision, Mission, Goals formulation 16 84%

b. Values formation 15 79%

c. Leadership training 14 74%

d. Organizational diagnosis 17 89%

e. Mainstreaming gender 15 79%

f. Sustainable community management systems and participatory governance

16 84%

g. Networking and advocacy 9 47%

h. Conflict management 11 58%

i. Team building 11 58%

j. Community social enterprise protocols and legal requirements

18 95%

k. Training on financial management, bookkeeping, enterprise budgeting

17 89%

l. Clear resource use rights 14 74%

2. Networking

a. Private Sector 6.5 34%

b. Government 14 74%

3. Equitable distribution of benefits 15 79%

HUMAN CAPITAL

1. Value chain analysis 8 42%

2. Technical training for production, skills training 18 95%

3. Orientation on biodiversity conservation strategies 18 95%

PHYSICAL CAPITAL

1. Provision of equipment and infrastructure needed for production

17 89%

2. Ownership of assets 18 95%

FINANCIAL CAPITAL

1. Updated financial records 15 79%

2. Business Plan formulation 15 79%

3. Marketing Plan formulation 4 21%

4. Social marketing, branding, fair trade standards 4 21%

5. Access to financing 8 42%

6. Credit applications, credit lines 3 16%

Table 3. BEAT Part 1 Summary Results for GEF-SGP5 Grantees, by Indicator, December 2018

36

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

7. Formal market arrangements/ contracts 8.5 45%

NATURAL CAPITAL

1. Pollution and waste reduction

a. Organic inputs used 18 95%

b. Waste management 11 58%

c. Power source 3 16%

d. Water use 1 5%

e. Land use 10 53%

f. Plastic use 1 5%

2. Resilience to climate change 11 58%

3. Clear linkage with sustainable use of natural resources 15 79%

4. Conditions imposed on BDFE participation 6 32%

Grantee Social Human Physical Financial Natural Total

PALAWAN HUB

NTFP-EP 100% 100% 100% 71% 44% 81%

SMPBTGAI 47% 67% 100% 57% 44% 53%

SSFMPC 100% 100% 100% 86% 56% 86%

PCART 93% 67% 100% 29% 89% 78%

IDEAS 87% 100% 100% 86% 67% 83%

CANDIS III 53% 33% 100% 57% 56% 56%

SAMAR HUB

GDFI 67% 67% 50% 29% 22% 47%

NAC 23% 100% 100% 57% 78% 54%

PAKIBA 83% 67% 100% 71% 44% 71%

LAPAS 77% 100% 100% 21% 33% 58%

CEFA 87% 100% 100% 57% 56% 75%

SPPI 87% 100% 100% 43% 22% 64%

SIERRA MADRE HUB

DALUHAY 60% 67% 100% 29% 33% 50%

SSMNAI 33% 33% 100% 14% 33% 33%

TCD 87% 67% 50% 14% 22% 53%

FRENDS 67% 67% 100% 14% 56% 56%

GMFMPC 87% 67% 100% 29% 56% 67%

MLPC 80% 67% 100% 29% 33% 58%

Table 4. BEAT Part 1 Summary Results for GEF-SGP5 Grantees, by Grantee, December 2018

37


whether the outputs and outcomes (economic, social, and environmental) were achieved (and to what extent).

The assessment involved 19 of the 41 organizations that received funding support from GEF-SGP5 for establishing BDFEs or improving existing BDFEs.

Business Planning Workshops were also conducted in the project areas (Palawan, Samar, and Sierra Madre), which involved 28 BDFEs: 15 from Palawan, seven from Northern Samar, and six from the Sierra Madre Mountain Range. Of the 28 BDFEs

Grantee Social Human Physical Financial Natural Total

SMMFPC 73% 100% 50% 29% 22% 53%

HIGHEST POSSIBLE SCORE

15 3 2 7 9 36

involved in the workshop, 24 were able to produce business plans.

The 28 BDFEs that participated in the Business Planning Workshop, including their lines of business, are listed in the table below:

Based on the profiles and business plans submitted by the participating BDFEs, most of them were involved in eco-tourism, particularly in Palawan. Most Samar BDFEs were into marine products, while those in Sierra Madre were mostly into organic farming and weaving.

Organization BDFE

PALAWAN HUB

Acts Marketing Cooperative Corporation cave eco-tour

Bonyogen it Mepegsengbat Ne Mengongoma (BMM) Dawa cookies

Cabayugan Farmers’ Association (CFA) organic rice trading

CANDIS III Marketing Cooperative rattan furniture

Council of Tribal Elders (CTL) and Samahang Mangongoma Dot Isugod (SMDI)

forest honey

Jungle Trail Community Park Warden jungle trail eco-tour

Magayen It Buenavista Consumers Cooperative (MIBCC) Ulugan Bay eco-tour

Nagkakaisang Samahan ng Isla Felomina eco-tourism

Pyamalugowan Sabang Falls eco-tourism

Sabang Mangrove Paddle Boat Tour Guide Association, Inc. (SMPBTGAI)

mangrove paddle boat tours

Sabang Sea Ferry Multi-Purpose Cooperative (SSFMPC) tourist boat for hire

SAMAR HUB

Centralized Farmers’ Association (CEFA) Abaca trading

Lakas at Pagkakaisa ng Asosasyon ng San Pedro (LAPAS) dried danggit (dried fish)

Table 5. List of BDFEs, which participated in the Business Planning Workshop

38

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

Nortehanon Access Center (NAC) rice duck farming

Pasay, Kinis and Bangus Producers Association (PAKIBA) crab fattening, spicy bottled Bangus (milkfish), Bangus fingerlings

Roxas Uswag Manibar Pagpoypoy San Illegal (RUMPI) fish trading

Taguite Farmers and Fisherfolk Association (TFFA) eco-tourism

Women’s Association Inter-Island Development (WAIID) Bangus production, crab fattening, Siganid culture, sewing products, mangrove nursery

SIERRA MADRE HUB

Dimasalang Egongot Tribe, Farmers and Weavers Association (DETFAWAI)

weaving, handicraft-production, dragon fruit farming

Gabriela Masipag Farmers Producers Cooperative (GMFMPC) organic farming, Robusta coffee

Katutubo ng Daraitan Para sa Kalikasan, Kabuhayan, at Kalusugan (4K)

zero-waste sari-sari (convenience) store

Provincial Federation of Egongot Tribe in Aurora (PFETA) Egongot Heritage Village (eco-tourism)

Tribal Center for Development (TCD) Pigteponen (park) enterprise, Alamid coffee, eco-tourism

Un-Gabay et Manbunat organic farming

DISCUSSION/ KEY INSIGHTS

Following are some key insights derived during the course of pilot-testing the BEAT among GEF-SGP5 grantees, as well as during discussions that emanated during the business planning workshops with the PO beneficiaries1:

A. NGOs play a crucial role in organizing the POs and sustaining the BDFEs.

The importance of the role of NGOs in establishing BDFEs cannot

1 Samar Hub Business Planning Workshop on Oct. 23-25, 2018 Palawan Hub Business Planning Workshop on Nov. 14-16, 2018 Sierra Madre Hub Business Planning Workshop on Nov. 27-29, 2018

be overestimated. The strength of the POs could be credited to the painstaking organizing work undertaken by NGOs through the years. This is true in all project hubs of GEF-SGP5: IDEAS, PCART, and NTFP-EP in Palawan; CERD, NAC, and SPPI in Samar; and, SSM, UPLBFI, FRENDS, and Daluhay in Sierra Madre. The POs attribute their success stories to their partner NGOs, as stated during the one-on-one interviews conducted with the GEF-SGP5 grantees. Among the assistance provided by NGOs were negotiating on behalf of the POs, organizing them, building their network, and providing resource persons for various training needs, afforded the establishment of BDFEs.

39


B. Social capital is being built through networking with each other.

South to south exchanges have occurred among GEF-SGP5 grantees. Some POs have taken up the role of big brother/sister to other POs, particularly those who have had initial successes in producing quality products from their BDFEs. Others have been networking with each other, as one BDFE serves as the input to another BDFE. Those belonging to the same hub have learned to share their experiences and contacts with one another. Some BDFEs have been finding ways of complementing each other’s products or services, particularly those in the ecotourism industry. The result of these networking activities is the growth of social capital among GEF-SGP5 grantees, which hopefully can grow even further as the BDFEs continue through the years.

C. Other sustainable financing schemes may arise from BDFE experiences.

In one particular BDFE experience, the conditions for a PES scheme have ripened without the PO knowing it. An upland PO has decided to enter into organic rice production. This scheme will be highly beneficial to the downstream water bodies which are now being utilized for ecotourism. A successful PES scheme may be set up whereby the BDFE of the upland PO is somehow supported by the ecotourism industry downstream.

D. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is real.

BDFE grantees were enthusiastic about biodiversity conservation,

only after there was the possibility of higher income or other employment opportunities being offered by the enterprise. It was clear that income generation was a priority for PO members, but once that was assured, they were easily convinced of the importance of linking their enterprise to biodiversity conservation.

E. Tenure rights are key to the success of BDFEs.

GEF-SGP5 grantees need to be able to know that they can continually use natural resources for their BDFEs before they can commit long-term to biodiversity conservation. In some cases, the lack of resource use rights was the biggest hindrance to BDFEs taking off. Convincing them to invest time and energy, sometimes at the cost of performing their traditional livelihood activities, was achieved once security of tenure was assured.

F. Highly organized POs are needed before introducing the economic aspects of the BDFE strategy.

Social preparation needs to be undertaken first and foremost, before introducing PO members to new skills in production or even training on enterprise management. In many cases around the country, the weak character of POs was almost always the reason for the eventual failure of enterprise development. Some POs were able to operate for a year or two, but because of the lack of cohesiveness and weak organizations, most eventually folded up. Organizing is a necessary first step in establishing BDFEs as a conservation strategy.

40

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

G. BDFEs should allow them to get out of their poverty situation, before they can claim to be successful.

Demonstrating profit potential is a positive development among BDFEs. However, the income benefit should be high enough to get them out of poverty, in order to serve as enough incentive for them to stop illegal and destructive practices. Otherwise, it is usually easier for them from going back to old practices if income from new livelihood initiatives are not significantly higher than what they earn from old practices. Consequently, if the BDFE offers other non-cash incentives and benefits that are easily discernible among PO members, then this may be enough for them to sustain their BDFEs in the long run.

H. Thirst for knowledge is evident.

Skills training in all aspects of BDFE development are much appreciated, including the formulation of business plans. Those who are being guided and supported by NGOs will be able to succeed and expand their businesses because of the continuing provision of skills, knowledge, and the build-up of human and social capital. Value chain analysis still needs to be inculcated, so that BDFEs can better situate themselves within the whole chain.

I. Linking BDFE with biodiversity conservation has mixed results.

It is easy for beneficiaries to link their BDFEs with conservation with respect to extraction of resources, solid waste management, and the use of inorganic inputs. But other aspects of

biodiversity conservation, e.g. use of renewable energy, wise use of water, and wastewater management are not yet the norm. Moreover, nuances of overfishing are not yet self-evident for marine-based BDFEs, such as the continued use of juvenile fish as feed for mangrove crab fattening activities. Finally, packaging materials need to be more innovative and biodiversity friendly, as plastics are still used extensively among GEF-SGP5 grantees.

J. Equitable distribution of benefits is a given, especially for POs that have been organized for quite some time now.

This is a promising development as far as poverty alleviation is concerned, as well as the build-up of social capital among PO members.

SAMPLE BUSINESS PLANS

The project facilitated the formulation of business plans to further develop the BDFEs’ capabilities to contribute to biodiversity and economic empowerment of their communities. On the following pages are selected business plans, one each from the ecotourism, food production and processing, and handicraft-making sectors.

41


ECOTOURISMSabang Mangrove Paddle Boat Tour Guide Association (SMPBTGAI), Puerto

Princesa City, Palawan

The Enterprise and its product

Name of the Enterprise: EcotourismBrief description of the enterprise: The organization receives visitors to the Sabang ecotourism site and shares information on the importance of mangroves to the ecosystem.Objective of the enterprise: To serve as a model for taking care of the environment and share information about mangroves to more tourists, as well as provide income for the community members.What is the product: Mangrove paddle boat tourWhat is special about the product: Large and mature mangrove forest that is open to tourists and for educational tours, professional tour guiding, wildlife-friendly awarded organization.How is it biodiversity-friendly: The organization helps in taking care of the mangroves in the area. The members also explain to tourists the importance of mangroves and why people need to take care of this resource.

Market

Target market: tourists, travel and tour agenciesDescription of the market: local and international tourists, no age limitWhere will you sell your product: tour agencies and walk-in touristsWhy will they buy your product: unique tourist destination with centuries-old mangrovesCompetitors: private sector, other tours in SabangWho are they: Sabang X zip lineWhat is their selling price: Php 550How big is their market share: 50 people per dayStrengths of competitors: they have their own vehicle to pick-up guestsWeaknesses of competitors: hard to walk going up to the zip line, age limit, nearby zip lines

Technical Description

Processes involved in production: Upon arrival, guests register and pay the entrance fee; they then ride the boat to the mangrove parkInputs used: boat, paddle, life vest, boatmanSources of inputs: members of the associationQuantity used per input: one boat for every eight peoplePlans to increase quantity of inputs: yes

Facilities and equipment needed: decent restrooms, more boats, medical equipment, solar panels

42

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

Current assets of the organization:1. 10 boats2. five kayaks3. 100 life vests4. 10 sets of paddles

Planned purchases:1. digital camera2. photo printer3. five boats4. additional four-100 watt solar panels

Labor inputs

No. of members working for the enterprise: 15 members a dayTime devoted to the enterprise: 8 hours a day, 6 days a weekDoes the enterprise hire outside help aside from the PO members?: yesIf yes, how many are they? What are their positions? Full time or part time?: only two part time boatmenPlan to hire more in the future years covered by the BP: yes

Additional requirements

Additional training requirements for production: WASAR Training

Packaging, marketing and delivery

Advertising and marketing: tarpaulin, flyers, Facebook

Financial projectionsRevenue

Products Description Volume per Cycle

Selling Price (Php)

No. of Cycles per Year

Total Annual Revenue (Php)

YEAR 1

Paddle Boat Tour

Paddle boat tour 50 pax per day

50 150 361 2,707,500

Souvenir Photo

With customized border; at least 60% of guests availing (30 pcs.)

