Table of Contents - Roslyn Arayata's Site

PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project 1

Table of Contents

Foreword iAcknowledgement iiiAcronyms and Abbreviations viiAbout PNCC xiExecutive Summary xiii

Chapter 1 . Introduction 1

1.1 Climate Change: The Greatest Threat to Humankind 11.2 Need for a Paradigm Shift 31.3 Framework and Objectives of the Research 5

1.3.1 Conceptual Framework of the Research 61.3.2 Objectives of the Research 7

1.4 Approaches and Methodology of the Research 71.4.1 Approaches of the Research 71.4.2 Methodology of the Research 7

Chapter 2. Climate Change: Global and National Trends and Potential Impacts 13

2.1 Global Climate Trends and Impacts on Developing Countries 132.2 The Philippine Contribution to Climate Change 182.3 A Glance at the Philippine Environment 192.4 Climate Trends in the Philippines 23

2 PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project

2.4.1 Climate Anomalies and Extreme Events 262.4.2 Philippine climate- and weather-related risk maps 29

2.5 Potential Climate Change Impacts on the Philippines 332.5.1 Impacts on Agriculture, Fishery and Marine Resources, and Forestry 33

2.5.1.1 Agriculture 342.5.1.2 Fishery and marine resources 362.5.1.3 Forestry 37

2.5.2 Impacts on water resource 382.5.3 Impacts on health 392.5.4 Impacts on Key Millennium Development Goals 42

Chapter 3. Existing Policy Responses to Climate Change 49

3.1 The UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol 503.2 Existing Legal, Policy and Institutional Frameworks for

Climate Change in the Philippines 553.2.1 National Development Frameworks:

Avenues to Incorporate Climate Change 573.2.2 ‘Action-oriented’ Policies that Address Climate Change 57

3.2.2.1 National Action Plan on Climate Change 573.2.2.2 The Philippine Environment Code 583.2.2.3 The Environmental Impact Statement System of the Philippines 583.2.2.4 The Philippine Clean Air Act 593.2.2.5 The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act 603.2.2.6 The Biofuels Act of 2006 613.2.2.7 Philippine Disaster Control Capability (PD) 1566 633.2.2.8 Assessment of GEF–funded climate change and biodiversity 64

programs in the Philippines3.2.3 ‘Institution-Oriented’ Policies that Address Climate Change 64

3.2.3.1 The Inter-Agency Committee on Climate Change 643.2.3.2 DENR as the Designated National Authority (DNA) 65

for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)3.2.3.3 The Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC) 713.2.3.4 The Advisory Council on Climate Change Mitigation, 72

Adaptation and Communication3.2.3 Financing of Climate Change Initiatives at the

Global and National Levels 753.2.3.1 Financing Climate Change at the Global Level 753.2.3.2 Financing Climate Change at the National Level 77

Chapter 4. Climate Change-Related Initiatives of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) 87in the Philippines

4.1 Profile of Participants 884.2 Brief Description of Key Research Parameters/Survey Questions 91

on CSOs’ Climate Change-Related Initiatives4.3 Analysis of Climate Change Initiatives of CSOs 93


Chapter 5. Assessment of Capacities and Priority Needs of CSOs, Opportunities and 127Barriers to Mainstreaming Climate Change into the Development Process

5.1 Key research parameters on the assessment of capacities and 127priority needs of CSOs, opportunities and barriers

5.2 Assessment of Opportunities for Mainstreaming 143Climate Change into the Development Process

5.3 Assessment of Key Barriers to Mainstreaming 151Climate Change into the Development Process

Chapter 6. Action Agenda for CSOs Capacity Development in the Philippines 165

Chapter 7. Moving Forward: Towards Social Equity, Climate Justice and 169Sustainable Development

Annex A. List of Survey Participants 177Annex B. Directory of Participants of Regional Conference-Workshops 181Annex C. Participants of Post-Bali Conference 191Annex C. The Medium Term Development Plan (MTPDP) Ten-Point Agenda 197Annex D. MTPDP Strategies Encouraging Civil Society Organizations’ Participation 199Annex E. Other selected sectoral policies that relate to climate change 203Annex F. List of References 211


List of Figures, Tables and Boes

Figure 1.1 a. Sustainable development through climate change lens 4b. Climate change through sustainable development lens 4

Figure 1.2 Integrated framework for addressing climate change 4Figure 1.3 Conceptual framework of the research mapping project 6Figure 2.1 The greenhouse effect 12Figure 2.2 Global anthropogenic greenhouse gases - IPCC AR4, 2007 13Figure 2.3 Philippines’ 1994 GHG emissions from the four non-LUCF sectors 17Figure 2.4 Philippine installed generating capacity in megawatts (2006) 17Figure 2.5 Climate types 21Figure 2.6 Combined risk to geophysical disasters 24Figure 2.7 Risk to projected temperature increase 29Figure 2.8 Risk to El Niño 30Figure 2.9 Risk to typhoons 31Figure 2.10 Risk to projected rainfall change 31Figure 2.11 Combined risk to climate disaster 32Figure 2.12 2007 Philippine GNP by industrial origin (in million pesos) 33Figure 2.13 Philippine environmental health risk map 41Figure 2.14 Links between the millenium developent goals and climate change 42Figure 3.1 Organizational Structure of the DENR as the Designated National Authority 66Figure 3.2 CDM approval process basic steps 67Figure 3.3 Comparison of IACCC and PTFCC’s organizational structures 72Figure 4.1 Regional distribution of participants 89Figure 4.2 Distribution/number of CSOs engaged in each thematic area or sector 93Figure 4.3 Initiatives of CSOs on sustainable agriculture 95Figure 4.4 Initiatives of CSOs on forest resource and biodiversity conservation 97Figure 4.5 Initiatives of CSOs on coastal resource management 99Figure 4.6 Iinitiatives of CSOs on ecological waste management 101Figure 4.7 Initiatives of CSOs on sustainable energy development 103Figure 4.8 Initiatives of CSOs on sustainable energy development (sub-sector: industry) 105Figure 4.9 Initiatives of CSOs on sustainable energy development (sub-sector: buildings) 105Figure 4.10 Initiatives of CSOs on sustainable transportation 106Figure 4.11 Initiatives of CSOs on other crosscutting measures 108Figure 4.12 Sectoral distribution of identified climate change-related initiatives 110Figure 4.13 Climate change initiatives of CSOs by sector, by region 110Figure 4.14 Geographic coverage of CSOs’ work 111Figure 4.15 Regional idetified partner group in the overall climate change initiatives 113Figure 4.16 Number and distribution of CSOs’ partner groups, by region 114Figure 4.17 CSOs’ identified partner groups by sector/thematic area 114Figure 4.18 Major partner groups of CSOs, by region 115Figure 4.19 Stage of the project the partner sectors are involved in 116Figure 4.20 Identified areas of work of CSOs, by sector/theme 118Figure 4.21 Distribution and number of CSOs according to functional areas of work 119Figure 4.22 Functional areas of work of CSOs, by region 120Figure 4.23 Perceived level of priority of CSOs in the areas of work 121Figure 4.24 Regional mean of CSOs’ self-assessment on results/effects/outcomes 123


Figure 4.25 Regional mean on ability of CSOs’ existing mechanisms to ensurelong-term sustainability of climate change initiatives 124

Figure 4.26 Regional mean on CSOs’ self-assessment on ability to ensure equitablesharing of benefits 125

Figure 5.1 Adequate number of trained staff facilitating CC-related initiatives 128Figure 5.2 Self-assessment of knowledge of CSOs on identified areas/topics 129Figure 5.3 Regional mean of self-assessment of CSO staff ’s skills 132Figure 5.4 CSO’s organizational plan on climate change-related initiatives, by region 135Figure 5.5 Funding allocated for CC-initiatives 136Figure 5.6 Percentage of organization’s overall funding for CC-related initiatives 136Figure 5.7 Regional mean on areas of work requiring more funding to further

climate change-related efforts 137Figure 5.8 Duration of climate change-related initiatives 138Figure 5.9 Sources of funding 138Figure 5.10 Regional mean on funding sources for climate change initiatives 138Figure 5.11 Type of funding 139Figure 5.12 Regional mean on annual financing plan for climate change initiatives 139Figure 5.13 Regional mean on resource allocation for CC-related initiatives 140Figure 5.14 Regional mean on identified barriers to CC-related initiatives 142

Table 2.1 Amount of pledges to the international adaptation funds, as of April 2007 18Table 2.2 Summary of protected areas in the Philippines (in hectares) 22Table 2.3 Manifestations of El Niño and La Niña episodes in the Philippines 25Table 2.4 ENSO episodes in the Philippines 1950-2000 25Table 2.5 Regional areas at risk to landslide 27Table 2.6 Most destructive tropical cyclones in the Philippines from 1948 to 2000 28Table 2.7 Regional vulnerability to one-meter sea-level rise 28Table 3.1 Bali action plan on the four CC building blocks 53Table 3.2 Context of the Philippine CDM policy 67Table 3.3 Status of CDM project activities in the Philippines as of February 15, 2008 68Table 3.4 Key issues on CDM implementation 70Table 3.5 2008 Summary of New Appropriation (Republic Act No. 9498) 78Table 3.6 Trends in Philippine public expenditure, 2006-2008 (In thousand pesos) 81Table 4.1 Seven phases in the evolution of Philippine NGOs 88Table 4.2. Breakdown of study samples 89Table 4.3 Designation of respondents in their organizations 90Table 4.4 Accounting gender sensitivity 111Table 4.5 Sector that initiates CC-related projects/activities 113Table 4.6 Stage of the project the partner sectors are involved in, by region 117Table 4.7 CSOs’ priority areas of work 120Table 4.8 Self-assessment of organization’s performance 122Table 4.9 Self-assessment of project results/effects/outcomes 122Table 4.10 Self-assessment on ability of existing mechanisms to ensure

long-term sustainability of CC initiatives 121Table 5.1 Regional self-assessment of CSOs’ staff ’s knowledge on identified areas 131Table 5.2 Self-assessment of staff ’s skills 131Table 5.3 Self-assessment on additional skills/trainings needed by CSO staff 132Table 5.4 CSOs’ registration according to government regulations 133

Box 2.1 Man-made sources of greenhouse gas 14Box 2.2 By-products of increasing temperature 15Box 2.3 Proposed criteria for the post-2012 framework on adaptation 18Box 2.4 The Philippine climate 24Box 2.5 Top 20 provinces at risk to projected temperature increase by 2080 29Box 2.6 Top 20 provinces at risk to drought 30Box 2.7 Top 20 provinces at risk to typhoons 31Box 2.8 Top 20 provinces at risk to projected rainfall change 31Box 2.9 Top 20 provinces vulnerable to combined risk to climate disasters 32Box 3.1 Types of Philippine legislation 56Box 3.2 Guiding principles of DENR as the DNA 66Box 3.3 National approval criteria for a CDM project 68Box 3.4 CDM project expenses 69Box 4.1 Meaning of some statistical terms used in the study interpretation 92Box 4.2 CSOs’ top 10 climate change initiatives 94Box 4.3 Promoting sustainable agriculture: SRI-Pilipinas project 96Box 4.4 Paralegal training video modules on forest protection 98Box 4.5 GOLDEN (Governance and Local Development)

landscapes and seascapes 100Box 4.6 War against waste: the Mother Earth Foundation way 102Box 4.7 Improving livelihood and the quality of life in Mindanao

through community-based renewable energy systems 104Box 4.8 Air Care – improving the quality of air we breathe 107Box 4.9 Supporting communities’ resistance against

extractive industries and exploring the link on climate change 109Box 4.10 Women’s role in development in the Philippines 112

Table 5.5 Organizational structure with clearly defined lines ofauthority and responsibility 133

Table 5.6 CSOs’ organizational regular meetings 133Table 5.7 CSOs with structures in place to reach out partner

organizations/networks/coalitions 134Table 5.8 CSO’s system for information management 134Table 5.9 CSOs’ plans on climate change-related initiatives/activities 135Table 5.10 CSO’s adoption of monitoring and evaluation indicators 135Table 5.11 Information exchange/sharing among CSOs 135Table 5.12 Affiliation of CSOs with CC networks/coalitions 136Table 5.14 Areas of work requiring more funding to further CC-related efforts 137Table 5.13 Sufficiency of funds for CC-initiatives 137Table 5.15 Average/mean of CSO’s funding sources for CC initiatives 138Table 5.16 Annual financing plan for CC initiatives 139Table 5.17 Allocation of CSOs resources for CC-related initiatives 140Table 5.18 Barriers to CC-related initiatives 142Table 6.1 Action agenda for building CSO capacity in mainstreaming

climate change into the development policy and strategies 166

PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project i

“We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors…We borrow it from our children…”

Recently, we have witnessed the growing people’s awareness on the problem of globalclimate change. There now exists a broad scientific consensus that climate change is real andit is here to stay with us at least in the next century or so. And humankind has mainly causedthis problem. Its tremendous and wide-ranging consequences resulting from the activities ofour everyday life seem to be too enormous and overwhelming to be ignored. What makes itironic though is that the poor and vulnerable sectors of developing countries, which are leasthistorically responsible for the problem and with the least capacity to cope, will be greatlyaffected. At the core of the debate now is how widespread and severe will its effects be andhow best to address it.

Combating this problem is a huge challenge. As the United Nations Secretary GeneralBan Ki-Moon puts it, ‘climate change is the defining issue of our era.’ Indeed, we owe it to ourchildren and ourselves to help humankind to overcome this challenge. The driving forces ofunsustainability are too powerful and intimidating. As time is running out, the rich and poorcountries alike must take collective action now, quickly and decisively to deter its possiblecatastrophic impacts. Achieving a fair and ambitious global climate policy regime that keepsthe temperature well within 2oC of warming compared to the pre-industrial era is certainly agargantuan task. But this global effort must be spearheaded by the industrialized countrieswhich are historically responsible for this problem. Guided by the principle of ‘common butdifferentiated responsibilities,’ these countries should take deeper cuts in their emissions. Inaddition, they should facilitate transfer of environmentally-sound technologies to developingcountries and help them cope with its adverse impacts as they pursue sustainable development.

Foreword

ii PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project

Stakeholders from the government, corporate sector and civil society at different levelsare now responding to the key challenge of re-shaping and re-designing existing developmentframeworks, policies, programs and institutions to ensure their effectiveness and sustainability.

For its part, the Philippine Network on Climate Change (PNCC), through the support ofOxfam Hong Kong and Oxfam Great Britain, has implemented a climate change initiativesmapping project. This action research basically hopes to contribute to the growing literatureon climate change. It aims to characterize the climate change landscape in terms of policy andpractice in the Philippines within the context of poverty reduction and the Philippine Agenda21, the country’s blueprint for sustainable development. This pioneering research mainlyfocuses on the experience and potential contribution of a segment of civil society organizations(CSOs) in the Philippines, in particular, PNCC and its partner organizations and allies, bydemonstrating that local solutions to the global problem already exist at the grassroots level.

Through this project, PNCC has played a valuable role in facilitating policy dialoguesand knowledge sharing among the government, corporate sector, and civil society. Drawingon from their positive lessons and best practices, these community-based initiatives of CSOscan help link science, policy and practice, and catalyze new and innovative ideas that couldspell the difference in the current effors to build climate risk-resilient and sustainablecommunities in the long-term.