30 130 361 1,407,900

Total Year 1 4,115,400

43


Summary of Costs

Costs Year 1(PhP)

Year 2(Php)

Fixed Cost 239,581 232,381

Variable Cost 31,464 32,064

Labor Cost 2,322,000 2,322,000

Additional Requirements 114,525 114,525

Total Cost 2,707,570 2,700,970

Profit

Year 1(Php)

Year 2(Php)

Revenue 4,115,400 4,938,480

Costs 2,707,570 2,700,970

Profit 1,407,830 2,237,510

CRAB FATTENING, SPICY BANGUS IN A BOTTLE, FINGERLINGS PRODUCTION

Pasay, Kinis and Bangus Producers Association (PAKIBA), San Jose, Northern Samar

Brief description: Selling mangrove crabs is one of the main sources of income in San Jose, Northern Samar. Local fishermen supply the crablets and PO members grow and fatten the crabs, which they sell to exporters. Demand for mangrove crabs is growing and the PO needs additional capital to increase the supply.Objectives of the enterprise:

1. To be a consolidator of mangrove crabs production five years from now2. To establish own seafood restaurant3. For Northern Samar to be known as the Crab capital of the Philippines, as it is the source

of crablets that eventually become succulent mangrove crabs4. Promote local Bangus in oil product

Name of products: Mangrove crab, Spicy Bangus in Oil, fingerlings productionSpecialty of the products: high quality because of taste, size, and freshnessHow is it biodiversity-friendly? How does it contribute to biodiversity conservation?: The enterprise contributes to biodiversity because it promotes the protection of mangrove areas in the municipality, from which raw materials like crablets and bangus fingerlings are sourced. The community does not catch female crabs because these lay eggs.Intentions of increasing production: Yes

Market

Target market: restaurants, trade fairs, local community, store ownersDescription of the market: local buyers and National Government Agencies based in Northern Samar; demand can reach up to 100 kgs. every week not only throughout Region 8 but as far as Manila.Current buyers: three local exporters, two of which have been buyers since 2016Strength of product: good quality, fat, delicious, and affordable

44

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

Competitors: fishpond operators, other POs, and crab vendorsWhat is their selling price: Php 500 to 600 per kilogram (kg.)How big is their market share: 5 to 8 kg. a dayStrength (crab vendors): low price because they do not incur costs for feedsWeakness (crab vendors): their crabs are not fat; they also have a higher mortality rate of crabs because they do not have an area for fattening

Technical description

Processes involved in production:n Survey suitable area/s for the projectn Construct cages/pensn Buy crablets and young mangrove crabs from fishermen and fatten within 25 to 30 daysn Feed crabs twice a day – 3 kg. in the morning and 3 kg. in the afternoonn Hire caretaker (Php 3,000 a month)n Harvest crabs when fattenedn Sell for Php 600 to 700 per kg.n 95 kg. x Php 600 = Php 57,000; minus expenses (Php 37,600) = income of Php 19,400 for

one month and one cage of mangrove crabInputs used:n crabletsn feed (fish and shells)n caretakern materials for cages/pens (nets, bamboo, nylon string, lumber)n labor for building cages/pensn weighing scalen basins, laundry baskets, plastic drums, straw

Current assets:n four hectares fishpond developedn eight cagesn LPG tankn steamern pressure cookern tablen chairsn curtainsn one paddle boatn weighing scalen stall for selling crabs near the fishpond

Planned purchases:n 400 square meter (sq. m.) lotn Processing buildingn solar lampn water pumpn freezern projectorn pump boatn 10 quadrangle pensn maintenance and rehabilitation of 400 hectares (has.) mangrove arean underwater cameran multi-cab for delivery of productsn boxes with PAKIBA labels (to easily identify the product)

45


Labor inputs

Current:n 15 members for crab fattening from 7 to 11 am daily for 12 months, and five members

from 5 pm to 5 am (to guard the pens)n 10 women members (for bangus in oil production and packaging) twice a week for six

monthsFuture staff and labor:n five personnel/cashier, technician from Bureau of Fisheries (part-time), part-time

bookkeeper, 13 part-time community organizers, laborers for harvestingn plan to hire more labor as enterprise grows


Organizational development: Leadership Training and Values FormationPermits and licenses: SEC registration in 2020

Packaging, marketing, and delivery

How will the products be packaged:1. Mangrove crabs: The packaging section chief receives crabs for sorting and standardizing

to satisfy market demand as relayed by the fish marketing division chief. All job orders are double checked to avoid mis-delivery. Once cleared, delivery receipts (DRs) or invoices are prepared. The crabs, along with the DRs or invoices, are brought by the delivery van driver to the product’s destination, either to the airport or to the bus terminal. Payments are via bank transfer to the cooperative’s bank account.

2. Bangus oil: The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) inspects the product and helps determine the right packaging.

Advertising: hub networking, sumat-sumat system (word of mouth), through friends, Facebook, government agencies, and local government unitsTransportation: rent vehicle during deliveries

Financial projections

Revenue

Products Description Volume per Cycle

Selling Price (Php)

No. of Cycles per Year

Total Annual Revenue

YEAR 1

Crab 1 Crab Fattening 300 700 12 2,520,000

Crab 2 Crab Fattening 600 700 2 840,000

Milkfish Fingerlings and eventuall scale up

7 8 448,000


YEAR 2


Crab 2 Crab Fattening 600 700 2 840,000

Milkfish Fingerlings 8,000 7 8 448,000


46

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

YEAR 3


Crab 2 Crablets 600 800 2 960,000



YEAR 4


Crab 2 Crablets 700 800 2 1,120,000



YEAR 5


Crab 2 Crablets 700 900 2 1,260,000



Summary of Costs

Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Fixed Cost 446,270 548,263 524,763 468,663 661,188

Variable Cost 2,521,180 2,521,180 2,521,180 2,638,684 2,814,940

Labor Cost 263,800 263,800 444,800 263,800 228,800

Permits 0 20,000 0 0 0

Training 0 120,000 0 0 120,000

Total Cost 3,231,250 3,473,243 3,490,743 3,371,147 3,824,928

Profit

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Revenue 3,808,000 3,808,000 4,288,000 5,600,000 6,540,000

Costs 3,231,250 3,473,243 3,490,743 3,371,147 3,824,928

Profit 576,750 334,757 797,257 2,228,853 2,715,072

47


SABUTAN HANDICRAFTSDimasalang Egongot Tribe Farmers and Weavers Association (DETFAWAI),

Maria Aurora, Aurora Brief description of the project: bags, mats, hats, wallets, and other crafts woven from Sabutan (a plant indigenous to the area, which the Egongots have used as raw material for generations)Objective of the project: to increase the standard of living of the Egongot tribe, women, and farmers in the area, by providing regular income, without sacrificing the tribe’s indigenous culture and traditions. The practice also seeks to prevent deforestation because with regular income, the people will not cut trees to make charcoal to sell or clear land for more crops.What is special about the project: hand-woven native product, high quality, and affordable Contribution to biodiversity conservation: Sabutan bags can be used instead of plastic. Sabutan is biodegradable. As previously mentioned, regular income from weaving will make members not cut trees for additional farmland and charcoal production.

Market

Target Market:n department storesn Balikbayan Handicrafts storesn Delia Uy (distributor)n SAFFY Inc.n local marketsn Blue Whale Enterprisesn Blue R Enterprisesn Boracayn Vigann Islands Souvenirs stores

Why will they buy our products: high quality, hand woven native products, affordableWhere will we sell our products: Trade Fairs (Aurora province pasalubong center, SM Mega Mall, World Trade Center, exporters, department stores, online through social media)Competitors: souvenir shop ownersStrengths of competitors: capital, lower priceWeaknesses of competitors: low quality, poor craftsmanship, do not have own sabutan plantation

Technical description

Processes involved in production1. Step 1: harvesting, stripping, boiling, soaking in freshwater, sun drying, dyeing2. Step 2: weaving3. Step 3: remove “floating fibers”, cutting4. Step 4: sewing, finishing5. Step 5: packing, delivery

Inputs:1. Sabutan2. fabric3. zipper4. slider5. non-woven6. plastic

48

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

Sources of inputs:n farmersn Divisoria market

Quantity and cost of inputs:Bag

1 whole bag Php320.00

½ yards lining 70.00

1 yard piping 20.00

2 yards handle 30.00

1.5 yards plastic hose 30.00

1.5 yards strap 8.00

thread 5.00

label 5.00

varnish 2.00

rugby 10.00

Total Php505.00

Fan2 pcs. placemat Php28.00

rugby 6.00

handle 5.00

Total Php39.00

C oin purselong wallet Php20.00

zipper slider 3.50

Total Php23.50

Facilities and equipment needed:1. building/cutting table/cabinet and chairs2. high speed sewing machine (6 units)3. sewing machine (2 units)4. long bed zigzagger sewing machine (2 units)5. heat press6. vehicle or van rental

Labor inputs

Number of members working in the enterprise:full time sewer, 8 hours per day at a minimum rate of Php302.00

4 females, 1 male

part-time weavers: 42 mats per week (21 weavers x 2 mats = 42 mats per week)

21 females, 5 males

49


Outside labor:1. Accountant (yearly, Php6,000)2. Bookkeeper (part time, Php5,000)

(The enterprise plans to hire more people in the future)


Training1. Production management2. Business management and productivity improvement3. Bookkeeping4. Machinery maintenance5. Skills training for Sabutan6. Food processing (pineapple, dragon fruit, organic farming, green economic

development program)7. Training on Indigenous Knowledge, Systems, and Practice (IKSP): traditional

costume, Egongot language, cultural and traditional practices

Permits1. Registration (SEC, DOLE, DSWD, LGU)2. Mayor’s permit3. BIR4. BFAD5. DENR6. BFAR

Packaging, marketing, and delivery

Packaging: boxesAdvertising: calling cards, social media (FB, online selling), radio, trade fair (Aurora Day, SM Megamall, World Trade Center, PICC), souvenir shops in Aurora province, pasalubong center, etc.Transportation requirements for delivery to market: depends on the volume of orders – if few quantities, through courier (LBC) or bus (Genesis); if huge quantities, hire a van

Financial projections

RevenueProducts Volume per Cycle Selling Price (Php) No. of Cycles

per YearTotal Annual Revenue (Php)

YEAR 1

Bag 150 1,250 12 2,250,000

Fan 4,000 60 12 2,880,000

Bayong 1,750 80 4 560,000

50

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

Mat 2,000 150 6 1,800,000

Hats 800 100 12 960,000


YEAR 2

Bag 150 1,250 12 2,250,000

Fan 4,000 60 12 2,880,000

Bayong 1,750 80 4 560,000

Mat 2,000 150 6 1,800,000

Hats 800 100 12 960,000


Summary of CostsCosts Year 1

(Php)Year 2(Php)

Fixed Cost 481,067 481,067

Variable Cost 4,621,540 5,149,540

Labor Cost 1,575,000 1,575,000

Additional Requirements 592,500 0

Total Cost 7,270,107 7,205,607

ProfitYear 1(Php)

Year 2(Php)

Revenue 8,450,000 8,450,000

Costs 7,270,107 7,205,607

Profit 1,179,893 1,244,393

The lack of other case studies to bolster the theory that viable economic activities in biodiversity areas contribute to conservation does not mean that only a few of the projects funded through GEF-SGP5 are successful. It must be taken into consideration that the project has only been implemented for two years and many of the initial activities involved introducing the concept of BDFEs, operationalizing the engagement, and strengthening the organizations. This may be the reason why the organizations that

have shown concrete gains are those that have been in existence for a longer time, have been involved in enterprises that benefit the environment, and have stable organizational structures and dynamics.

Suffice it to say, the existence of cases with success stories and good practices clearly proves that if opportunities for livelihood are given to people in biodiversity areas and other landscapes and seascapes, the environment will benefit.

51


CONCLUSION

GEF-SGP5 grantees have shown promise towards establishing sustainable BDFEs. The partner-NGOs have every intention of continuing their assistance beyond the project. Linkages with biodiversity conservation are mostly clear, give or take one or two activities that will need to be monitored to ensure biodiversity conservation practices are mainstreamed, e.g. mangrove crab fattening and fish trading. Profit potential has been demonstrated by most grantees as documented in their business plans, except for one from Samar and one from Palawan, both of which will need to go back to their business plans.

Be that as it may, there is still substantial work that needs to be done before the BDFEs can take off and operate as profitable and conservation-friendly entities. The following activities are recommended to enhance Business Plans and make them fruitful:

1. Expand the historical accounts of their organizations and enterprises so that the documents are ready for potential donors or funders.

2. Prepare cash flow statements. In operating their enterprises, POs need to be trained in preparing cash flow statements.

3. POs should be assisted in funding their capital requirements. Almost all BDFEs require substantial financial capital to fund their machinery and equipment requirements. However, most of them do not have credit lines with financing institutions. They will need more assistance in sourcing funds so that their BDFEs can take off.

4. Present the Business Plans to partner NGOs, LGUs and other local stakeholders to drum up support for the implementation of the Business Plans.

5. POs should undergo required training sessions, particularly in upgrading their management skills and running their enterprises. These will need to be funded, as the POs do not have the capacity to fund their training requirements themselves.

6. Tighten the link of BDFEs with biodiversity conservation. Waste management, energy sources, water use, and choice of packaging materials can still be improved. Marine-based BDFEs need to be more conscious of the trade-offs, particularly in addressing overfishing. POs may need further assistance in meeting these targets for their BDFEs.

7. Conduct the second part of BEAT after a year or two of operations. In order to successfully claim that the BDFEs are meeting their objectives, the evaluation portion of BEAT should be conducted later on. Only then can lessons and case studies be documented, and help assess if BDFEs are to be widely replicated and mainstreamed in biodiversity conservation throughout the country in the long run.

52

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

A Handbook on Strategic Planning for Scaling Up Biodiversity-Friendly

Enterprise (BDFE) Initiatives1

Part 3

INTRODUCTION

Biodiversity conservation initiatives that engage the poor as stakeholders face many challenges. One of the most

important of these challenges is ensuring that the poor are effectively and sustainably engaged. It is in response to this important challenge that biodiversity-based or biodiversity-related livelihood initiatives in various parts of Palawan, Samar Island and the Sierra Madre Mountain Range have been supported by UNDP GEF-SGP5.

Most of these projects numbering 104 across these 3 areas are still start-ups. But some have started to grow and have become biodiversity friendly enterprises (BDFEs) showing potential for scaling up.

BDFEs are envisioned to promote the sustainable use of biological resources while creating and equitably distributing wealth and value to stakeholders, most specially among the poor engaged in biodiversity conservation. As they scale up, ensuring that these BDFEs remain true to their social mission of transforming the lives of the poor and of contributing

to biodiversity conservation while remaining financially sustainable, is a major challenge.

This handbook is an effort to develop and promote tools to help plan the scaling up of BDFEs in their growth stage, in a manner that addresses these social, ecological and financial sustainability challenges. It is an output from a project of ISEA with UNDP SGP05 entitled “Model Building for Scaling Up BDFE Initiatives”.

The partnership project chose a BDFE initiative that, based on a set of criteria, had the greatest potential for scaling up, and engaged the key stakeholders

1 Prepared by the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia (ISEA) for GEF-SGP5

53


in an action research and strategic development and investment planning process. The chosen BDFE initiative was that of CEFA and EVPRD in developing the abaca sub-sector in Northern Samar.

The handbook may therefore be seen as a documentation of a strategic planning model for scaling up BDFE initiatives as piloted by ISEA in partnership with CEFA and EVPRD. It is meant to be a guide for BDFEs in their growth stage, and their support institutions, that see the value of replicating or adapting the strategic planning model in their own context. As a strategic planning model, it is most useful for BDFE initiatives that are situated in agricultural value chains or economic sub-sectors that have growth potential. Its value added is in providing tools in operationalizing how social entrepreneurship may be pursued by these BDFEs wanting to grow and scale up impact in ways that are consistent with biodiversity conservation and sustainable development.

While the handbook focuses on the strategic planning model, the project “Model Building for Scaling Up BDFE Initiatives” included a start-up fund of PhP3 million to assist EVPRD and CEFA implement the first year of the strategic plan. The ISEA Team had the opportunity to undertake an evaluation-planning visit with EVPRD and CEFA in December 2019, a year after the completion of the strategic planning process. Guided by the strategic and investment plan, the innovations and capability building efforts of EVPRD and CEFA supported by the start-up grant, are already showing positive signs of scaling up. Leaseholds of CEFA-owned lands among landless members and a cluster marketing strategy were noteworthy innovations that showed promise of qualitative impact. These innovations,

side by side with the stripping machines and a truck acquired for trading, are already showing improvements in the productivity and incomes of women and men abaca farmers.

This handbook documents the experience of the Model Building for Scaling Up BDFE Initiatives Project as piloted by ISEA with a selected BDFE initiative.

As a companion handbook to the BDFE Handbook developed by UNDP-SDG5, it is a learning tool that applies social entrepreneurship theory and practice within the context of biodiversity conservation.

As a learning tool, it highlights the importance of considering BDFEs as Biodiversity-Friendly Social Enterprises (BDFSEs) to ensure that the poor are engaged as primary stakeholders in the process of scaling up in order to create bigger reach and lasting impact in biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction.

This handbook is also a practical guide that details a suggested strategic planning process for scaling up BDFEs to assist stakeholders who want to replicate or adapt it in similar contexts.

The intended users of this handbook are: (1) BDFEs who want to evolve or scale up as BDFSEs playing a strategic role in their respective economic sub-sectors; (2) development organizations who want to understand and support the process of scaling up BDFEs as BDFSEs; and, (3) support institutions who want to invest in scaling up the impact of biodiversity conservation initiatives through social entrepreneurship

To maximize the use of this handbook, readers are encouraged to read through

54

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

the material in sequence to gain a better grasp of the information and processes put forward in each section.

It is hoped that the planning model and the CEFA-EVPRD experience contributes to showing a social entrepreneurship pathway in accelerating the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in biodiversity hotspots.

STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK

SOCIAL ENTERPRENEURSHIP

Social entrepreneurship may be broadly defined as involving “innovations designed to explicitly improve societal well-being, housed within entrepreneurial organizations, which initiate, guide or contribute to change in society” (Perrini, 2006). These entrepreneurial organizations are usually referred to as social enterprises. Social enterprises may be appreciated as “responses on the basis of innovative economic/business models driven by a social mission” (Defourny & Nyssens, 2017).

Social enterprises are different from ordinary businesses which are primarily oriented on the market economy and profit. They should be viewed in the context of a “plural economy” that is characterized by various forms of exchange following the principles of 1) market (facilitates supply and demand of goods and services through price setting), 2) redistribution (production is handed over to a central economy tasked to distribute it), and 3) reciprocity (mutual help, voluntary complementation and interdependence) (Defourny & Nyssens, 2012). From this perspective, social enterprises can be seen as hybrid organizations that traverse both market and non-market/ social spheres of the economy and may be valued as “catalyzing the process of giving value to

social and environmental cost and returns and providing benchmarks for the pursuit of inclusive and ethical markets” (Dacanay, 2017).

As a global phenomenon, social enterprises have evolved differently in various country contexts. In Asia, three models of social enterprises have been noted: social cooperatives, entrepreneurial non-profits and social business models (Defourny, J. Nyssens, M. & Brolis, O., 2019).

Developing countries such as the Philippines where the phenomenon of economic growth, widespread poverty and worsening inequality are stark realities have given rise to social enterprises with the poor as primary stakeholders or SEPPS (Dacanay, 2012; 2019) SEPPS are social-mission-driven, wealth-creating organisations that have at least a double bottom line (social and financial), explicitly have as principal objective poverty reduction/alleviation or improving the quality of life of specific segments of the poor, and have a distributive enterprise philosophy.(Dacanay, 2012)

As social-mission-driven organizations, they explicitly pursue a poverty reduction goal and primarily aims to improve the quality of life of the segments of the poor. The poor are seen not only as workers, suppliers, clients and owners but as partners in the social enterprise/ value chain management, governance and/or pursuit of social change. Next, SEPPS are wealth-creating organizations engaged in providing goods and services with due regard to social and environmental costs in a financially sustainable way. Lastly, SEPPS have a distribute enterprise philosophy. They create social and economic value that is distributed to and

55


benefit the poor as primary stakeholders through distribution of dividends from surplus or profits, reinvestment into the social enterprise, or provision of enabling programs or services to fulfill their social mission. (Dacanay, 2017)

According to the Philippine Social Enterprise Network (2017), there are over 160,000 social enterprises in the Philippines in 2017 and they are growing rapidly.

Key forms of social enterprises in the Philippines include social cooperatives, trading development organizations, fair trade organizations, social mission-driven microfinance institutions, social enterprises delivering social services and new generation social enterprises. Environment/biodivers i t y- f r iendly social enterprises and social enterprises promoting women’s economic empowerment (WEE) are cross-cutting among these segments.

SEPPS have been observed to facilitate the provision of three types of services: 1) transactional 2) transformational and 3) social inclusion services..

Transactional services pertain to “enterprise- or market-driven activities, such as providing loans, sharing new technologies or conducting trainings that are necessary for the poor to perform effectively and efficiently as workers, suppliers, clients and nominal owners”.

Transformational services, on the other hand, are services linked to “activities that empower the poor, such as leadership training and organisational development, asset build-up and provision of education and experiential learning opportunities, and aim to help the poor become conscious decision makers in their SEPPS and change agents for themselves,

their communities, sector and society as a whole”. Figure 1 shows examples of transactional and transformational services provided by SEPPS in agricultural value chains. (Dacanay, 2017; ISEA, 2019)

A third type of service that SEPPS also provide are social inclusion services. These are “non-fee based social welfare services that directly assist the poor and their families to have immediate access to basic needs or to immediately improve their quality of life”. Some examples are supplementary feeding programs for children, health care and education, work-site nursery facilities for working mothers, shelter, etc. These are neither market-based nor market driven and guided by principles of redistribution and reciprocity (Dacanay, 2017)

BDFES AS A SEGMENT OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISES WITH POOR AS PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS (SEPPS)

One of BDFE’s defining features is their ecological agenda of contributing to biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resource management. However, not all social enterprises have environmental well-being as part of their social mission. Moreover, both BDFEs and social enterprises are concerned with economic wealth and value creation. In terms of social equity, social enterprises have clear, solid social impact goals and BDFEs provide opening of opportunities for equitable sharing of benefits among all stakeholders.

The challenges faced by BDFEs in scaling up their economic value creation without sacrificing biodiversity principles are similar to that of social enterprises adhering to multiple organizational objectives or bottom lines. For SEs aiming to engage the market to increase enterprise value adding and position

56

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

themselves as significant market players, scaling-up entails non-diminution of the other objectives (i.e., social or environmental) that they carry in their mission and vision statements. It is thus instructive for BDFEs to learn how best practices of social enterprises in Asia and in the Philippines in particular have managed this delicate balance of scale up in the context of maintaining or even deepening their other equally important reasons for being.

With these alignments, BDFEs can be considered a segment of social enterprises that promote biodiversity conservation as part of their social mission. BDFEs are essential as they provide sustainable solutions to address issues relating to aquaculture, climate change, and other challenges to conserving the country’s biodiversity. To sustain this role in biodiversity, BDFEs need to find a sustainable enterprise pathway that will enable their livelihood, enterprises or businesses engage the market, create

and distribute the value derived, attain resiliency and reduce poverty.

By evolving from BDFEs to biodiversity friendly social enterprises (BDFSE), they will reap more benefits and become more robust enterprises. They will have better capacity to address the multiple bottomline of pro-poor, profit and planet that will enhance the people’s quality of life and living environment. BDFSEs can focus and improve on their biodiversity conservation and environmental sustainability efforts and strengthen their social mission. They can scale up their economic wealth and increase value addition. The poor, women, and small producers can be active partners in value chain/subsector development. BDFEs should adhere to a set of social enterprise benchmarks to scale up and fully transform into BDFSEs.

57

Figure 1. Transactional and transformational services provided by SEPPS


THE BENCHMARKS FOR TRANSFORMATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS AND WOMEN’S ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT IN AGRICULTURAL VALUE CHAINS

The Benchmarks for Transformational Partnerships and Women’s Economic Empowerment in Agricultural Value Chains (BTP-WEE in AVCs) was developed by the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia (ISEA) through a 2-year action research that studied best practices among selected social enterprises in four countries in Southeast Asia (Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam) that have had significant impact on women and men small scale producers in agricultural and fishery value chains. The Benchmarks articulate that agricultural value chain interventions have shown greater depth of impact and a higher level of sustainability when they engage a critical mass of women and men small scale producers in STRATEGIC TRANSFORMATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS exhibiting the eight elements that operationalize the principles of sustainable development. Figure 2 shows the alignment of the the eight BTP-WEE in AVCs elements with the sustainable development goals (SDGs).

An adaptation of the BTP-WEE and its corresponding scorecard (see Annex 2) in the context of biodiversity conservation was developed to ensure that:

n Basic biodiversity principles are embodied in the eight elements;

n Valuation of biodiversity-friendly products and resources are given preferential trading and pricing, along with the observance of fair-trade principles; and,

n Biodiversity and environmental concerns are incorporated in capacity building of women and small producers on stewardship, resiliency, organizational development, transactional and transformational services and monitoring and evaluation of results.

The eight elements are consistent with many of the key elements that BDFEsneed to consider as they problematize on the issues of scaling up and sustainability. Thus, it is essential to use them as a starting framework in evolving a model for scaling up and/or increasing the outreach and depth of impact of UNDP GEF SGP-supported biodiversity-friendly enterprises. The enhanced BTP-WEE scorecard serves as a planning and evaluation tool for enterprise practitioners and stakeholders, in general, and BDFEs, in particular, to guide and assess that their enterprises’ adherence to identified aspirational benchmarks for transformational partnerships and women’s economic empowerment in agricultural value chains and biodiversity conservation principles.

58


Elements Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Being Addressed

1 Our intervention PROMOTES APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY and COMMUNITY-BASED/ORIENTED INNOVATIONS that are friendly to women and men small producers.

Goal 9Industry, Innovation, Infrastructure

2 Our intervention PROGRESSIVELY POSITIONS women and men SMALL PRODUCERS to REAP a MORE SUBSTANTIVE SHARE of VALUE CREATED OVER TIME.

Goal 10Reducing Inequalities

3 Our intervention PROACTIVELY BUILDS the RESILIENCE of women and men small scale producers to natural, social and economic disasters.

Goal 11Sustainable Cities and Communities

4 Our intervention PAVES THE WAY for the EMPOWERMENT of SMALL PRODUCERS to become actors in their own development and that of their community and sector.

Goals 1 (No Poverty), 2 (Zero Hunger), 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), 10 (Reducing Inequalities), 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

5 Our intervention PAVES THE WAY for the small producers to BECOME STEWARDS OF THE NATURAL RESOURCE BASE SUSTAINING THEIR LIVELIHOODS and our ENTERPRISE and to become stakeholders in SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION and PRODUCTION systems

Goals 2 (Zero Hunger), 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), 13 (Climate Action), 14 (Life Below Water), 15 (Life on Land)

6 Our intervention PROVIDES/FACILITATES THE PROVISION of a COMBINATION of TRANSACTIONAL and TRANSFORMATIONAL SERVICES among women and men small scale producers to more effectively participate in value chain development and community/sectoral development that is equitable and sustainable.

Goals 1 (No Poverty), 2 (Zero Hunger), 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), 10 (Reducing Inequalities), 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

7 Our intervention PROACTIVELY CHOOSES VALUE CHAINS AND INVESTS IN transparent and accountable VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES that ENHANCE WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION and EMPOWERMENT.

Goal 5Gender Equality

8 Our intervention PRODUCES MEASURABLE OUTCOMES of TRANSFORMATION at the level of women and small producers, households and communities, and value chains and subsectors.

Goal 16Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Figure 2. The BTP-WEE in AVCs elements and their alignment with the sustainable development goals (SDGs)


STRATEGIC ECONOMIC SUB-SECTORS AS UNITS OF PLANNING

For interventions aiming to scale up the enterprise and the outreach and depth of impact as well, the challenge is to effectively define and invest in the best or a combination of value chains in economic sub-sectors where opportunities and potentials for market growth and stakeholder benefit could be optimized while adhering to biodiversity conservation and sustainable development principles. The units of analysis and planning used in the model-building project are framed on the strategic economic sub-sector and value chain approaches.

Value chains are vertical networks of economic actors that buy and sell from each other as they perform various functions to produce or provide and deliver products or services to end markets. Economic sub-sectors are subsystems where social enterprises and micro, small and medium enterprises operate. They are networks of related actors and enterprises that procure/transform raw materials/inputs into finished products or develop services and distribute/provide them through supply channels to final consumers. They may be identified by key raw material source, finished product or final service provided. Economic sub-sectors may be composed of competing value chains serving different market segments. (ISEA, 2019)

The sub-sector action research approach was selected as a tool for strategic planning for scaling up because it is a systems approach to the study of economic activity which helps development actors better understand the dynamics of the sub-sector. It seeks

to analyze all of the stakeholders and participants, their linkages, and influential factors in the agribusiness system in order to identify constraints and opportunities for growth. Thus, sub-sector action research is a powerful tool for project designers and decision makers because it clearly illustrates where change can have the most significant impact on the sub-sector.

Some examples of strategic economic sub-sectors where social enterprises are already playing key roles include: coco coir, muscovado sugar, organic rice, coffee, cocoa, banana, essential oils, livestock, educational toys and school chairs.