The fight to stop climate change–to ensure the survival of humankind and the naturalhabitat– is essentially an important part of the on-going struggles of civil society for justiceand democracy. It seems too daunting a task and requires as much vigor to realize this goal.This underscores the importance of educating and mobilizing local communities in a waythat government officials and corporate leaders could not afford to ignore them. The wayforward then is to build a constituency that will advance an agenda that will serve those ingreatest need- the poor, vulnerable and marginalized sectors, particularly those whoselivelihoods depend on the natural resource base, and who will suffer most. Leaders ofgovernment and corporations must also step up to this challenge. Failure is not an option.

Ramon Faustino M. Sales Jr., Ph.D.Convenor, PNCCSeptember 2008

PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project iii

Acknowledgement

The Philippine Network on Climate Change (PNCC) would like to express itsdeep gratitude and sincere appreciation to the following institutions and individuals,without whose support the completion of this study would not have been possible:

To Oxfam Hong Kong (OHK) and Oxfam Great Britain (OGB)-Philippines forproviding financial support for the PNCC project entitled “Mapping of ClimateChange Initiatives and Opportunities for Enhancing Civil Society Capacities inAddressing Climate Change in the Philippines”. Our heartfelt thanks also go to Ms.Genela Buhia (OHK) and to Ms. Lilian Mercado, Ms. Shalimar Vitan and Mr. MichaelLlanes (OGB).

To Hon. Angelo T. Reyes, Secretary of the Department of Energy and Chairmanof the Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCCC) and Mr. Conrado S.Navarro, PRRM President, for gracing the National Validation Workshop and Post—Bali Conference.

To Dr. Rosa T. Perez and Mr. Carmelito A. Tatlonghari, for sharing their technicalexpertise in the development of the survey instruments; and to Mr. Vernon Moguland Mr. Ramon Marion D. Duran for their valuable inputs on the statistical analysisof the research results.

To all the participants of the PNCC survey and the consultation-workshops heldin the Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao regions (Annex B), the national validationworkshop and the Post-Bali conference (Annex C) for the valuable information, viewsand insights they shared which served as vital inputs in the preparation of this study.

iv PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project

The success of the regional consultations was also made possible through the diligenceof local facilitator-coordinators, namely, Ms. Alpha V. Lajato, Mr. Renato Bañas andMr. Edwin Balajadia.

To the key informants of this study from relevant government agencies, namely,Ms. Joyceline Goco (IACCC), Dr. Rose T. Perez (PAGASA), Director Mario Marasigan(DOE-EUMB), Ms. Mayo Grace C. Amit (NEDA) and Ms. Leni Duran Alegre (OCD),for sharing their knowledge and expertise on the subject.

To the resource speakers from the different government agencies and non-government organizations who shared their knowledge and expertise during theConsultation-Workshops namely, Ms. Lourdes V. Tibig (PAGASA/DOST/IACCC), Ms.Joyceline Goco (IACCC), Ms. Gerarda Merilo (IACCC Secretariat), Ma. CeciliaMonteverde (PAGASA/DOST), Ms. Athena Ronquillo-Ballesteros (GreenpeaceInternational), Dr. Antonio G.M. La Viña, (Ateneo School of Government), Mr. GarrieDavid (PTFCC) and Mr. Manuel Rangasa (Center for Integrated Research on ClimateAdaptation).

To the panel of reactors who shared their rich ideas, experiences and insights onthe presentations of the resource speakers, namely: Dr. Angelina Galang (MiriamCollege-Environmental Science Institute), Mr. Lito Tambalo (SAKAHAN), Mr. IsaganiR. Serrano (Social Watch), Ms. Princess B. Nemenzo (Freedom from Debt Coalition),Ms. Elenita Daño (Third World Network), Ms. Betty Tagle-Cabazares (KinaiyahanFoundation, Inc.), Mr. Joey T. Gloria (Social Watch-Mindanao) Dr. Jesse Manuta(Ateneo de Davao University), Ms. Purita Quintos (Nature’s Steward Foundation),Mr. Melvin Purzuelo (RISE), Dr. Romana de los Reyes (V-FREE), Mr. Noli Espina(FDC), Mr. Milo Tanchuling (FDC) and Mr. Vic Villeda (Bunduk, Inc.)

To the local and regional government officials who graced the regionalconsultation-workshops, namely, Hon. Ricardo de Leon (Regional Executive DirectorDENR-Region 11), Hon. Leonardo Avila (1st District, Davao City), Hon. Jocelle Batapa-Sigue, (Sangguniang Panglungsod Committee on Energy and Communication,Bacolod City), Mr. Livino Duran (PENRO-DENR, Region VI), Mr. Juanito Flores(DENR-PENRO, Region XI) and Mr. Jun Patnugot (Regional Technical Director forForestry, Region VI).

To PNCC members, who served as peer reviewers and as consultation-workshopfaci l i tators , namely, Engr. Nazario R. Cacayan (Yamog Renewable EnergyDevelopment Center, Inc.), Ms. Belinda de la Paz (Haribon Foundation, Inc.), Mr.Samuel Gamboa (LRC-KSK), Atty. Ronaldo R. Gutierrez (ULAN), Ms. Marie R.Marciano (Mother Earth Foundation), Dr. Helen N. Mendoza, PNCC Co-Convenor(SOLJUXPAX), Dr. Ramon Faustino M. Sales, Jr., PNCC Convenor (PRRM), Atty.Ronelyn Bisquera-Sheen (Tanggol-Kalikasan), Prof. Ma. Rosario G. Wood (Miriam-PEACE), and Sr. Ma. Aida M. Velasquez, OSB (Lingkod Tao Kalikasan), for theirunfailing support and commitment;

PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project v

To Ms. Roslyn Ras Arayata and Dr. Ramon Faustino M. Sales Jr., who preparedthis report; to Prof. Ma. Rosario G. Wood for editing the draft manuscript and Mr.Napoleon R. Manegdeg for the design and layout of this research publication.

To Ms. Mary Ann Mayo and Ms. Grace Constantino for the administrative andlogistical support; the PRRM-Management Services Office headed by Mr. AngelitoC. Villegas and his staff members including Mr. Rommel Lampaan, Project Accountant,for providing financial services and administrative support; Ms. Mary Rose Ramos,Mr. Patrick San Juan, and YAMOG Renewable Energy Development, Inc. and Ms.Arlene dela Cruz for their valuable assistance in the documentation of the conference-workshop proceedings; and to PRRM interns, Ms. Moresa John Rome Tolibas andMr. Paul Micah Francisco, for their research assistance.

Finally, to those organizations and individuals whom we failed to mention buthave also contributed to the preparation of this study.

PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project vii

ADB Asian Development BankAO Administrative OrderAR4 Fourth Assessment ReportAusAID Australian Agency for International DevelopmentCBFM Community-Based Forest ManagementCC Climate ChangeCDM Clean Development MechanismCIF Climate Investment FundCO2 Carbon DioxideCOP Conference of PartiesCRI Climate Risk IndexCSO Civil Society OrganizationDBP Development Bank of the PhilippinesDENR Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesDepEd Department of EducationDOE Department of EnergyDOH Department of HealthDOST Department of Science and TechnologyDRM Disaster Risk ManagementDRR Disaster Risk ReductionEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEMB Environmental Management BureauENR Environment and Natural ResourcesESWM Ecological Solid Waste Management

Acronymns and Abbreviations

viii PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project

EUMB Energy Utilization and Management BureauEU European UnionFDC Freedom from Debt CoalitionGDP Gross Domestic ProductGEF Global Environmental FacilityGHG Greenhouse gasIACCC Inter-Agency Committee on Climate ChangeIEC Information, Education and CommunicationIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeJI Joint ImplementationJICA Japan International Cooperation AgencyLBP Land Bank of the PhilippinesLGU Local Government UnitMEF Mother Earth FoundationMiriam-PEACE Miriam-Public Education and Awareness Campaign for the

EnvironmentMRF Material Recovery FacilityMTPDP Medium Term Philippine Development PlanNAMRIA National Mapping and Resource Information AuthorityNAP National Action PlanNDCC National Disaster Coordinating CouncilNEDA National Economic Development AuthorityNGO Non-government organizationODA Official Development AssistanceOGB Oxfam-Great BritainOHK Oxfam-Hong KongPA 21 Philippine Agenda 21PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical & Astronomical Services

AdministrationPCSD Philippine Council for Sustainable DevelopmentPD Presidential DecreePHP Philippine PesoPNCC Philippine Network on Climate ChangePNOC Philippine National Oil CompanyPO People’s OrganizationPRRM Philippine Rural Reconstruction MovementPSSD Philippine Strategy for Sustainable DevelopmentPTFCC Presidential Task Force on Climate ChangeRA Republic ActRISE Responsible Ilonggo for Sustainable EnergySD Sustainable DevelopmentSDI Sustainable Development IndicatorsTAR Third Assessment ReportTNC Transnational CorporationsTWN Third World NetworkUK United KingdomULAN Upholding Life and Nature

PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project ix

UN United NationsUNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and DevelopmentUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentV-FREE Visayas for Renewable EnergyWB World BankYamog Yamog Renewable Energy Development, Inc.

PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project xi

ThePhilippine Network on Climate Change

Since its establishment in 1992, the PNCC, an alliance of non-government organizations,has been in the forefront of promoting and advocating issues related to climate changeand sustainable development. At present, it serves as a member of the Inter-AgencyCommittee on Climate Change (IACCC) and the Steering Committee (SC) of the CleanDevelopment Mechanism (CDM), representing civil society. IACCC is an inter-agencygovernment body responsible for coordinating, developing and implementing variousclimate change-related initiatives, and for recommending appropriate policies and actions.On the other hand, the SC-CDM is responsible for evaluating and recommending theapproval of proposed CDM projects for implementation in the country. PNCC is registeredwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a non-profit, non-stock, non-government organization.

Vision

PNCC envisions a society that fosters social equity and climate-friendly sustainableeconomy characterized by simple lifestyle and consumption patterns for the benefitof both present and future generations.

Mission

PNCC shall enhance the capacity of civil society organizations and localcommunities particularly the poor and vulnerable, including women, tomainstream and integrate climate change into the development process towardsachieving poverty reduction, climate justice and sustainable development.

xii PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project

Goal and Objectives

To achieve the above vision and mission, PNCC will seek to pursue the followingobjectives:

Goal

In general, PNCC aims to build the awareness and capacity of civil societyorganizations and local communities to effectively engage key stakeholders- thegovernment, corporate sector, the academe and other groups in developing andimplementing climate change-sensitive development policies, plans and budgetssupportive of poverty reduction, climate justice and sustainable development.

Specific Objectives

1. To undertake policy research and development including the documentation ofcommunity-based initiatives that address climate change, promote climate justiceand sustainable development;

2. To engage the government and the corporate sector through policy dialogues anddebates, lobby work and advocacy campaigns that link climate change, povertyreduction and sustainable development, at various levels—local, national, regionaland international, towards influencing policy and practice;

3. To build a constituency through awareness raising, capacity building and climatechange and sustainable development;

4. To help create enabling mechanisms that enhance the participation of NGOs, POsand other key stakeholders in decision-making and facilitate cooperation, dialogue,as well as information and technology sharing; and

5. To mobilize appropriate resources in support of the network’s projects andactivities to ensure organizational and project sustainability.

List of Members

1. Haribon Foundation2. Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center Kasama sa Kalikasan (LRC-KSK)3. Lingkod Tao Kalikasan (LTK)4. Miriam - Public Education and Awareness Campaign for the Environment

(Miriam-PEACE)5. Mother Earth Foundation (MEF), Inc.6. Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM)7. SOLJUSPAX/Sol Justitae et Pax8. Tanggol Kalikasan9. Upholding Life and Nature (ULAN)10. YAMOG Renewable Energy Development Center, Inc.

PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project xiii

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) has finally confirmed with greater certainty that climate change (CC) is primarilycaused by human beings and its adverse impacts are now being felt around the world,particularly by poor developing countries. Fossil fuel-dependent economies, lifestylesand consumption patterns particularly those of developed countries, cause the rapid rateof environmental degradation and natural resource depletion and keep warming up theplanet resulting in the disturbance of the climate system. Extreme weather events,abnormal precipitations and sea-level rise affect all sectors known to mankind. Climatechange is considered to be the greatest stressor in the 21st century that threatens both thepresent and future generations.

The excessive burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, that emit carbon dioxide(CO2), the most dominant greenhouse gas (GHG), contributes to global warming. Industrialprocesses, agricultural production and waste dumps are also sources of these heat-trappinggases. The build-up of these GHGs into the atmosphere is attributed mainly to developedcountries, which are responsible for approximately 80 percent of past emissions. It is the poorand developing countries, which are least responsible for this problem and have the leastcapacity, will be the most adversely affected by its worst impacts.

Addressing climate change recognizes the inseparability of environment anddevelopment and the need for a paradigm shift from a growth-oriented development toan alternative path of low-carbon, equitable and sustainable development. Striking astrong, effective and fair global climate deal that will keep the temperature level notexceeding the pre-industrial era by 2oC in Copenhagen in 2009 will require deeper cuts inemissions among developed countries. An integral part of this solution is the transfer of

Executive Summary

xiv PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project

appropriate technologies from these countries to developing nations and the provision offinancing support to assist the latter in enhancing their capacity to cope with such impacts.

At the core of this strategy is the forging of partnerships among the government,corporate sector and civil society as key players who should take a strong collective actionbased on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Inaction istantamount to losing at least 5 percent of the annual global Gross Domestic Product (GDP)that could rise to 20 percent or more. As estimated, developing countries will requireapproximately US$ 50 billion per year in order to cope with the adverse impacts of climatechange, and far more if global emissions are not cut rapidly. Such impacts will significantlyretard progress in the attainment of poverty reduction, in particular the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) and sustainable development. Hence, climate change is notsolely an environmental issue, but rather it is a development issue.

This study examined the vulnerability of the Philippines to the adverse impacts of climatechange, the existing policy and institutional frameworks for climate change, and mapped outthe initiatives, capacities and priority needs of CSOs. It also assessed key opportunities andbarriers to creating an enabling policy environment that integrates climate change into existingdevelopment strategies within the context of humanitarian and poverty reduction efforts,including the MDGs, and the Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21). This study adopted approachesthat facilitated social learning, capacity development and mobilization of key stakeholdersfrom the government, civil society and the corporate sector. It also made use of a combinationof research methods to generate the necessary data and information, which included reviewand analysis of existing literature, secondary data/information and other relevant officialdocuments, the conduct of consultation workshops, survey, key informant interviews and focusgroup discussions.

As the study showed, the Philippines, given its geographic, climatic and physicalcharacteristics, is highly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change. Historicaltrends over the past few decades revealed observed changes in the Philippine climate.Similarly, damages and losses caused by climate and weather-related events over the pasttwo decades averaged an amount of US$ 279.14 million. Based on the 2004 Global ClimateRisk Index, the Philippines ranked the world’s fourth most disaster-prone country. Inaddition, its innate vulnerability is compounded by its intertwined problems of growingenvironmental degradation and natural resource depletion, high poverty incidence,expanding population, political strifes and poor governance. Scientific projections alsoreveal that climate change will exacerbate the effects of worsening environmentaldegradation in the country.