By analysing the sub-sector, BDFEs aiming to increase their reach/scale and sustainability of impact , and resource institutions supporting them can:

n Identify interventions that aim to reach large numbers of intended stakeholders among the poor

n Design cost-effective projects engaging these stakeholders

n Enable better decisions on how to scale up with a better understanding of the larger economic subsystem in which BDFEs operate

n Focus limited resources for social enterprise development where they will benefit large numbers of the poor as stakeholders

OVERVIEW OF THE KEY STEPS IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR SCALING

UP BDFES

STEP 1Determine the preparedness of a BDFE to scale up in the context of a value chain or economic sub-sector


STEP 2Build a team to assist stakeholders in the action research and strategic development and investment planning process

STEP 3Engage stakeholders in a sub-sector action research process

STEP 4Engage stakeholders to evolve and prepare strategic development and investment plan

STEP 1DETERMINE THE PREPAREDNESS OF A BDFE TO SCALE UP IN THE CONTEXT OF A VALUE CHAIN OR ECONOMIC

SUB-SECTOR

Key Steps:nSet criteria for evaluating

preparedness of BDFEsnShortlist potential BDFEs and

gather and/or validate datanSelect BDFE(s) that is/are

deemed prepared for scalng up

Tools:nCriteria for evaluationnBTP-WEE in AVCs Scorecard

SET CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING PREPAREDNESS FOR SCALING UP The first step in determining whether a potential BDFE is prepared for scaling up is to set the evaluation criteria with the following major components:

n Scale of current and potential market to support scaling up

n Scale of current and potential outreach among the marginalized poor

n Internal enterprise capacity and presence of external support

n Strategic value of area in relation

to biodiversity conservation n Security of tenure and potential

for sustainable management of resource base

Specifically, the key elements that should assess the BDFEs’ preparedness to scale up are shown in Table 1.

UNDP GEF-SGP5 recommended the inclusion of the sixth criterion on security of tenure of the resource base where the livelihood or enterprise is derived. Security of tenure or continued stewardship rights over the use of the resource base is an important factor in the sustainability of supply of products that are dependent on the use of natural resources (i.e., land, seascape, coastal resources, etc.). As such, it is a key determinant in assessing the viability of the investment.

Alongside this, the Benchmarks for Transformational Partnerships and Women’s Economic Empowerment (BTP-WEE) in Agricultural Value Chains Scorecard developed by ISEA is a primary tool in assessing BDFEs’ capacity for scaling up. Details of the enhanced BTP-WEE Scorecard can be seen in Annex 3.

Organize a committee who can help in the selection of potential BDFEs. The selection panel can be composed of stakeholders from various sectors including but not limited to the following:

nGovernment agencies involved in environment and biodiversity conservation

n Local Government Unitsn Funder/ Support OrganizationsnNon-government Organization

(NGO)/ Development agencynAcademenOther relevant stakeholders


SHORTLIST POTENTIAL BDFES AND VALIDATE DATA Conduct an initial assessment of the BDFEs’ capacities for scaling up guided by the evaluation criteria and the enhanced BTP-WEE in AVCs scorecard. Make an initial shortlist of the BDFEs with the highest potential for scaling up based on the result of the rapid assessment.

After this, carry out a field validation to confirm or verify initial data collected and gather additional relevant information on the shortlisted BDFEs. These data will be

Table 1. Key elements to assess the BDFEs’ preparedness to scale up

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION SOME QUESTIONS TO ASK1. Market Presence of clear product or

service and indications of growth in market demand

Is there a growing/adequate market demand for the product/service to support scaling up?

2. Outreach Significance in terms of number/critical mass of poor/marginalized households to be potentially engaged

How many households will benefit fromscaling up? How many small producers? How many women? What roles will they play?

3. Enterprise capacity and governance

Significance in terms of number/critical mass of poor/marginalized households to be potentially engaged

Does the BDFE have an existing board and manager? Is organizational financial management present and strong?

4. External support Presence of support institutions and enabling organizations who can be potentially engaged to support planning and implementation

Does the BDFE have links or established partnerships with critical support institutions (government, private, civil society)?

5. Strategic value of key biodiversity area

Potential of site for high biodiversity conservation impact, demonstration of sustainable value chain, and replicability

Is the BDFE located in a Key Biodiversity Area? How significant is biodiversity conservation in the area?

6. Security of tenure over resource base

BDFE has security of tenure or rights over the natural resource base and has room for expansion

Does the BDFE have security of tenure over the resource base

* See Annex 2 for the detailed description of the selection criteria.

used to further evaluate the suitability of the BDFE for scaling up.

SELECT SCALABLE BDFE Once additional data have been gathered and verified and scores have been re-tabulated, the selection panel can now deliberate and select the BDFE with the highest potential for scaling up.

In the SUBLIME project, 13 BDFE SGP-5 grantees were initially shortlisted by the selection committee composed of representatives from UNDP SGP, DENR-


FPE and ISEA based on the six selection criteria (see Annex 3). ISEA conducted a learning event with the 13 BDFEs on the essential principles of SEPPS, the BTP WEE in AVCs and sub-sector analysis.

CRITERIA RESULT OF SELECTION PROCESS

Market potential for scaling up

Market potential is high as demand for abaca is increasing and will continue to increase in the domestic and global market. The BDFE can already meet market demand in terms of volume. Abaca price is also stable and increasing. There is high potential for value-adding.

Significance in number of households to be potentially engaged

Abaca farmers are among the poorest of the poor, earning only an estimated average monthly income of P3,000 - P4,000. CEFA currently has 200 abaca producing members in 3 of the 4 barangays covered by the CBFMA. CEFA estimates that it can further engage an additional 200 households. The project can potentially reach 1,435 households in the CBFMA.

Start-up capacity of leadership and team

CEFA and EVPRD have adequate, trained manpower support, including management and finance units, necessary to sustain the social enterprise.Both have established track record in project implementation: EVPRD has implemented 11 major projects mostly in agriforestry CEFA has been awarded by DENR as Best PO for the NGP in 2017

Presence of support institutions and enabling organizations

CEFA and EVRDP have strong linkages with PHILFIDA, UEP, DAR, LGUs, abaca buyer (Ching Bee)

Strategic value of site BDFE has high potential to influence abaca industry in Northern Samar and the whole of Samar Island given the increasing demand for abaca fiber. It is also strategically located in the buffer zone of the SINP, a key biodiversity conservation area, making the BDFE a strong “biodiversity fence”.BDFE has high potential for demonstrating and replicating sustainable agricultural value chain since it requires low capital input and simple technology.

Resource base security of tenure

BDFE site is located within CBMFA area in the SINP.Production protocols in place for CEFA farmers

The BDFEs were also asked to do a self-assessment to determine their level of understanding of their capacity to scale up. Aside from rating themselves on the selection criteria and BTP-WEE scorecards,


Other considerations • Strong demand for abaca as a result of the expanding market for specialty papers used for food packaging such as tea bags and meat casings, filter papers, non-wovens, and disposables;

• Growing demand to conserve forest resources and to protect the environment from problems posed by non-biodegradable materials, particularly plastics, contribute to the growing demand for natural fibers such as abaca;

• Due to environmental degradation, Japan, which is one of the major abaca consumers, is now replacing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) with natural fibers or materials free from chlorine;

• Development of new uses for abaca such as textile materials for the production of pinukpok or as blending material with silk, piňa or polyester in the production of high-end fabrics; and

• Growing demand for handmade paper for art media, photo frames, albums, stationery, flowers, all-purpose cards, and decorations.

other tools such as the Personal Entrepreneurial Competencies (PEC) and Non-profit Entrepreneurial Quotient (NEQ) were used to gauge the BDFE leaders’ entrepreneurial and transformational leadership competencies. Outputs from the workshops on sub-sector analysis, including gender mapping, were compiled to provide basic information about the BDFEs.

Two of the 13 BDFEs emerged on top in the second level of shortlisting by the selection team based on the result of the tabulated self-assessment scores. After field validation, key informant interviews and rapid appraisal were done to get a more in-depth understanding of the potentials of the two BDFEs, EVPRD, Inc. who is currently operating an abaca enterprise in partnership with people’s organization CEFA, was chosen.

Based on the result of the rapid assessment and field validation process, CEFA-EVPRD’s

Abaca Production enterprise in Northern Samar showed the highest potential for scaling up, scoring a total of 30 out of 30 points in the 6 criteria.

ABACA PRODUCTION IN NORTHERN SAMAR

Located in Eastern Visayas, Northern Samar is an agricultural province composed of 24 municipalities and home to 126,562 households and 630,912 individuals. The main sources of livelihood in the province are farming and fishing. Coconut, banana, abaca, corn and cassava are the major agricultural crops produced in the province. In the last Census of Agriculture and Fisheries (PSA, 2012), Northern Samar grew 45 percent of the total scattered abaca hills in Region 8. Among the provinces in the region, Northern Samar also utilized the biggest area for agriculture and reported the highest average area per parcel for both temporary and permanent crops located within the vicinity of the said province.


Based on PSA data in 2015, the poverty incidence in Northern Samar was at 56.2%, making it the poorest province in Region 8 and the top 9 province with the highest poverty incidence in the country. This has been further aggravated by the onslaught of typhoons that heavily affected the province in the past 5 years.

Abaca is one of the priority high-value crops of the Department of Agriculture in Region 8. Northern Samar is considered the top abaca production hub in the region and the second largest abaca producing province in the country in 2017, next to Catanduanes. Northern Samar used to be a leading abaca-producing province in the country, but the production dwindled in the early 2000s because of abaca diseases and typhoons that severely affected the industry in the region.

In Mondragon, Northern Samar, 200-member people’s organization (PO) CEFA was awarded a Community-Based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA) under the National Greening Program of

the DENR in 2008, through the initiative of Northern Samar’s Provincial Government Environment and Natural Resources Office (PGENRO).

The agreement covered 1,500 hectares of agricultural and forest lands in the buffer zone of the Samar Island Natural Park (SINP), the largest contiguous lowland tropical rainforest in the Philippines. CEFA registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and became involved in copra trading and palay

According to the Philippine Fiber Industry Authority (PHILFIDA), abaca can be suitably used in reforestation because it helps improve biodiversity conditions when it is intercropped with coconut and other trees. In addition, abaca also helps minimize erosion and sedimentation problems and prevent landslides and floods by improving the water holding capacity of the soil. Intercropping abaca with the trees in the CBFM area has beneficial impact to both the environment and to farmers.


trading but the latter was not sustained. In the past years, the price of copra in the region has also declined, further pushing families to poverty.

In 2016, in partnership with the Eastern Visayas Partnerships for Rural Development (EVPRD), Inc., they received a grant from the Small Grants Programme (SGP) of UNDP and GEF to establish an organized production and marketing system for abaca and other CBFM produce. EVPRD supported CEFA in enhancing its organizational and enterprise management capacities and improving its production and marketing. Through the project, members of CEFA began to gain more income. As a result, members are now able to finance their children’s education better and repair or improve their houses. Some have invested in agricultural assets such as farm implements and livestock while others bought household (appliances) and transportation (motorcycles) assets from their income.

STEP 2BUILD A TEAM TO ASSIST

STAKEHOLDERS IN THE ACTION RESEARCH AND STRATEGIC

DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PLANNING PROCESS

Assemble a team with substantial knowledge, skills, and prior experience in social entrepreneurship and sub-sector analysis to support the stakeholders in the conduct of the action research and the strategic development and investment planning process for the selected BDFE to be scaled up. Preferably, engage local stakeholders who are familiar with the local context, the identified sub-sector and the BDFE as part of the team to ensure that key elements and information

of the market are integrated in the action research.

Here are the key roles to consider when putting the team together:

TEAM MEMBERS AND THEIR ROLESSocial Entrepreneurship and Sub-sector Development Specialist• Provide guidance in the social

entrepreneurship and sub-sector development

Strategic Planning and Investment Specialist• Support analysis of subsector research

data• Assist selected BDFE in strategic

development and investment planning

Subsector Action Research Field Team• Carry out action research in the

selected BDFE sub-sector through primary and secondary data collection

Market Researcher• Undertake a rapid market assessment

of shortlisted value chains and sub-sector

• Perform in-depth market study and analysis of selected value chains and sub-sector

Communications Team• Conduct process documentation• Prepare relevant communications and

resource materials

In the SUBLIME Project, ISEA organized a core team to carry out the market assessment and sub-sector action research and guide the pilot BDFE in the strategic development and investment planning process. The team spent several weeks in Northern Samar to gather data, consult with key and relevant stakeholders, and support CEFA/EVPRD in their strategic planning for scaling up.

FACILITATING FACTORS:n The previous experience of the

field team in doing sub-sector research in the context of disaster


rehabilitation and “building back better” post-Typhoon Yolanda in Eastern Samar facilitated the first and second waves of the action research for the abaca sub-sector; and

nTight coordination between the project management team and the field action research team ensured that project objectives were translated in the sub-sector action research through the use of appropriate research tools and methodologies to obtain accurate and relevant information.

STEP 3ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS IN A SUB-

SECTOR ACTION RESEARCH PROCESS

Key Steps:nUndertake stakeholder analysis

and value chain mappingnConduct internal and external

environmental analysis

Tools:nSub-sector AssessmentnMarket Research/AssessmentnMacro-market AnalysisnMicro-market AnalysisnGendered Market Mapping

Once the scalable BDFE has been selected and an action research team has been organized, a more in-depth situation analysis can now be initiated to identify the ideal value chain or strategic economic sub-sector the BDFE can pursue.

UNDERTAKE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS AND VALUE CHAIN MAPPING

Using a mix of primary and secondary data gathering methodologies, do a stakeholder analysis and value chain mapping of the identified economic sub-sector. Vital data that should be collected include the following:

nProfile of key participants and stakeholders, including women and small farmers/ producers, and their functions/roles in the value chain;

nTechnologies used in the production of the good or service;

nMarket and enterprise situation of the product or service (i.e. size, competition, market segments, channels, demand, growth and trends)

The market mapping and analysis will help the BDFE understand the global, national, and local market conditions and demands and identify risks and opportunities to

In photos: (L) Pablo Paet, Jr., Field Research Associate facilitates an FGD with abaca farmers in Mondragon on October 3, 2018; (R) Merlinda Calubaquib, Field Research Team Leader conducts an FGD on gendered mapping with abaca farmers in Mondragon on October 5, 2018.


determine the viability and potential of scaling up. It will also serve as a guide in choosing which markets and opportunities to pursue that will provide the most optimal return of investment.

CONDUCT INTERNAL & EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

A key component of the action research is understanding the factors affecting the stakeholders in the value chain and the environment within which the BDFE and its partners in the value chain exists. This involves mapping and analyzing the political, economic, social, technological, legal and ecological conditions of the business environment.

The action research should collect data related to the following:

npolicy and regulatory environment where the sub-sector and its stakeholders operate;

n socio-economic condition of the community;

nother sources of sustainable poverty pathways other than the identified sub-sector;

npotential sub-sector intervention partners and their programs/ initiatives that can benefit the sub-sector;

n level of support of enablers in the locality both from the public and private sector and how all these affect the development and growth of the identified sub-sector and industry; and

n condition of the natural resource base and climate-change related risks and their impact on the BDFE’s identified sub-sector.

After this, synthesize all data collected from the action research and prepare a preliminary analysis of Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT), and potential areas of intervention (internal and external) given the external demand, current capacities and manifested potential in meeting demands.

The SUBLIME project designed a framework for strategic planning for scaling-up BDFEs that served as a step-by-step guide in the conduct of the sub-sector and value chain action research. Framed by the variables in the enhanced BTP-WEE scorecards, the project developed a checklist of essential data and information to be gathered and identified the data gathering methodology and tools/ instruments to guide the field researchers as they carry out the action research.

KEY RESULTS OF THE ABACA SUB-SECTOR ACTION

RESEARCH

ABACA SUB-SECTOR STAKEHOLDER AND VALUE CHAIN MAPPING

A. STAKEHOLDER MAPPING

There are five major stakeholders/participants that are involved in the abaca industry in Mondragon, Northern Samar:

1. Abaca Farmers which includes: (a) Women and men members of CEFA who are involved in the organized production and marketing of abaca fiber initiated by EVPRD and CEFA (200 active abaca farming household members), and (b) Other Abaca Farmers of Mondragon who are non-CEFA members (estimated at 1,106 active producers);

2. Abaca farm workers within Mondragon who are also abaca farmers that offer their services in exchange for immediate cash income. Usually, abaca


farmers within a community/barangay work together among themselves;

3. Consolidators are local residents/abaca farmers who are involved in consolidating abaca fibers from farmers within a barangay or cluster of barangays;

4. Local Traders - There are six licensed abaca local traders in Mondragon. CEFA is included in this list. The primary functions of these local traders are: (a) buying and consolidating abaca fibers from farmers and consolidators from different barangays and even from other municipalities, and (b) selling these fibers to GBEs, trader-exporter, and processors;

5. Buyers (GBEs, Trader-Exporter, Processors) - The abaca fiber buyers in Northern Samar are S.C. Tan Export Corporation (Catarman-based GBE), Ching Bee Trading Corporation (a trader-exporter), SPMI (a GBE and processor which is a sister company of Ching Bee), and PSPI (a processor).

Women participate in all aspects of abaca fiber production except bundling of dried abaca fibers. Overall, women are involved in 84% of abaca production activities and 32.5% of marketing activities.

B. VALUE CHAIN AND MARKET MAPPING AND ANALYSIS

NATIONAL LANDSCAPEnAbaca industry is a global

industry dominated by the Philippines

n87% of global abaca demand is supplied by the Philippines, generating an average of US$100 million from exports

n68 MT is the average fiber production in the Philippines with 122,090 has. of production areas

n There is high demand for abaca fiber in the local, national and international market (59,000 MT yearly demand deficit for abaca fiber in the Philippines and 38,762 unmet annual demand of pulp processors in Region 8)

NORTHERN SAMAR LANDSCAPEn12.671 MT is fiber production

in Eastern Visayas (2017) with 27,816 has. production areas (2016)

n7,235 MT is the abaca fiber production in Northern Samar representing 57% of the total regional production (2017)

n12,040 has. are planted with abaca in Northern Samar (2017) with 11,000 abaca farmers (2013)

n Eastern Visayas is the 2nd top abaca producer next to Bicol Region

nNorthern Samar is 2nd in abaca production among the all the provinces in the Phillipines (Catanduanes is 1st)

n The Municipality of Mondragon is the 3rd top abaca producer in Northern Samar

nAn Abaca Focal Group/Abaca Multisectoral Development Council was created by the previous administration of Gov. Daza but was not sustained

n0.45-0.55 MT/ha/year is the abaca productivity in Northern Samar and out of it 520 MT/year is estimated abaca fiber production in Mondragon

n1,387 has. are the production areas in Mondragon with 1,500 no. of abaca farmers


n3,000-4,000 pesos is the estimated income of abaca farmers in Mondragon; 38% contribution of abaca farmers to income in Mondragon

CEFAnCEFA started trading abaca fiber

in 2017. n Its members account for 4.33% of

total abaca fiber production and 5.77% of total abaca planted area in Mondragon

nOut of the 67.50 MT average annual production of its members, CEFA can only buy 30 MT yearly with its current capitalization. Other produced abaca not sold to CEFA are absorbed by other local traders.

nCEFA members represent 15% of the estimated total abaca farmers in Mondragon.

MARKET CHANNELS. There are three existing market channels of abaca fiber in Mondragon, Northern Samar.

nChannel 1: Farmer – Local Consolidators – Traditional Local traders – Buyers

nChannel 2: Farmer – Traditional Local Traders – Buyers

nChannel 3: exclusive for CEFA abaca farmer members.

Channels 1 & 2 are the most dominant channels both in the past and in the present. Members of CEFA, at present, still go through channels 1 & 2 because the association cannot buy all their abaca fibers.

PERCEIVED DEMANDn Forecast for abaca fiber demand

in the next 5 years in Mondragon will be 50 MT weekly or about 2,600 MT per year.

n In Eastern Visayas, the combined demand for abaca fiber by Leyte-based processors is 43,200 MT per year.

n The biggest pulp mill in Region 8 with an estimated capacity of 36,000 MT of fiber or 12,000 MT pulp/year is only able to obtain 1,938 MT or 5.38% of its capacity.Due to extreme shortage of fiber supply, pulp mills obtain fiber from Catanduanes, Mindanao, and Ecuador to maximize operating costs.

ABACA SUB-SECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Policy and Regulatory Environment. PhilFIDA is an attached agency of the DA which is mandated to promote the growth and development of the natural fiber industry through research and development, production support, fiber processing and utilization, standards implementation, and trade regulation. It is tasked with abaca trade regulatory services such as: (a) Licensing services to abaca fiber industry, (b) Fiber inspection and enforcement of grading standards, (c) Certification of abaca farms and farmers in terms of sustainability and good agricultural practices for the enhancement of cultural practices. It is undeniable that PhilFIDA plays a significant role in the development of the abaca industry in Northern Samar. However, the agency faces numerous constraints. Other agencies that are considered enablers of the industry are: DTI, DOST, DENR, DAR and local agencies such as: Abaca Multi-Sectoral Coalition, DENR-Provincial, Provincial LGU (PGENRO, PAO), CEFA, EVPRD, UEP, TESDA, DSWD, DPWH, NIA, GFIs (LBP and DBP), NGOs and the Private Sector.


Natural Resource Base. The present BDFE site is covered by a CBFMA that is awarded to CEFA. The area is around 1,050 hectares of forestland nestled within Mondragon and is within the buffer zone of the bigger key biodiversity area—the SINP. EVPRD and CEFA believes that effective management of these areas would serve as a strong “biodiversity fence” that will shield the SINP protected areas from further encroachment and degradation.

Other factors affecting economic benefits of abaca farmers are: (a) constraints in production (risk of typhoon damage, pests and diseases, poor cultivation practices, etc.), (b) constraints in marketing (market and pricing information, fiber classification and grading, etc.), and (c) constraints in value adding and processing (access to technology and equipment).

DYNAMICS AND PROSPECTS OF SE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH

Abaca farmers can get higher benefits from abaca production and trading if they can improve their farming practices, increase recovery of abaca fiber through better stripping technologies, join an organized marketing group such as CEFA and improve the quality of their abaca fiber to get higher price.

CEFA can explore the following opportunities to improve and scale up their position or the benefits derived from the sub-sector:

1. Use of high-yielding and virus-resistant planting materials compatible with the biodiversity parameters,

2. Better management of abaca farms and adoption of sustainability standards (CEFA protocol),

3. Shifting from manual/hand stripping to spindled stripping or decorticating machines,

4. Shifting of channel from a traditional consolidator/trader to a developmental market channel (CEFA),

5. Taking over of functions in the value chain, and

6. Application for sustainability certification.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEVERAGED INTERVENTIONS AND DESIRED SUB-SECTOR MAP

Building on the strengths of the primary stakeholders and their enablers, the following are the identified leveraged interventions:

1. Strategic cluster of barangays and municipalities radiating around the CEFA-influenced areas and abaca farmers;

2. Development of a multisectoral platform for subsector development – basically reviving the initiative of the PLGU on the abaca multisectoral and inter-agency oversight body;

3. Social enterprise development - strengthening CEFA, explore possibility of forming a cooperative structure of CEFA, and establishing abaca-related SEs and new product lines (tuxy, nursery, other value adding products, fabrication/trading of women-friendly stripping device);

4. TESDA accreditation as a skills training center, and

5. Accreditation as agro-ecotourism site.

Through these interventions, CEFA shall be transformed from being a mere fair trade and BDFE initiative into a GBE


or Class A trader social enterprise that is taking over several functions from planting stocks production to marketing. Abaca farmer producers shall have ample time to concentrate in farm establishment and maintenance, and in taking part in CEFA’s value adding activities related to processing fiber.

STEP 4ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS TO EVOLVE AND PREPARE

STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT PLAN

Key Steps:nStrategic assessment and

development planning (5 yearsnInvestment Planning (3 years)n1-year Operations Planning

Tools:nBTP-WEE in AVCs ScorecardnBDFE Protocols

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

Using the results of the Sub-sector Action Research, engage the stakeholders to prepare their 5-year Strategic Development and Investment Plan. Enjoin key stakeholders, support agencies/institutions and the private sector identified in the SAR stakeholder mapping in reviewing and validating the result of the SAR. The stakeholders’ workshop/s will also serve as a venue for a participatory identification of the strengths, development problems, strategic solutions and priority development interventions for the BDFE as it gears up to be a BDFSE in the next 5 years. Choosing priority strategic interventions should take into account their alignment with BDFE and social

enterprise principles and with the BTP-WEE in AVCs elements.

Establishing the BDFSE’s strategic development plan involves a dual process:

nPHASE I: SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION & MARKET CONSOLIDATION AT SCALE (YEAR 1 TO YEAR 3)

Phase 1 of the strategic development planning process surfaces the interventions and investments that are needed to scale up: (a) the primary social enterprise stakeholder or the BDFE, and (b) the sub-sector and value chain where the BDFE operates its business. It aims to engage stakeholders in sustainable production for marketing at scale using the protocol.

nPHASE II: MOVING UP THE VALUE CHAIN (END OF YEAR 3-ONWARDS TO YEAR 5)

Phase 2 of the strategic sub-sector development plan seeks to move the BDFE’s engagement up the value chain by identifying interventions and the needed investments that address the market demand and opportunities.

INVESTMENT PLANNING

After setting and agreeing on the 5-year Strategic Development Plans and the priority interventions of the BDFSE, the next step is to determine the required investment needed to execute the plan. To do this, initiate a participatory workshop with the BDFSE and other key stakeholders and partners including support agencies/institutions and the private sector to present the development plans, explore options and elicit investment support to the BDFSE.


1-YEAR OPERATIONS PLANNING

Facilitate a 1-year Operations Planning to assist the BDFE in choosing development priorities to pursue using a start-up investment fund or grant. The initial investment is an essential part of the scaling up process as it provides the BDFE the needed resources to jumpstart the realization of their strategic development plans.

Biodiversity principles are considered non-negotiables in the scaling up process of BDFSEs. As such, these should be a key criteria in selecting the priority development plans of the BDFE.

n Species conservation refers to, at the minimum, maintaining the baseline status of species (flora and fauna) that serve as base marker upon introduction of the scale up interventions and measuring the same indicators when scale up interventions have served the purpose of conservation

nVariability of given living organisms (species, habitat and genetic diversity and differentiation) is maintained or enhanced at the start, during and upon installation of interventions aiming to scale up economic activities in the key biodiversity area

n Interventions are non-invasive. The programs, projects and investments that will be instituted as pathways to scaling up must be non-invasive and validated to observe species conservation and variability of living organisms in the biodiversity areas

Using the BTP-WEE Benchmarks in Strategic Planning

One of the main challenges of scaling up social enterprises is mission drift. Using the BTP-WEE Benchmarks as a guide for planning ensures that BDFEs will not veer away from the social and environmental conservation mission. It can also help the BDFE identify their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the eight elements of the BTP-WEE Benchmarks.

Moreover, it aims to assist both the partner-enterprises and their resource and support institutions evaluate their BDFEs with the perspective of (re)orienting enterprise philosophy and (re)alignging plans of enterprises towards deepening biodiversoty and transformational change benchmarks and contribution to the sustainable development goals (SDGs).

CEFA, together with EVPRD, developed a protocol that sets the rules for its member farmers for abaca production. This protocol guarantees that production practices of CEFA members are aligned with BDFE standards and environmental conservation. The findings of the market potential assessment of abaca revealed bigger earnings for PhilFIDA’s production model using high-yielding or hybrid varieties of abaca and chemical inputs. Nonetheless, CEFA-EVPRD chose to adhere with their established production protocols, staying faithful to their biodiversity conservation mission (see table on page 74).


Comparison of EVPRD & CEFA Abaca Production Protocol with Traditional Abaca Farming Method

Production Aspect EVPRD & CEFA Protocol Traditional System

Farm planning Farm lay-out and produc-tion plan are required and need to be approved by EVPRD and CEFA

No written farm plan

Opening new kaingin farm for abaca farming

Not allowed Usual practice of farmers

Location of farm Should be within multiple use zones, must pass farm inspection by EVPRD and CEFA

Farmers decide where to open or establish farm

Planting stock Should be sourced within Mondragon to prevent possible disease outbreak

Farmers sourced planting stocks within Mondragon

Crop integration Required Farmers’ discretion

Planting of hedgerows Required for soil and water conservation

Not usually practiced

Planting distance 3m x 5m to allow intercrop Farmers’ discretion

Frequency of brushing Monthly within the first six months from planting; quarterly from the 7th month onwards

Quarterly, usually before harvesting

RESULT OF THE CEFA-EVPRD STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT AND

INVESTMENT PLANNING

WORKSHOP 1: STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

Phase 1 - Sustainable Production and Market Consolidation at Scale (Year 1 to Year 3)

In 8-9 November, the preliminary results of the Abaca Sub-sector Action Research was presented to the stakeholders in Northern Samar. The results of the abaca SAR served as basis for guiding the strategic development and investment planning process to scale up the BDFE of EVPRD-CEFA along a social entrepreneurship

framing.

PROCESS FLOW:nPresentation of the results and

findings of the sub-sector action research

n Surfacing of problems and solutions on the abaca sub-sector, value chain and enterprise from three major stakeholders:

Group 1 - EVPRD and CEFA: Women and small abaca farmer- members Group 2 - EVPRD and non-CEFA small abaca farmers and workers Group 3 - Enablers: Provincial and municipal LGUs, DENR, DAR, DA, and others

nConsolidation and clustering of


major interventions common to all stakeholders:• Interventions that enable the

abaca sub-sector, value chain and enterprise scale-up into a BDFSE

• How these interventions align with the major elements of the BTP-WEE in AVCs

• Validation, prioritization and enhancement of workshop outputs

IDENTIFIED KEY DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS:

n Low productivity of abaca farms in Mondragon and CEFA-managed farms

n Lack of access to higher-level harvesting technology and inadequate support services (i.e. transport network and facilities, common services facilities such as drying, warehouse, etc)

n Scaling-up social enterprise practice of CEFA as producer-trader-consolidator

nMarketing and trading system: Fragmented and current sharing system needs improvement

nWeak convergence and coordination with abaca sub-sector enablers

MAJOR OUTPUT:Stakeholders plan & production-focused interventions that will scale-up the abaca sub-sector along better abaca production, strengthening CEFA’s capacities in abaca enterprise production, trading and consolidation, enhanced coverage of the KBA & greater women & small farmer involvement in the next 3 years.