Currently, although there are a number of existing laws and policies that are indirectlyrelated to climate change, the country lacks a comprehensive and coherent national policystrategy and institutional framework that will effectively address the problem. This ismanifested by the lack of an updated National Action Plan on Climate Change anchoredon the PA 21 concept and principles, and the apparent dichotomy that exists between theInter-Agency Committee on Climate Change (IACCC) and the Presidential Task Force onClimate Change (PTFCC). This problem is made more complex by the existence of anothergovernment inter-agency body, the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC),which is mandated to coordinate government efforts at addressing climate and weather-

PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project xv

related events. This disharmony will hamper efforts towards ensuring greater socialcohesion and cross-sectoral fertilization among key stakeholders needed to facilitate theintegration of local perspectives into the process. Achieving greater institutional synergyand harmony will help reduce climate- related losses, and ensure more efficient use ofhuman, financial and natural resources as well as the effectiveness and sustainability ofinterventions.

Although there are on-going legislative measures seeking to address these core issues,their speedy passage competes with other similar measures designed to deal with morepressing development concerns currently deliberated upon by both Senate and House ofRepresentatives. Thus, it is crucial to vigorously push for their adoption and the allocationof adequate budgetary resources that will facilitate their effective and efficientimplementation towards climate-sensitive development.

Furthermore, some sectoral policies on natural resource management (e.g., agriculture,forestry, fisheries, and mineral resources), pollution control and land use planning andmanagement, which are relevant to climate change are conflicting, overlapping and lackingeffective and efficient implementation and regulation. Moreso, the low priority given to theenvironment, agriculture, health, science and technology and related sectors as shown by theirlow budgetary allocation and under-spending, coupled with issues of corruption and lack ofpolitical will are among the roadblocks to mainstreaming climate change into the developmentpolicy. These inadequacies clearly reflect poor governance, which in effect, create spaces forCSOs to engage government and other stakeholders in influencing policy and practice towardsbuilding climate/disaster risk-resilient and sustainable communities.

Against this backdrop, as the research results also revealed, CSOs have over the pastyears gained a wealth of experience from their community-based initiatives that arerelevant to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The trend shows that CSOs aremostly involved in forest resource and biodiversity conservation, sustainable agricultureand ecological waste management. However, CSOs are least engaged in coastal resourcemanagement, sustainable energy development and sustainable transportation. Notably,these sectoral initiatives, while not purposely developed and implemented within thecontext of climate change, could serve as an effective vehicle for mainstreaming climatechange into existing development process.

In terms of focus, CSO’s projects and initiatives are mainly centered on awarenessbuilding and education, advocacy and networking, and community-based projects.Generally, these areas are widely recognized as the core competencies of CSOs. Theirself-assessment ratings of their performance on these areas are within the range of‘satisfactory-good’. On the other hand, lobbying, resource mobilization, technologydevelopment and policy research are those areas CSOs are least engaged in.

In terms of knowledge on climate change, the study further revealed that CSOs eitherhave little knowledge or familiarity with climate change and related topics or have fairknowledge and understanding of such topics. This implies the need to further enhancethe capacities of CSOs to enable them to discuss and train others. Specifically, capacitybuilding programs for CSOs should cover basic climate change science, vulnerability andadaptation assessment, strategy formulation and planning, etc..

xvi PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project

Presently, the gains and successes of the CC-related initiatives of CSOs are attributedto their collaboration with key stakeholders. Apparently, most CSOs incorporate gendersensitivity as an integral element of their activities wherein women play an importantrole in such activities. This also explains why women as a sector serves as their mostdominant partner group, followed by farmers and the youth sector. However, the urbanpoor is the least involved partner group of CSOs in these initiatives.

Moreover, the study showed that climate change efforts of CSOs have been mostly initiatedby non-government organizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs) and the localgovernment units (LGUs). Specifically, the level/focus of their involvement is considered tovary across the different stages of the project cycle, with the LGU being mostly involved inplanning, the PO in implementation and evaluation, while the NGOs in monitoring and thenthe donor agencies in the evaluation of the project. As regards priority areas of work, awarenessbuilding and education, advocacy and networking and community-based projects comprisethe highest priority areas of work of CSOs, while policy research, micro-finance and technologydevelopment are among the lowest priority. This result basically jibes with the identified typesof sectoral initiatives that CSOs are engaged in.

In the realm of organizational performance, advocacy and networking, awarenessbuilding and education and organizational development are identified by CSOs as theirareas of strength, while technology and micro-finance as their weakest. In terms of results/impacts/outcomes, CSOs consider their CC-related initiatives to have contributed morepositively to enhancing environmental sustainability and social/community cohesion, andimproving gender relations.

Among existing organizational mechanisms in place, the program/projectdevelopment, planning and monitoring and evaluation system, resource mobilization andorganizational management are those mechanisms in which CSOs have satisfactory togood ability to ensure the longer-term sustainability of their climate change initiatives.On the other hand, their mechanisms for stakeholder relations with other CSOs, academeand corporate sector are considered to be relatively weak.

With respect to the ability to ensure equitable sharing of benefits, the LGUs, NGOsand POs are identified as the stakeholders that have such ability, with the latter twoaccounting for a good to very good rating.

On financing, CSOs have multiple sources and types of funding for their climate changeprojects/initiatives. Grants and donations are the most common type wherein NGOs andgovernment are the major sources of funds, which are accessed mainly through projectdevelopment (i.e., preparation and submission of project proposals). Current fundingsupport for these initiatives is viewed largely to be inadequate, being identified as thetopmost barrier to undertaking CC-related initiatives.

Notably, while the global trends show huge investments on fossil fuel technologiesfrom multi-lateral development banks such as the World Bank and the fossil fuel industry,on the contrary, CSOs only get a mere pittance for their climate change initiatives. Bilateraland other multi-lateral financing sources such as related United Nations agencies havethe potential to support climate change initiatives, but much of the funds are coursed

PNCC Climate Change Initiatives Mapping Project xvii

through the Philippine government. These funding opportunities have yet to be assessedin terms of the extent to which these funds are actually leveraged by CSOs to build supportfor their climate change initiatives at the local level.

Key opportunities for mainstreaming climate change into the development processhave also been identified. These are, namely: the existence of national laws, policies andmandates relevant to climate change, the existence of national inter-agency and localspecial bodies that address climate and disaster risks, viable strategies adopted by CSOsin stakeholder mobilization and community empowerment, complementary benefits fromintegrating climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, promotion of diversifiedlivelihood/economic activities, availability of funding support from various donor agenciesand institutions, promotion of micro-finance/insurance schemes, adoption ofenvironmental soundness/sustainability criteria of new projects, inter-sectoralcoordination and stakeholder partnerships and web-based discussion of priority policyand legislative agenda.

On the other hand, aside from financing, policy and governance issues mentionedearlier, other key barriers to mainstreaming climate change include the following:government’s bias for rapid economic growth at the expense of the environment, fastturn-over of DENR Secretaries, differences in policy positions between government andCSOs and among CSOs on key issues, lack of trained human resources, lack of CSOparticipation in policy/decision-making at different levels, poor linkages between andamong CSOs, academe, government and corporate sector, lack of ‘champions’ to advanceclimate change agenda, climate change issue competing with other CSO advocacies, lackof integration and “buy-in” of climate change issues into existing CSO agenda, lack of awell-defined NGO intervention scheme with a clear phase-out component, weak science-policy-community linkages in technology development and diffusion and continuedpromotion of pollutive and inefficient technologies.

Nevertheless, as the research pointed out, CSOs exhibit basic human, organizationaland financial capacity and their strong local constituency is considered as a plus factor inmainstreaming and integrating their CC initiatives into the existing developmentstrategies.

Essentially, the series of regional and national consultations conducted by this projecthave yielded a CSO action agenda that will lay the groundwork for CSO’s engagementwith the government and other stakeholders in formulating and implementing climatechange-sensitive development plans and budgets at national and local levels within thecontext of poverty reduction, economic justice and sustainable development. To moveforward, this study provides a set of recommendations that CSOs need to vigorouslypursue in effectively mainstreaming their CC initiatives. These recommendationsspecifically cover the areas of policy reform and governance, awareness and capacitybuilding, plan and program formulation and management, technology development anddiffusion, financing, advocacy, networking and organizational development.


Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Climate Change: The Greatest Threat to Humankind

In its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), a body composed of around 2,500 scientists from all over the world, states thatthe evidence of climate change is unequivocal based on observations of increases in globalaverage air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globalaverage of sea level.1

Climate change2 is considered the most threatening environmental problem in the 21stcentury that grips humankind today. This global phenomenon is linked mainly to theway human society produces energy and the way it consumes finite energy and othernatural resources. The excessive burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, over thepast decades have caused the build up of carbon dioxide, the most dominant greenhousegas (GHG), into the atmosphere. Emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs contributeto this problem. Other heat-trapping gases also come from industrial processes,deforestation, rice paddy cultivation and waste dumps, among others.

‘Climate change could have very seriousimpacts on growth and development’

Sir Nicolas Sternformer Chief Economist of the World Bank


The potential impacts of climate change are tremendous and wide-ranging, thereby posingserious threats to the environment, economy and society. This will threaten food security,drastically worsen water stress, increase impacts from extreme climate events, displacepoor people and increase incidence of vector-borne diseasesas well as largely diminish our rich biological diversityresources (i.e., flora and fauna) that provide life-support systems to human beings.

The manifestations of climate change, trig-gered by global warming, have re-sulted to destruction and disturbances onecosystems and damage to the socio-eco-nomic well-being of communities. To illus-trate, the direct economic losses from cli-mate-related disasters between the 1950s andthe 1990s have increased 10-fold when av-erage losses reached US$ 40 billion per year3. Pres-ently, both rich and poor countries are alarmed by thecatastrophic impacts of extreme weather events including floods,drought and storms/hurricanes, associated to climate change already being experiencedby nations across the globe as it will undermine prospects for development and povertyreduction, especially in the poorest and most vulnerable regions.

Ironically, the developing and least developed countries which are least responsible forthis problem and have the least capacity to adapt, will bear much of these adverse impacts.It will also increase disparity in well-being between developed and developing countries,and the more the world warms, the wider this gap will become4.

In December 2007, government negotiators from both industrialized and developingcountries agreed on a “Bali Action Plan” under the auspices of the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This Plan would guide thenegotiation process towards crafting a post-2012 global climate regime that will keepglobal temperature below 2oC of warming compared to the pre-industrial level.

The key challenge now is precisely how to achieve a strong, effective and fair global climatedeal by 2009 in Copenhagen. Avoiding the catastrophic impacts of climate change willrequire GHG emissions to peak and start to decline by 2015. To make this happen,industrialized countries must make mandatory, absolute commitments to cut down theiremissions more sharply than currently required under the Kyoto Protocol. In Bali,developed countries with the exception of the United States agreed on a goal of reducingtheir emissions by an aggregate 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. By 2050, thesecountries need to reduce 80 percent or more of their emissions.5

The other side of the equation is for the emissions of developing countries to also peakand decline as they take a low-carbon emissions path while at the same time helpingthem to achieve their development aspirations. To help propel these countries towardsthis alternative path, developed countries must facilitate the transfer of appropriatetechnologies to developing countries. This should be coupled with an adequate, predictable


and sustainable financing that will help developing countries cope with the perniciouseffects of climate change, which already grip many poor and vulnerable communities inthese countries and other parts of the world.

The past years have witnessed the raging debate on the scienceand economics of climate change. With the release ofthe AR4, this debate has now shifted its focus onthe magnitude of the problem and how best torespond to it. Indeed, the direction, rate andmagnitude at which climate change will oc-cur seem hard to establish as yet. But onething is likely certain- its impacts will worsenin the future as environmental degradationincreases. This underscores the need to takeurgent and decisive action.

In his Review, Sir Nicholas Stern (2006)6 reveals thatinaction to climate change will be equivalent to losing atleast 5 percent that could rise to 20 percent or more of the annualglobal Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The risks of human-induced climate changetherefore require a wide range of policies and measures to reduce the vulnerability ofimportant climate-sensitive natural and human systems.

1.2 Need for a Paradigm Shift

The worsening adverse impacts of climate change spawned by the increasing build-up ofGHG emissions into the atmosphere are clear manifestations of a flawed developmentmodel that pursues sustainable economic growth. This growth-oriented developmentmodel fosters lavish lifestyles and inequitable consumption patterns at the expense of theenvironment. An alternative path of development is therefore imperative to reverse thesetrends.

Emerging literature now examines specific linkages between climate change andsustainable development. As defined, sustainable development is the path of ‘developmentthat meets the cultural, social, political and economic needs of the present generation withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.7 One way of looking atthese linkages is either looking through a ‘climate change lens’ that leads to a focus on howclimate change policies might accomplish more general sustainability goals or examiningclimate change through a ‘sustainable development lens’, leading to a focus on how to achieveclimate change goals by following paths to sustainability as illustrated in Figure 1.1.8

This study recognizes that climate change impacts will significantly impair nationaldevelopment, particularly the poorest communities, and will retard progress in theattainment of poverty reduction, in particular the Millennium Development Goals, andthe Philippine Agenda (PA) 21, the country’s blueprint for sustainable development.Therefore, climate change is not solely an environmental issue. It is rather a developmentissue.


Figure 1.1 a. Sustainable development through climate change lens b. Climate change through sustainable development lens

Source: Bradley et al., 2006

Conversely, alternative development pathways will shape future greenhouse gas emissionsand impinge on the capacity of communities and countries to cope with climate change.Hence, the importance of bridging the gap between climate change and developmentcannot be overemphasized.

A similar perspective is put forward by IPCC (2008) which established the links betweenadaptation and mitigation within an integrated framework for addressing climate change

Figure 1.2 Integrated framework for addressing climate change

Source: IPCC, cited in Bradley, et al. 2006


(Figure 1.2). It also illustrates the ‘cycle of cause and effect in the interaction between climatechange, the condition of human and natural systems and development, wherein, the rates of progressand choices about development pathways-driven by population, economy, technology andgovernance determine the levels of GHG and the resulting effects on climate. Furthermore, changesin climate stresses human and natural systems that, in turn impact on progress and trajectories indevelopment26.

This study advocates the ‘sustainable development lens’ approach in linking climate changeto sustainable development. In the context of Agenda 219, the concept of sustainabledevelopment is divided into four dimensions, namely: social and economic dimensions,conservation and management of resources for development, strengthening the role of majorgroups, and means of implementation wherein finance and technology are key elements.This study highly emphasizes the inseparability of environment and development, andthe necessary social partnerships among governments, market players, and civil societyas the key players to take strong collective action in both the global and local levels in thedevelopment of policies to avoid the worst climate change impacts.

Moreover, this study recognizes the equal role of mitigation and adaptation actions inaddressing climate change coupled with the transfer of appropriate technologies from therich to the developing countries and financing to assist the latter in coping with its adverseimpacts. Mitigation pertains to human intervention to reduce the GHG sources or enhancethe ‘sinks’ (i.e., any process, activity or mechanism that removes the GHG from theatmosphere). On the other hand, adaptation refers to the adjustment in natural or humansystems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderatesharm or exploits beneficial opportunities. These four-building blocks lie at the core of thepost-2012 global climate policy regime that addresses the interrelated goals of climatejustice, social equity and sustainable development.

1.3 Framework and Objectives of the Research

1.3.1 Conceptual Framework of the Research

Taking into account the above key concepts and principles, this mapping research isanchored on a comprehensive and holistic framework that presents the interrelationshipsamong the key elements of the research. These elements include the climate risks andimpacts that impinge on the interactive processes of bio-physical and socio-economicsystems, the key stakeholders involved-namely, the government, corporate sector andcivil society, and the climate change–related initiatives (both mitigative and adaptive) ofCSOs and their intervention strategies to address this problem. These responses andstrategies contribute positively to the achievement of a localized Philippine Agenda 21and climate change policies, plans and programs that are in place at national and locallevels. The harmonious integration of all these efforts will contribute towards achievinglow-carbon, equitable and sustainable development (Figure 1.3).