For this to happen, CEFA-EVPRD and its enablers has to follow these critical paths and address current challenges and issues:

n Enhance production of existing

abaca farms of CEFA as model and on-ground demonstration farms for high quality abaca fibers;

nPromotion and expansion of CEFA membership and network to expand coverage and outreach and increase production volume and quality;

n Investment in common service facilities that are women-friendly and strategically deployed which are critical to the production of high-value abaca fibers;

n Strict monitoring of fair trading and enforcement of buying, trading, and pricing guidelines; and,

n Strengthen support interven-tions of abaca industry enablers are vital in all stages of the value chain.

LESSONS LEARNED:


Since some key government line agencies were not present in the first workshop, additional activities had to be done by the field action research team, investment specialist, and market researcher to:

(a) provide feedback to key agencies who failed to attend the first workshop

(b) do additional processing of workshop 1 outputs with key officials and staff of EVPRD and CEFA,

(c) conduct further process of matching workshop 1 outputs (identified by the EVPRD, CEFA, supportive agencies and enablers) with the market-determined scale-up pathways, and

(d) reconvene key stakeholders in a second major workshop to appreciate the market-identified scale-up pathways and determine if these could be matched or aligned with the intervention pathways identified by the stakeholders.

It is important to engage key enablers, including government line agencies, civil society organizations and the private sector, at the onset, as their involvement and support are essential in the enterprise’s scaling up journey.

WORKSHOP 2: STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT & DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

Phase 2 - Moving up the Value Chain (end of Year 3-onward to Year 5)

A second workshop was conducted with CEFA-EVPRD, stakeholders and enablers to prepare for the second phase of the strategic abaca subsection development plan. Phase 2 envisions EVPRD-CEFA enterprise becoming a major player in the community value chain as a consolidator-

processor attaining near-manufacturing status of intermediate and/or semi-final abaca products for local and export market within the next 3-5 years.

PROCESS FLOW:n Presentation of the abaca sub-

sector market trends at the national/local, export and global market: pulp and specialty paper (food/non-food grade; bleached and unbleached), cordage, fibrecraft/textiles and others

nAligning EVPRD-CEFA fiber production and investments needed (now and in the near future) towards the nearest possible pre-manufacturing product form

n Enhancement of the strategic development plan and intervention from the 3rd year onwards: How to attain high-grade fiber products (from production, classification and certification skills), piloting s e m i - p r o c e s s e d / s e m i - f i n a l pulp processing (biodiversity-friendly & led by or participated in by women and small farmers), investment and budget plan for the next 5 years

MAJOR OUTPUT:Market-based & final (abaca) product demand-based plan & set of interventions that will scale-up EVPRD-CEFA’s abaca fiber production to higher grade and certified fiber and piloting community-based pulp/paper processing technology after the 3rd year-onwards to Year 5.

To realize this role and level of operations, EVPRD and CEFA will build on the outputs of Phase 1 hinged on becoming a grading and baling establishment (GBE) and Class A trader. Essentially, EVPRD-CEFA will have to attain the needed volume and quality of


fiber demanded by the abaca fiber market. The next stage after this for EVPRD-CEFA BDFSE-GBE is to move towards processing (on a pilot basis) high-grade and certified abaca fiber products to produce certified fiber for transformation into various final product lines -- pulp sheets, tea bags, coffee pods, coffee filter, specialty paper, food casing, currency, etc. - anchored on the result of the Abaca Sub-sector Action Research. Aside from these, EVPRD-CEFA have also identified other sources of production such as strengthening their coconut production and processing and expanding their nursery management for abaca and other suitable crops for the SINP.

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES WITH SOCIAL ENTERPRISES:Attaining the goal of Phase 2 brings EVPRD-CEFA enterprise into a position to partner with other social enterprises that have common product linkages and community constituency. For instance, social enterprises such as Tsaa Laya which produces tea through community-based tea leaf growing involving women urban poor re-settlers, is excited to partner with EVPRD-CEFA in making use of abaca tea bags. Collaborating with social enterprises (like Tsaa Laya and several other SEs in the food and beverage business) is strategic for CEFA-EVPRD as they have common sources of enterprise

growth and stakeholdership which are the marginalized poor communities.

WORKSHOP 3: INVESTMENT PLANNING

The total investment needed by CEFA-EVPRD to achieve its 2-pronged goal is P61.6 million or an average cost of P42,959 per household (covering 1,435 abaca farming households and farmworkers). CEFA-EVPRD’s investment plan were based on the basic costs/resources identified to:

n increase abaca farm productivity through effective farm management and expansion of BDFE abaca farmlands in CBFM areas using the CEFA protocol,

n increase income through efficient harvesting and fiber processing aided by investments in appropriate machineries,

n facilities and technologies, management costs, feasibility

studies/business plans for future plan phase, and

n gender mainstreaming.

In 7 December 2018, a consultation was organized to convene key stakeholders and enablers of the abaca industry in Northern Samar to present CEFA & EVPRD’s Strategic Development and Investment Plan for scaling up their BDFE. The gathering led to commitments from government line agencies, local government, academe and the business


Basic Investment Cost (Phase 1) Estimated Cost in PhP

Feasibility Studies for Processing and Diversification 2,000,000

Truck (8) 4,480,000

Stripping machines (regular; 11/cluster X 5 clusters) 3,850,000

Women-friendly stripping machines (11/cluster X 5 clusters 5,500,000

Credit capital for production (PhP22,000/ha.) 16,900,000

Capital for trading (tuxy and fiber) 5,300,000

Training and Capacity Building (PhP2.0 M/year) 10,000,000

Drying Facilities (5 clusters @P500,000/cluster) 2,500,000

Sub Total 50,530,000

Management Costs (17%) 8,590,100

Gender Mainstreaming (5%) 2,526,500

TOTAL INVESTMENT COST 61,646,600

Average Cost Per Household (1,435 HHs) 42,959

sector to support the BDFSE of CEFA & EVPRD. These include:

n1 truck from DAR n1 women-friendly stripping

machine from DOST n2 high speed sewing machines

from DTI n1 baling machine & drying facility

from PhilFida n4 stripping machines from Ching

Bee nInclusion of abaca as priority

crop in the development and investment plan of the provincial and municipal LGUs

nEstablishment of Abaca Tissue Culture Lab and technical support from UEP

WORKSHOP 4: 1-YEAR OPERATIONS PLANNING

Part of the model-building project’s goal is to assist the pilot BDFE through a 3-million peso grant from UNDP-GEF that can be used in initiating the implementation of Phase 1 of their strategic sub-sector development and investment plan.

The table on page 80 shows the investment plan for the utilization of the grant and forms part of the total investment plan and cost of the abaca sub-sector shown earlier.

LESSON LEARNED:The participatory workshops was particularly helpful and facilitated in:

n Determining the consistency of the identified development problems with the findings from the action research, PAR, and expert analysis of the facilitators and key resource persons from the agencies and other stakeholders; and

n Identifying and validating the strengths and opportunities that can serve as countervailing factors in addressing the challenges or problems or serve as sources of solutions to address the same.


Priority Intervention Budget

1.Procurement of stripping machines @ 70,000/unit x 9 units Php 630,000.00

2. Establishment of drying facility (5 x 10 M) ** 500,000.00

3. Procurement of weighing scale (500 kg capacity) 120,000.00

4. Additional capital for:•Fiber trading*•Tuxy-buying

480,000.00 210,000.00

5. Truck (second hand) 560,000.00

6. Management Cost and Capability Building Program 500,000.00

Total Php 3,000,000.00

LESSONS LEARNED:The participatory workshops was particularly helpful and facilitated in:

nDetermining the consistency of the identified development problems with the findings from the action research, PAR, and expert analysis of the facilitators and key resource persons from the agencies and other stakeholders; and

nIdentifying and validating the strengths and opportunities that can serve as countervailing factors in addressing the challenges or problems or serve as sources of solutions to address the same.

“I am grateful and thankful for this workshop for deepening my under-standing on BDFE and social enterprise. From the workshop, I learned about our weaknesses as an organization and that we still have a lot to do to pursue social enterprise.”

- CEFA Chairman

RESULT OF THE INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1-YEAR OPERATIONS PLAN

Upon receiving the 1st tranche of the Php 3 Million UNDP-GEF Grant, EVPRD and PO implementing partner Centralized Farmers Association (CEFA) immediately went into action to realize their plans. Key results have already been achieved in just a short period of time, demonstrating the value of the strategic planning process and the investment fund provided in creating a bigger impact. The following are the key results of the initial implementation of the 1-year Operations Plan.

MAJOR OUTPUTS:n Capacity building activities

carried out during the initial implementation period include: • July 3-4, 2019: Project

Orientation and Inception Planning

• July 17-18, 2019: Business Planning

• August 4-5, 2019: Organizational Management and Leadership Training. This led to the review and refine of CEFA’s organizational structure in the light of scaling up as BDFSE.


• September 12-13, 2019: Financial Management Training

n Consolidation and expansion of membership. CEFA was able to consolidate and expand its membership by identifying 96 committed core members from its NGP program and adding 120 new associate members under the abaca program. They were also able to establish a system of organizing and clustering abaca farmers in each barangay. Each cluster is headed by a cluster leader who is responsible in listing the abaca farmer-members and the volume of abaca fibers that they can supply in a given period. This enables CEFA to determine in advance the volume of abaca fiber it can buy from its members in the coming period and serves as the basis for determining the amount of buying capital to be given to each cluster leader. Through this system, poor abaca farmer-members in far-flung areas are provided with access to market. From four (4) clusters, CEFA now has ten (10) abaca farming clusters.

n New equipment purchased. To increase the production and marketing of abaca, CEFA bought new equipment including a 10-wheeler truck (wing van) and 3 stripping machines. The budget for 9 stripping machines was realigned to procure a bigger truck as CEFA and EVPRD deemed that it was more urgent to transport and deliver stockpiled fiber at CEFA Office to Chingbee. Nonetheless, CEFA committed to procure the remaining stripping machines upon full payment of Chingbee.

n Increase in abaca produced and marketed. From July to October 9, 2019, CEFA recorded a 40% increase in abaca fiber produced and marketed using the equipment procured and the additional P690,000 capital for fiber trading and tuxy buying. During this period, the total volume delivered by CEFA to Chingbee reached 104,242 kgs. or 104.24 tons. The production of good quality fiber (i.e. S1 and S2) was not yet achieved as CEFA is still conducting a test run and pilot-testing of the stripping machine.

n New linkages and opportunities for funding. With EVPRD’s assistance, CEFA was able to link with the Philippine Rural Development Project (PRDP) of the Department of Agriculture (DA). PRDP supports the abaca development program of the Provincial Government of Northern Samar as it has been identified as a priority commodity in the Provincial Commodity Investment Plan. PRDP and the Provincial Government of Northern Samar is working with CEFA in preparing a Abaca Marketing Enterprise proposal.

MAIN ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS:n Delayed payments. Of the total

volume of abaca delivered to Chingbee, only 51% or 53,482 kgs amounting to Php 3,955,727 had been paid. The remaining are still to be paid pending their classification and grading. Chingbee also noted that they are prioritizing abaca fiber delivered from Mindanao as these are already machine-baled.


n Natural calamities. Typhoon Tisoy caused the tumbling of a considerable number of abaca plants, and would need at least 6 to 18 months to recover and be fully productive again. CEFA farm workers have sorted through some of them to salvage the fiber.

n Threat of new abaca species. Non-endemic but pest-resistant abaca varieties are being planted in nearby municipalities but are said of be poor in quality.

n Non-delivery of support commitments. The support committed by the national government agencies during the Stakeholder Workshops are yet to be fulfilled.

TIMELINE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF BDFE MODEL-BUILDING PROJECT

17-18 August 2018Shortlisting and learning event

24 August 2018Final selection of BDFE for scaling up

September - November 2018Sub-sector Action Research

November - December 2018Abaca Sub-sector Strategic Development

and Investment Planning• Strategic Development Planning

Workshop• Operations and Investment Planning

Workshop

7 December 2018Validation Workshops on the Strategic

Development and Investment Plan and Operations Planning with

Stakeholders in Northern Samar

14 December 2018Presentation of Results of Abaca

Sub-sector Strategic Development and Investment Plan to the

National Steering Committee

2019Initial Implementation of the 1-Year

Operations Planning with the 3-Million UNDP-GEF Grant

aa

aa

aa


EPILOGUE

Part 4

The pursuit of BDFEs is a long and arduous process. While enterprises are normally merely driven by profit motive, BDFEs also take equal consideration of equity and

ecology.

The GEF-SGP5 in the Philippines experi-ence shows that many of these so-called BDFEs started out as mere incentives for communities to participate in biodiversity conservation. They were largely viewed as opportunities to generate income through the use of natural resources and/or ecosystem services. In the process, however, these communities have to re-alize that including ecology and equity in the equation is necessary to ensure the flourishing and sustainability of these livelihood projects. In short, considering these three criteria must ultimately make good business sense.

This is easier said that done. Even just a quick look at the BEAT already shows the demanding conditions for an enterprise to be considered a BDFE. The result of the self-assessment using the BEAT is quite telling, with a low of 33 percent, a high of 86 percent, and a mean of only 61.89 per-cent. This means that most of these liveli-hood projects still have a long way to go before they can be considered BDFEs, as it is defined by BMB in Technical Bulletin 2018-11.

To achieve the triple outcomes of eco-nomic, equity, and ecology, extensive cap-ital is necessary. Especially in the context of BDFE, capital has to be understood in a broad sense. In addition to financial and physical capital, social, human, and nat-ural capital build-up is just as indispens-able. The BEAT analysis shows that, gen-erally, except for social capital (because the people are organized), financial, phys-ical, human and natural capital remain a big challenge for community-based organizations. In places where commu-nity-based projects are absent, there is higher probability that social capital is much lower. BDFE remains a dream that must be realized if we were to attain the much-needed resilience and food security in this age of climate change, pandemics and human-induced and natural disasters, which often bring about economic and political instabilities. BDFE is key to the survival of natural resource-dependent poor communities.

This first part of the BEAT leads us to the right track in designing BDFEs or trans-forming community enterprises into BD-


FEs by examining all aspects of an enter-prise’s required capitalization. The second part of BEAT is useful in monitoring and evaluating the results of the BDFE. The BEAT is a rather simple tool that may per-haps be self-administered by a trained community organization.

On the other hand, the BTP-WEE-AVC is a research-intensive tool that will most likely need the intervention of more experienced facilitators and researchers. Using this tool results in an in-depth analysis of every aspect of the organization and its enterprise, including the chances of its product/s in the global market. BDFEs that produce and market products of high commercial value should find this planning tool extremely useful in assessing their readiness to scale up and charting the strategic direction of their enterprise as they enter the highly competitive market.

It is hoped that with the help of either or both tools, community-based BDFEs will flourish and turn the lives of poor nat-ural resource-dependent communities around. While the well-being of poor

communities is an end in itself, it is addi-tionally the aim of GEF-SGP5 that BDFEs deliver the message of the compelling need for biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices to building resilient communities and a resilient country.

Nevertheless, and as already pointed out, we still have a long way to go in building our BDFEs. The items below are among the most important recommendations culled from the experiences of BDFE proj-ects implemented in GEF-SGP5.

Finance the communities. The number of communities that pursued livelihood projects under GEF-SGP5 proved that there is so much knowledge, skills and desire in our local communities to engage in nature-based enterprises. They have initial capital, but they lack fiunancing to start, and eventually scale up, their enter-prises and enhance their human, social, physical and natural capital. It is very sel-dom that we find community organiza-tions that are able, qualified and ready to access bank loans. There is need for gov-ernment, both local and national, financ-ing institutions and civil society to reach

84


out to these communities and turn them and help them optimize the economic po-tential of the resources they depend on.

Ensure tenure. There are already laws ensuring tenure for various sectors. The Revised Fisheries Code, as amended, for instance, guarantees priority use rights of municipal waters to municipal fisherfolk. The National Integrated Protected Areas System Act, as amended, recognizes the right of IPs and tenured migrants to stay in the appropriate zones of protected ar-eas and to live off the natural resources therein. The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act recognizes community ownership by Indigenous Cultural Communities of their ancestral domains as well as clan ownership of ancestral lands. There are also tenurial instruments in forestlands. Despite that, many communities remain insecure in their tenure for various rea-sons. The challenge therefore is to ensure that laws and policies on tenure be im-plemented and enforced for the benefit of these poor communities. Many local communities are oblivious to their rights or do not have the means to grab these opportunities. National Government Agencies tasked to implement these laws and policy issuances must step up, and so-cial development groups must step in.

Invest in R&D. Research and Devel-opment can lead to new ways of doing things and to creating new products. The latter will expand product lines to satisfy the dynamic demands of the market. This will also have the effect tof expanding val-ue chains, which in turn can benefit help build the sustainability of BDFEs and ben-efit more communities and individuals. Finding new ways of doing things, mean-while, increases the competitiveness of BDFE products, such as technologies that increase the efficiency of production or that enhance the quality of products or that are friendlier to women.

Establish consolidation systems. Among the biggest challenges encoun-tered by a number of GEF-SGP5-funded grantees was getting their produce to the market. This concern becomes even more pronounced with the scaling up of these initiatives. For those in far-flung ar-eas, which is normally the case of BDFEs, transporting small quantities of products to the market and to processors adds to expenses, which renders the prices of their products uncompetitive. There is need to establish systems of consolidat-ing products to help ensure that BDFE products are competitive in the market. In addition, consolidation helps expand value chains not only by giving rise to consolidators but more importantly by supporting processors. Community con-solidation was already modeled by at least three projects in GEF-SGP5, i.e., the abaca project of Eastern Visayas Partnership for Rural Development, the seaweed project of Sentro ha Pagpauswag ha Panginabuhi, Inc., and the duck egg project of Norteha-non Access Center. It is hoped that those consolidation systems can be replicated and eventually scaled up to provincial, re-gional and even national levels.

Expand partnerships. Many communi-ty-based organizations have very limited capacities and experience. Most of them need a lot of handholding in solidifying their organizations, building their enter-prises and engaging other stakeholders and the market. They need partners who can lend their technical expertise, create a conducive policy environment, provide much-needed capital and help expand their network.

Enable community organizations. When projects have ended and partners are not available, communities are left to their own devices. It is important that they are adequately traineon the various tech-nologies, both hard and soft, necessary to


sustain their organizations and their enter-prises. Even more important than skills is value formation, which should define the very foundation, the raison d’être, of their organizations and enterprises.

Target sustainability. Business enter-prises should be profitable. It is the desire that BDFEs become finacially successful and mainstreamed in the community’s, even the nation’s, economy. However, profitability can never justify biodiver-

sity loss and social inequity for practical reasons. Biodiversity-based enterprises can only succeed in a thriving natural re-source base. Also, given finite resources with multiple users, these businesses can only continue on when people get their fair share of the benefits and services of the ecosystem. Thus, it is pragmatic that BDFEs, no matter their profitability, nev-er lose track of their triple bottomline of profit, ecology and equity. Both the BEAT and the BTP-WEE-AVC contain indicators of these three result areas.

86


Annex 1

1 This tool is a product of the BPP project

Annex 1

BDFE Form 2:

Criteria for Identifying/Evaluating Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises1 BMB Technical Bulletin No. ____ BDFE FORM 2 Criteria for Identifying/Evaluating Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises (refer to PA Management Plan)

Name of Enterprise: ______________________ Address: _______________________________ Site: __________________________________ Assessment/Score: _______________________

Prepared by: __________________ Date prepared: ________________ Contact number: ______________

CRITERIA NON-NEGOTIABLE INDICATORS YES NO REMARKS

Ecological 1. SPATIAL • Enterprise should be within the Multiple-use

Zone/Buffer Zone

2. SPECIES • Resouces should be indigenous but not

threatened, not indicator species

(enumerate species)

CRITERIA INDICATOR RATING (%) REMARKS (Kindly explain/ elaborate the reason/s why low rating was given to a certain indicator)

100 75 50 25 0

ECOLOGICAL 3. IMPACT TO BIODIVERSITY

a. Complement the

conservation of biodiversity-rich areas and its threatened, indigenous, and indicator fauna and flora species, if any

b. Promote the rehabilitation of degraded/fragmented habitats of threatened, indigenous, and indicator fauna and flora • Types of

rehabilitation activities for the type of ecosystem: o Terrestrial

o Coastal and

marine (mangroves, seagrass,

1ThistoolisaproductoftheBPPproject

2017-11

Criteria for Identifying/ Evaluating Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprise


mudflats, corals)

c. Involvement in the

prevention or mitigation against biodiversity damages/impact from natural and anthropogenic causes

d. Discourage alteration of

the natural landscapes

e. Awareness on the concept of wildlife coridors

Sub-total (Average)

Add all the scores and get the average (example: 100+75+75+ 50+100 = 400/5 = 80%

INPUT INDICATOR (raw material sourcing, extraction process, and assembly of product)

1. Awareness of raw materials’ natural regeneration (e.g. maturity of timber and non-timber products, breeding season of fishes)

2. Aware of and practices sustainable extraction and utilization of resources/raw materials

3. Method of extraction will not have an impact on the genetic make-up/ composition and population of flora and fauna species (e.g. cross-breeding)

4. Secondary raw materials used do not cause any harmful effects on biological resources (human, flora, fauna, and the environment) and will not degrade the quality of raw materials

5. Mechanism for sustainability of raw material is in place (e.g. nursery establishment)

6. Promote the sustainable use of indigenous and traditional flora and fauna species

7. Promote efficient use of renewable energy and materials

Sub-total (Average)

Add all the scores and get the average (example:100+75+75+ 50+100+100+75 = 575/7 = 82.14%

PROCESS INDICATOR

88

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

The production process: 1. Does not cause any harm to

the population and habitats of threatened, indigenous, indicator flora and fauna species.

2. Promotes conservation of Philippine biodiversity.

3. Considers women’s and men’s health and safety in environmental aspects.

4. Does not use strong and harmful chemicals.

5. Considers technological innovations and best practices that are gender responsive, culturally sensitive, and environmentally sound.

6. Considers the indigenous knowledge systems and practices relevant to biodiversity.

7. Undergoes government regulatory systems and procedures, when appropriate.

Sub-total (Average)

Add all the scores and get the average (example:100+75+75+ 50+100+100+75 = 575/7 = 82.14%

OUTPUT INDICATOR

1. Finished product may likewise serve as raw material for another BD-friendly product

2. By-prooducts may be recyclable; otherwise, the enterprise should have a system for proper disposal of wastes

Sub-total (Average)

Add all the scores and get the average (example:100+75 = 175/2 = 87.5%

TOTAL FOR ECOLOGICAL (40%)

* Add the sub-total scores from General, Input, Process, and Output Indicators; get the average and multiply by 0.40 (example: 80+80+57+83 = 300/4 = 75 x 0.40 = 30 will be the score for ecological critera)

EMPLOYMENT INDICATOR ECONOMIC 1. Fifteen percent of households

within the immediate vicinity of the enterprise are employed and engaged.

2. The enterprise offers equal opportunities for women, men, indigenous peoples, and other marginalized sectors.

Note: Identify whether tenured or non-tenured Universe: Total

89


Of the total employed: ≥ 50% are women ≥ 50% are men ≥ 50% are IPs

employment per household

3. Provides favorable working conditions to workers that can address their concerns on health, safety, and welfare.

Minimum requirement for favorable working conditions: reasonable wage/pay, specific time of work and breaks, use of protective materials (gloves, facial masks, hard hat, if applicable)

Sub-total (Average) * Add all the scores and get the average

INCOME INDICATOR 1. Provides additional/

alternative source of livelihood and income for the community’s households

≥10% increase in household income

2. Provides additional source of income own-source revenue for host LGU

≥ 10% increase in LGU revenue

Specify timeframe of HH income (e.g. 5 years) Get SE profile of members for baselining and evaluation

3. Provides additional source of income to Protected Area (if applicable)

Sub-total (Average) *Add all the scores and get the average

TOTAL FOR ECONOMIC (30%)

Add the sub-total scores from Employment and Income Indicators, get the average and multiply by 0.30

EQUITY 1. Increased the participation of women and IPs – from planning to implementation

Increased participation: ≥ 50% are women ≥ 50% are men ≥ 50% are IPs

2. Developed or enhanced knowledge and skills of both women and men as well as IPs (if applicable)

≥ 10% of women, men, and IPs acquired additional knowledge and skills in relation toi BDFEs

3. Enhanced the capability of the LGUs and local communities in managing and conserving biodiversity resources

≥ 10% of LGU personnel have capability or enhanced capability in

90

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

managing and conserving biodiversity resources ≥ 10% of local community members have capability or enhanced capability in managing and conserving biodiversity resources

4. Respects the rights and promote welfare of the IPLC

5. Ensures that benefits accrue back to the IPLC protecting the raw materials

Sub-total (Average) *Add all the scores and get the average

TOTAL FOR EQUITY (30%)

Add the sub-total scores from Benefits to people, community and locality indicators, get the average and multiply by 0.30

Biodiversity-friendly enterprise index

ECOLOGICAL 40% ≥ 80% to 100%: fully compliant ECONOMIC 30% ≥ 60% to 79%: partially compliant EQUITY 30% ≥ 10% to 59%: not compliant Total 100%

Mitigating measures Suggest possible mitigating measures in case the enterprise has low scores in certain criterion:

Ecological

Example: Conduct of Ecological Study

Economic

Example: Conduct of Feasibility Study or Organizational Strengthening

Equity

Example: Create equal opportunities for both women and men by ensuring that the enterprise/livelihood program facilitates growth and development of the individual without sacrificing or interfering with their other roles

91


Annex 2

92

Scorecard for Evaluating BDFSE Practice and Adherence to the BTP-WEE IN AVCS

ELEMENTS AND SUB-ELEMENTS SCORING DESCRIPTION

To what extent does your enterprise/group of affiliated organizations undertake the following interventions:

1. Promote appropriate technology and community- and biodiversity-based/oriented innovations that are friendly to women and men small producers?

Five (5) sub- elements for a total of 12 points

1.1. The enterprise/group of affiliated organizations has a policy and fully-operational practice of directly engaging small producer households or their community-based associations or cooperatives as partner-suppliers or partner-producers

0-2 points

1.2. The enterprise/group of affiliated organizations invests in developing and providing small producers access to an appropriate technological package, including those that are biodiversity-friendly, complete with sustained technical support services and coaching/mentoring to ensure the volume, quality and on-time delivery of their committed produce

0-4 points

1.3. The enterprise/group of affiliated organizations invests in community-based innovations, strategies or approaches that uphold and preserve biodiversity principles and deliver an improvement or substantive improvements in accessing markets, increasing the welfare, productivity and position of small producers in the value chain beyond production technologies (e.g. locating plant in community of small producers; establishing a community-based Central Processing Unit for ease of marketing and traceability)

0-4 points

1.4. The enterprise/group of affiliated organizations chooses technologies/community- based/biodiversity-sensitive innovations that consider the needs and ensure positive impact on women small producers

0-1 point

1.5. The enterprise/group of affiliated organizations target women small producers as co- equal stakeholders in the development of appropriate technology, community-based and biodiversity-compatible innovations

0-1 point

2. Progressively position women and men small producers to reap a more substantive share of value created over time?

Five (5) sub- elements for a total of 12 points

2.1. The enterprise/group of allied organizations has established a policy and practice of ensuring fair/equitable conditions in the contracts/terms & agreements that protect the interests of small-scale producers as supplier-partners (e.g. using Fair Trade principles including addressing issues of unpaid family and child labor, pre-financing, transparent and fair pricing and provision of Fair Trade and biodiversity/sustainable harvest premiums; a commitment to buy all the produce at a higher than market price and assuring small producers of a minimum purchase price when the market price dips; providing an incentive package in terms of farm inputs; allowing small producers to sell products to other buyers that could give them a better price)

0-2 points

2.2. The enterprise/group of allied organizations assists small-scale producers to cut layers of traders that depress farm-gate/fish landing prices by enabling them to consolidate and sell their produce as a group and increase their bargaining power.

0-3 points



2.3. The enterprise/group of allied organizations supports or builds the capacities of small producers to perform value-adding functions such as semi-processing, processing, marketing and retailing and that in each step of value-adding biodiversity principles are considered in the scale-up and change process

0-3 points

2.4. The enterprise/group of allied organizations have provisions for the small producers to enjoy profit/benefit sharing and other capital build-up schemes towards co-ownership of the core enterprise or ownership of related or allied enterprises over time

0-3 points


2.5. The enterprise/group of allied organizations recognize and ensure that women become participants or co-equal stakeholders in value chain development and in owning/co- owning shares in the core or allied enterprises in the value chain

0-2 points

3. Proactively build the resilience of women and men small-scale producers to natural, social and economic disasters?

Four (4) sub- elements for a

total of 12 points

3.1. The enterprise/group of allied organizations assists small-scale producers in risk assessment and mitigation, biodiversity assessment and vulnerability, resiliency planning and implementation, including measures for diversification of crops/produce and/or income sources, as appropriate

0-4 points

3.2. The enterprise/group of allied enterprises makes provisions or have a program in place to enable small-scale producers to better cope with emergencies, natural, social, economic and environmental disasters through benefit schemes and access to life and non-life insurance

0-3 points

3.3. The enterprise/group of allied organizations invests in the development of capacities of small-scale producers on climate change and disaster risk reduction (CCDRR), mitigation and adaptation (including impact of disasters to biodiversity) and to have Enterprise/ Business Continuity Plans

0-3 points

3.4. The enterprise/group of allied organizations recognizes and ensures that women are active participants or are co-equal stakeholders in efforts to manage risk and build resilience including efforts to diversify crops/produce and income sources where appropriate, to put in place benefit and insurance schemes and to undertake capacity building and planning for climate change and disaster risk reduction, mitigation and adaptation

0-2 points

4. Pave the way for the empowerment of women and men small producers to become actors in their own development and that of their community and sector?