Figu

re 1

.3 C

once

ptua

l fra

mew

ork

of th

e re

sear

ch m

appi

ng p

roje

ct


The achievement of sustainable development as expressed in the Philippine Agenda 21would reduce vulnerability to climate change. PA 21 would enable adaptation of climate-sensitive sectors to the adverse effects of climate change. Conversely, climate change couldhamper the attainment of PA 21.

1.3.2 Objectives of the Research

In general, this study aims to examine the vulnerability of the Philippines and responsesof CSOs to the adverse impacts of climate variability and change with the view to creatingan enabling policy framework that integrates their climate change-related initiatives intoexisting development strategies within the context of poverty reduction, including theMDGs, and the Philippine Agenda 21.

Specifically, this project seeks to:

Assess the existing legal, policy and institutional frameworks for climate changein the Philippines and map out the existence of key stakeholders, their programs/projects/initiatives and institutional linkages;Assess the existing capacities, priority needs of CSOs, opportunities and barriersto their effective engagement with government and other stakeholders inmainstreaming climate/disaster risk management into development strategies; andFormulate an action agenda that will build the capacityof CSOs to catalyze thecrafting and implementation of climate change-sensitive development plans andbudgets at the national and local levels.

1.4 Approaches and Methodology of the Research

1.4.1 Approaches of the Research

This action research adopted the following approaches that would facilitate theachievement of its objectives:

Social Learning. This research sought to provide a venue for sharing lessons learnedand best practices among key stakeholders gained from their community-basedinitiatives related to climate change and sustainable development;Capacity Development. This research recognized the need to enhance the capacityof the PNCC members and its partner organizations in conducting participatoryresearch on climate change and sustainable development; andStakeholder Mobilization. This research mobilized and involved a range ofstakeholders with multi-disciplinary backgrounds and expertise in the entireprocess of knowledge generation, capacity needs assessment and agenda building.

1.4.2 Methodology of the Research

This study employed a mix of research methods to generate the necessary data andinformation that would provide a comprehensive and substantive analysis of the keyresearch parameters. These are as follows:


Review of existing literature, secondary data,project reports and other relevant documents

The study entailed the collection, review andanalysis of available data and informationculled from various official documents ofrelevant government agencies, NGOs, theinternet, etc. These documents includedexisting legislation, policy directives andissuances, the Medium Term PhilippineDevelopment Plans (MTPDPs), project andassessment reports and publications, amongothers. Possible sources of data andinformation included the following: thePhilippine Congress, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration(PAGASA); Department of Agriculture (DA); National Economic and DevelopmentAuthority (NEDA), National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA)and the Nationl Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC), among others.

Regional and national consultation-workshops

The project organized three regionalconsultation-workshops in Luzon (includingNational Capital Region or NCR), Visayasand Mindanao, and a National Validationworkshop which brought together a total of160 participants from the government,NGOs, people’s organizations, the academe,the private sector and donor agencies.

The format of the two-day regionalconsultation-workshops was fairly similar.The first day was devoted to presentations of key resource speakers from government,NGOs and the academe, followed by a panel discussion involving experts, advocates andpractitioners from CSOs and academe. In addition, break-out group discussions/workshops and plenary presentations were initiated to generate sectoral analysis ofidentified key issues and proposed responses. The sectors covered were: agriculture andfisheries, environment and natural resources, health and education, energy and the poorand vulnerable.

A one-day National Validation Workshop was conducted to present and validate the resultsof the regional consultation workshops. This activity was held side-by-side with the post-Bali discussion on the outcomes of the United Nations Climate Change Conference heldin Bali, Indonesia in December 2007.


The above consultation-workshops provided a venue for social learning, capacitydevelopment and stakeholder mobilization at various levels (partner NGOs/POs,government, donors, etc.) with the view to fostering a meaningful exchange of knowledge,experience and insights among stakeholders on the interrelated issues of climate change,disaster risk reduction, sustainable livelihoods development, social equity and justice.

These consultation-workshops were held on the following dates and respective venues:

Conference Workshop Date VenueLuzon/National November 6-7, 2007 Sulo Hotel, Quezon City Learning EventMindanao November 15-16, 2007 Ponce Suites, Davao CityVisayas November 25-26, 2007 Check Inn Pension, Bacolod CityNational Validation February 20, 2008 SEAMEO Innotech, Quezon City Workshop/Post-Bali Conference

Survey

A survey was conducted involving the keystakeholders from the NGOs, POs and theacademe that are currently undertakingclimate change-related projects andinitiatives from various regions of thecountry. These initiatives covered thefollowing thematic areas/sectors: sustainableagriculture, ecological waste management,community-based forest resource andbiodiversity conservation, community-basedcoastal resource management, renewable energy development, energy efficiency andconservation, disaster risk reduction, alternative livelihood development, and gendersensitivity. This survey also involved a self-assessment of the capacity of CSOs, theirpriority needs as well as barriers and opportunities for mainstreaming climate changeinto the development process.

The purposive sampling method was employed to derive the research population of thestudy. Surveys were distributed mostly to partner civil society organizations and allies.To derive a regional representative sample, the research population was divided into threestrata units according to their respective regions, namely, Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.Of the total 118 target participants, 74 had accomplished and returned the surveyquestionnaires. Of this number, 57 came from Luzon, 37 from Visayas and 24 fromMindanao. Thus the response rate was 63 percent, having exceeded the 50 percent targetof the study.

The survey questionnaires consisted of two sets, one for Mapping Initiatives on ClimateChange and another for CSO’s Capacity Needs Assessment.


These survey questionnaires were initiallydistributed to the respondents with theassistance of hired local facilitators from theVisayas and Mindanao regions prior to theconduct of the regional stakeholdersconsultation-workshops. Follow-ups weresubsequently made during the actualconsultation-workshops to facilitate the fullcompletion/accomplishment of thesequestionnaires.

Apart from descriptive method, the research also employed several inferential techniquessuch as coefficient of correlation, participant’s t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) toanalyze the data.

Key informant interviews with stakeholders

Key informant interviews were conducted involving primary stakeholders from thegovernment, represented by the member-agencies of the Inter-Agency Committee onClimate Change (IACCC). These included the following: NEDA, PAGASA of theDepartment of Science and Technology (DOST), Department of Energy (DOE) and theOffice of Civil Defense of National Disaster Coordinating Council (OCD-NDCC). A semi-structured guide questionnaire was given to the key informants prior to the scheduledinterview date. This instrument contained questions that pertained to policy development,implementation, plan and program formulation and implementation, capacitydevelopment and database and knowledge management.

Focus group discussions (FGDs)

FGDs were held during the consultative two-day workshops conducted in the three keyregions of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. These involved a small group of stakeholders,individuals and experts who responded to key issues/concerns that pertain to the relevance,effectiveness and impacts of projects/initiatives and CSO capacities and priority needswith the aim of reaching a group consensus on the issues being discussed.


Endnotes1 Summary of Policymakers: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, 2.2 ‘Climate change’ defined by the IPCC refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified

e.g., using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and thatpersists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time,whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.

3 Hamilton, 2004, as cited in Smith 2006, Just One Planet: Poverty, Justice and Climate Change4 Smith, 20065 CAN Statement on SB136 Stern Review, 20067 Bradley, et al, 20068 http://ipcc/ch/ar4-wg2.pdf9 Agenda 21 was adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)

Summit meeting on June 14, 1992. Its objective is the alleviation of poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracyworldwide while halting the deterioration of ecosystems that sustain life. See www.environment.gov.au

10 http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/items/2998.php11 Mitigation is defined as ‘An anthropogenic intervention to reduce the anthropogenic forcing of the climate

system; it includes strategies to reduce greenhouse gas sources and emissions and enhancing greenhouse gassinks’. http://www.ipcc/ch/ar4-wg2.pdf

12 http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/items/2998.php; Summary of Policymakers: ClimateChange 2007: Synthesis Report, 5.