Four (4) sub- elements for a total

of 14 points

4.1. The enterprise/group of allied organizations invests and/or ensures partnerships to enable small producers to have self-governing institutions such as cooperatives, associations or other relevant forms of organization to articulate and represent their collective spirit and interests; to make decisions and undertake independent initiatives to better their lives, livelihoods, key biodiversity areas and communities and to link with relevant networks to address sectoral or community concerns

0-5 points

4.2. The enterprise/group of allied organizations invests and/or ensures partnerships to enable small producers to have ownership or control/stewardship and other forms of land rights over natural and productive resources (e.g. land and water resources, municipal fishing waters, ancestral domain, forest resources, means of production, capital)

0-5 points

4.3. The enterprise/group of allied organizations recognizes women small producers as co- equal stakeholders, and as such invests in recognizing women as legal/contractual representatives of households

0-1 point

4.4. The enterprise/group of allied organizations recognizes women small producers as co- equal stakeholders and invests in organizing and building their capacity as leaders and members of interest groups/production groups and women-only or mixed organizations that invest in addressing barriers to women’s participation

0-3 points

5. Practice sustainable consumption and production and pave the way for women and men small producers to become stewards of the natural resource base sustaining their livelihoods and enterprise?

Six (6) sub- elements for a

total of 14 points

5.1. The enterprise/group of allied organizations invests in building the awareness and capacities of the small-scale producers to conserve, protect and rehabilitate land, water, fishery and/or forest resources, and overall biodiversity of species, habitat, and genetics sustaining their livelihoods and the enterprise

5.2. The enterprise/group of affiliated organizations capacitates/provides support to small- scale producers to effectively utilize and benefit from sustainable production methods and technologies such as natural, low external input, organic and/or sustainable/ecological/biodiversity-friendly agriculture; organic or sustainable fishery linked to community-based/biodiversity-friendly coastal resource management; sustainable forestry; introduction and utilization of renewable energy technologies in production, processing or semi-processing; transformation of waste materials into useful products promoting sustainable consumption (e.g. community-based manufacturing of organic/bio-fertilizers and pesticides; manufacturing of geotextile nets for erosion control)

0-2 points


5.3. The enterprise/group of affiliated organizations is part of a broader system that promotes sustainable consumption and production with the active participation of its small producer partners and has met established standards (e.g. Good Agricultural Practices or GAP7, certification for organic, natural, Fair Trade, Blue Brand, sustainably harvested/biodiversity-friendly product or other established protocols either through second party monitoring, third party certification or PGS)

0-3 points

5.4. The enterprise/group of allied organizations invests in developing a relevant enterprise/value chain-wide environmental management system (EMS) that identifies environmental /biodiversity issues and impacts and a systematic program to address these issues and impacts

0-3 points

5.5. The enterprise/group of allied enterprises allocates a certain percentage of profits or surplus in an environmental fund or undertakes partnerships with relevant organizations to protect, conserve and regenerate the natural resource base and ecosystem that supports their livelihoods, BDFEs and communities (e.g. community-based coastal resource management, sustainable fishery and forestry, sustainable agriculture and regeneration of land and water resources, biodiversity conservation, solid waste management)

0-2 points

5.6. The enterprise/group of allied enterprises recognizes and ensures that women small producers are pro-active participants or are co-equal stakeholders in environmental and biodiversity education, the development of relevant environmental management initiatives at the enterprise, value chain and in broader sustainable consumption and production systems as well as in initiatives to protect, conserve and regenerate natural resources and ecosystems that support their livelihoods and communities

0-2 points

6. Provide a combination of transactional and transformational services among women and men small scale producers to more effectively participate in value chain and community/sectoral development that is both equitable and sustainable?

Six (6) sub- elements for

a total of 10 points

6.1. The enterprise/group of allied organizations undertakes an adequate, sustained and systematic program to ensure that the small producers have access to adequate inputs through production loans and/or incentives and are capacitated to effectively and efficiently produce the growing requirements of the market in terms of volume, quality and timeliness

0-2 points

6.2. The enterprise/group of allied organizations undertake sustained efforts or a systematic program to develop the leadership of small producers’ cooperatives/ associations and their capability to undertake enterprise management functions such as operations and marketing management, stakeholder management, human resource and organizational development and financial management.

0-2 points

6.3. The enterprise/group of allied organizations invests in building the capability of the primary producer organizations to undertake community resource and biodiversity mapping and inventory, visioning, planning and implementation towards becoming a force in community development

0-2 points

6.4. The enterprise/group of allied organizations invests in building the capacity of the small producers’ cooperatives, associations or groups to set up their own enterprise projects that may or may not be directly linked to the value chain of the core

0-2 points

6.5. The enterprise/group of allied organizations invests in building the capacity of the small producers’ cooperatives, associations or groups to federate their primary organizations to become co-owners or co-equal partners of the core-enterprise in value chain and local economic development

0-1 point

6.6. The enterprise/group of allied organizations recognizes and invests in women small producers as co-equal leaders and members of cooperatives, associations and their federations towards their active participation and stakeholdership in enterprise, value chain and local economy building as well as in community and sectoral development

0-1 point

7. Proactively choose value chains and engage in transparent and accountable value chain development practices that enhance women’s participation and empowerment?

Eight (8) sub- elements for a total of

14 points

7.1. The enterprise/group of allied organizations recognizes women as stakeholders in agriculture, biodiversity and environmental management and local economic development and the enterprise/value chain development intervention chosen are where women are or could potentially play a significant role and could potentially partake of significant benefits

0-1 point

94




7.2. The enterprise/group of allied organizations invests or undertakes action research to understand the differentiated situation, needs and roles played and benefits derived by women and the barriers to their participation in value chain development

0-1 point

7.3. The enterprise/group of allied organizations invests in engaging women as co-equal representatives of households 0-1 point

7.4. The enterprise/group of allied organizations pro-actively encourages women to be organized into women only groups/organizations or mixed organizations that recognize the important role and contribution of women

0-1 point

7.5. The enterprise/group of allied organizations invests in gender sensitivity trainings and a sustained education program on gender and women’s economic empowerment involving both women and men, and assessment-planning workshops that address the need to integrate such as a cross-cutting concern

0-3 points

7.6. The enterprise/group of allied organizations supports/has put in place efforts to develop organizational policies that address discrimination against women (e.g. equal pay for equal work; maternity and paternity leaves); ensure equal opportunities (e.g. to become members of organizations, participation in learning events) and address barriers within the control of their organization to effectively ensure women’s participation (e.g. provision of day care centers to encourage participation of mothers; affirmative action of assigning leadership positions to women; creation of a women’s committee to sustain and systematically pursue the integration of women’s economic empowerment in policies and programs)

0-3 points

7.7. The enterprise/group of allied organizations invests in efforts to address broader systemic barriers to women’s participation and women’s economic empowerment including but not limited to laws and legal instruments as well as religious/cultural norms in the household, community and society (e.g. participation in efforts to repeal/revise laws prohibiting women to own land or represent their household in organizations; initiatives to promote community and co-equal responsibility of women and men in unpaid care work for the family, children, the sick, persons with disability and the elderly; efforts to develop/promote role models of empowered women leaders and members of producers’ associations that have broken free from gender stereo-types)

0-2 points

7.8. The enterprise/group of allied organizations has established a system for planning, monitoring, evaluating, reporting and exacting accountability about the progress of their initiatives on gender and women’s economic empowerment

0-2 points

8. Produce measurable outcomes of transformation at the level of women and small producers; youth, children and households; communities, value chains and subsectors?

Four (4) sub- elements for a total of 12 points

8.1. The enterprise/group of allied organizations has clearly stated social, environmental goals or transformational outcomes. The enterprise/group of allied organizations has indicators to measure performance against those goals

0-2 points

8.2. The governing body and management team (leadership bodies) of the enterprise/group of allied organizations review these social/environmental/transformational outcomes vis a vis performance and human/financial resource allocation and undertake action to respond to gaps and improve performance

0-2 points

8.3. The enterprise/group of allied organizations have established a set of indicators/tools for measuring their social/environmental goals/transformational outcomes 0-4 points

8.4. The enterprise/group of allied organizations has an M&E/MIS system for achieving social and environmental goals, with capable staff who provide timely data for planning and decision making. Gender-disaggregated data collection processes and gender responsive tools are integrated in the M&E/MIS system

0-4 points

TOTAL 100 points


Annex 3

Criteria for Selecting Scalable BDFE

Main criteria Sub-criteria1. Market potential for scaling

upA. Product or service marketing plan

• Product description and plan including its biodiversity proposition

• Product has been produced according to BTP-WEE Principles

• Product is being marketed to target customers• Product sales and performance is monitored• Feedback is used for product improvement and pricing

B. Buyership (Client/Customers) development• Buyers identified• Buyers are existing and monitored• Buyers are retained and/or repeat orders recorded• New buyers and market segments are identified

2. Significance in terms of number/critical mass of poor/ marginalized households to be potentially engaged

A. Rapid assessment & mapping of current BDFE stakeholdership• Total stakeholders and influence areas identified• Stakeholders are classified: a) poor and non-poor: social-

economic profile; b) gender disaggregation

B. Information and assessment of scale up potentials of product/service• Identification of more adopters from within existing CDFE

area/s• Expansion areas and communities identified: a) poor

and non-poor: social-economic profile; b) gender disaggregation

3. Start-up capacity of leadership and team

A. Organization has existing board and managerB. Finance unit organizedC. BDFE management team has received training on enterprise

& BDFE

4. Presence of support institutions and enabling organizations

A. BDFE organization has tie-up with an NGO or development institution or other enabling institution (private or government)

B. BDFE organization has MOA or written project partnership with a development NGO or enabling institution (private or government)

5. Strategic value of the site for model building

A. BDFE site ranks high in biodiversity conservation as per national policy, government (i.e. DENR, national agencies, LGU, PAMB) and environmental NGOs

B. BDFE has high potential for demonstrating sustainable value chain

C. BDFE site has high potential for replicability in other areas

6. Resource base security of tenure (public land, stewardship, etc)

A. Area where the product or service is produced or obtained has security of tenure or rights to use (tenurial) arrangements that will allow the BDFE & the households influenced continued use and enable enterprise scale-up

B. Area or resource base has room for expansion of production area without generating environmental and/or tenurial or usufruct issues

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

References

Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB). (2017). BMB Technical Bulletin No. 2017-11: Guidelines in the Identification and Recognition of Biodiversity Friendly Enterprise (BDFE).

Quezon City.

BMB. (2017). BMB Technical Bulletin No. 2018-03: Guidelines on the Granting and Utilization of Financial Assistance for Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprise (BDFE) Under the Coastal and Marine Ecosystems Management Management Program (CMEMP). Quezon City.

BMB. (2018). Business Plans for Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises Supported by UNDP GEF-SGP5: Palawan Hub. Quezon City.

BMB. (2018). Business Plans for Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises Supported by UNDP GEF-SGP5: Samar Hub. Quezon City.

BMB. (2018). Business Plans for Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises Supported by UNDP GEF-SGP5: Sierra Madre Hub. Quezon City.

Dacanay, M. L. M. (2012). Social enterprises and the poor: enhancing social entrepreneurship and stakeholder theory. Retrieved from http://openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/8513/Marie_Lisa_Dacanay.pdf ?sequence=1

Dacanay, M. L. (2017). Social Enterprise in the Philippines: Social Enterprises with the Poor as Primary Stakeholders (ICSEM Working Paper No. 49). Retrieved from

https://www.iap-socent.be/sites/default/files/The%20Philippines%20-%20Dacanay.pdf

Defourny, J. Nyssens, M. & Brolis, O. (2019). Asian Social Enterprise Models in a Worldwide Perspective. In Bidet, E. & Defourny, J. (Ed), Social Enterprise in Asia Theory, Models and Practice. New York & Oxford: Routlege

Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2012). The EMES Approach of social enterprise in a comparative perspective. EMES Working Papers Series 12/03. Retrieved from http://www.emes.net/site/wp-content/uploads/EMES-WP-12-03_Defourny-Nyssens.pdf

Defourny, J. & Nyssens, M. (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of social enterprise models. Voluntas, 24(3), pp. 2469-97.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). (2018). DENR Administrative Order No. 2018-22: Guidelines on the Granting and Utilization of Financial Assistance for Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprise (BDFE) Under the Coastal and Marine Ecosystems Management Program (CMEMP). Quezon City.

GEF Small Grants Programme in the Philippines. (2017). Handbook sa Makakalikasang Negosyo. Quezon City.

97


Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia. (2015). Poverty Reduction and Women Economic Leadership: Roles, Potentials and Challenges of Social Enterprises in Developing Countries in Asia. Integrative Report of ISEA-Oxfam Research on Poverty Reduction and Women Economic Leadership. Accessible through http://isea-group.net/learning-hub-ISEA-OXFAM-Poverty-Reduction-and-WEL-Report.shtml

National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). (2017). Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022. Retrieved from http://pdp.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PDP-2017-2022-07-20-2017.pdf

Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia (ISEA). (2018). Model Building for Scaling-Up Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises (MBS-BDFEI): Abaca Subsector Action Research Report. Quezon City: ISEA.

ISEA. (2018). A Scorecard for Evaluating Biodiversity-Friendly Social Enterprise Practice and Adherence to the Benchmarks for Transformational Partnerships and Women’s Economic Empowerment in Agricultural Value Chains (BTP-WEE AVCs). Quezon City.

ISEA. (2018). A Handbook on Scaling-Up Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprise (BDFE) Initiatives. Quezon City.

ISEA. (2018). Strategic Development and Investment Plan for Scaling Up Abaca Biodiversity-Friendly Social Enterprise of EVPRD-CEFA. Quezon City.

Perrini, F. (2006). Social entrepreneurship domain: Setting boundaries. In F. Perrini (Ed), The new entrepreneurship: what awaits social entrepreneurial ventures? UK: Edgar Elgar Publishing Limited.

Rosales, M.R. (2018). Final Report on Biodiversity-Friendly Enterprises Assessment Tool. Quezon City: GEF-SGP5.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (n.d.). Country Profiles: Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=ph

98

GEF-SGP5 and UNDP

SCALING UP BIODIVERSITY- FRIENDLY ENTERPRISES

Documents

Transcript of SCALING UP BIODIVERSITY- FRIENDLY ENTERPRISES