13 UNEP, 2002c cited in Smith, 200614 Mark Smith, Just One Planet: Poverty, Justice and Climate Change (UK: Practical Action Publishing, 2006),

84.15 Summary of Policymakers: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, p.716 Summary of Policymakers: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, p.1317 Ibid18 Stern 2006, Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, vi. See http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/

hi/pdfs/30_10_06_exec_sum.pdf19 REN21.2008. “Renewables 2007 Global Status Report” (Paris:REN21 Secretariat and Washington, DC:

Worldwatch Institute). 2008 Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH.20 Roberts, 2001, cited in Smith 200621 Burton, et al., Adaptation to Climate Change: International Policy Options, Prepared for the Pew Center on

Global Climate Change, 2006.22 Adaptive capacity is defined as ‘the whole of capabilities, resources and institutions of a country or

region to implement effective adaptation measures’. http://ipcc/ch/ar4-wg3.pdf23 Sarah La Trobe, Adaptation and the Post-2012 framework, Tearfund, 200724 Trobe, 2007, p. 825 Ibid26 Smith, 2007, p. 20.


Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, humanactivities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have greatlyintensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming. IPCC, AR4 (Figure 2.1).

Chapter 2Climate Change:

Global and NationalTrends and Potential Impacts

2.1 Global Climate Trends and Impacts on Developing Countries

Climate change is attributed to warming caused by human activities that releasegreenhouse gases into the atmosphere (Box 2.1). Beginning with the Industrial Revolutionin the 1850s and accelerating ever since, the human consumption of fossil fuels has elevatedCO2 levels from a concentration of 280 ppm to 387 ppm today. These increasingconcentrations are projected to reach a range of 535 to 983 ppm by the end of the 21stcentury.1 The source is mainly the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) - for transport,industry, and electricity or heat.

The link between greenhouse gases and climate change was established using a set ofequations by G. S. Callendar (1938). He found that a doubling of atmospheric carbondioxide concentration resulted in an increase in the mean global temperature of 2°C, withconsiderably more warming at the poles, and linked increasing fossil fuel more warmingat the poles, and linked increasing fossil fuel2. It is known that carbon dioxide levels aresubstantially higher now than at any time in the last 750,000 years. Along with risingmethane levels, these changes are anticipated to cause an increase of 1.4–5.6 °C between1990 and 2100.3


Figure 2.1 The greenhouse effect

Box 2.1 Man-made sources of greenhouse gasCarbon dioxide (CO2) – produced when fossil fuels are used to generate energy from industries and

motor vehicles and when forests are cut down and burnt.Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) – emitted from agricultural activities, changes in land use,

natural gas activities, landfills and other sourcesHalocarbons (CFCs, HFCs, PFCs) are artificial chemicals and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) – released by

industrial processes (e.g., aerosols and industrial coolants)Source: Climate Change Information Sheet. UNEP/IUC. p1


Box 2.2 By-products of increasing temperatureExtreme weather events include weather phenomena that are at the extremes of the historical distribution,

especially severe or unseasonal weather.Abnormal precipitation – With global warming, significant change in the intensity and frequency

precipitation can be observed. Precipitation (in meteorology) is any product of the condensation ofatmospheric water vapor that is deposited on the earth’s surface. It occurs when the atmosphere (being alarge gaseous solution) becomes saturated with water vapour and the water condenses and falls out ofsolution (i.e., precipitates). Air becomes saturated via two processes, cooling and adding moisture. Precipitationthat reaches the surface of the earth can occur in many different forms, including rain, freezing rain,drizzle, snow, ice pellets, and hail. http://en.wikipedia.org

Sea-level rise is the product of global warming through two main processes: thermal expansion ofseawater (hot temperature causes sea water to expand) and widespread melting of land ice. http://

en.wikipedia.org

The IPCC’s AR4 has confirmed unequivocably that climate change is real and is here tostay at least for a century. According to this report, global GHG emissions due to humanactivities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70 percent between1970 and 2004, wherein 73.9 percent of such emissions are attributed to CO2.. Of thisamount, 56.6 percent comes from fossil fuel and land use change, while 17.3 percent fromdeforestation and decay of biomass, etc.

Figure 2.2 illustrates how the energy sector dominates its share of the total global carbonemissions. With fossil fuels dominating the global energy mix by 2030 and beyond, theIPCC projects an increase of global GHG emissions by 25 to 90 percent (CO2–eq) between2000 and 2030.

Given this projection, the IPCC experts foresee that despite current climate changemitigation policies and relevant sustainable development practices, global GHG emissionwill continue to grow over the next few decades. In addition, human-induced warmingcould lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate andmagnitude of the climate change.

Figure 2.2 Global anthropogenic greenhouse gases - IPCC AR4, 2007


As a consequence of this growing problem, many natural systems are now being affectedby regional climate changes, particularly by increasing temperatures from all continentsand most oceans.4 Since 1850, eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among thetwelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature.5 Thepossible impacts of climate change across the globe vary in different regions. As mentionedearlier, developing countries particularly the poor sectors with least capability to buildresilience and adapt are the most vulnerable.

IPCC experts projected some possibleregional scenarios that will be extremelyaffected by climate change. By 2020 in Africa,between 75 and 250 million people areprojected to be exposed to increased waterstress due to climate change. In somecountries, yields from rain-fed agriculturecould be reduced by up to 50 percent. Thiswould further adversely affect food securityand malnutrition.6 By mid-century, increasesin temperature and associated decreases insoil water are projected to lead gradual replacement of tropical forest by savanna in easternAmazonia. There is risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in manyareas of tropical Latin America. Productivity of some important crops is projected todecrease and livestock productivity to decline with adverse consequences for food security.More so, changes in precipitation patterns and the disappearance of glaciers are projectedto significantly affect water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energygeneration.7

Furthermore, by 2050s in Asia, it is projected that climate change will compound thepressures on natural resources and the environment associated with rapid urbanization,industrialization and economic development. Freshwater availability in the large riverbasins of Central, South, East and South-East Asia will decrease, which may result todroughts in these regions. Coastal areas, especially heavily populated mega-delta regionsin South, East and South-East Asia, will be at greater risk due to increased flooding fromthe sea and/or from the rivers. Consequently, endemic morbidity and mortality due todiarrheal disease primarily associated with these floods and droughts are expected torise in these regions.8

IPCC experts believe that impacts associated with global average temperature changewill vary by extent of adaptation and socio-economic pathway as pointed out earlier.Least developed and developing countries like the Philippines, are now in the position topursue international negotiations to stop if not reduce the GHG emissions of industrializedcountries and oblige these countries to fund strategic plans to develop the necessary safetynets to address possible worst impacts of climate change that puts a multitude ofpopulation across the globe, specifically the poor, at high risk.

Stern (2006) emphasized in his Review that if no action is taken to reduce emissions,GHG concentration in the atmosphere could reach double its pre-industrial level as earlyas 2035, virtually committing us to a global average temperature rise of over 20C18.


Nevertheless, he pointed out the benefits of strong and early action to climate changethat far outweighs the economic cost of not acting. As Stern noted, the cost of reducingGHG emissions to avoid worst impacts of climate change can be limited to around 1 percentof global GDP each year. In addition, he stressed that addressing climate change willsignificantly create business opportunities that are bound to grow to be worth hundredsof billions of dollars each year and proportionally boost employment in low-carbon energytechnologies, goods and services. In 2007, more than US$ 100 billion worth of investmentswere infused in new renewable energy capacity, manufacturing plants, and research anddevelopment19.

Developed countries are responsible for over60 percent of current emissions andapproximately 80 percent of past emissions20.Nevertheless, the poor and vulnerablesectors of developing countries as well asthose from other parts of the world are nowexperiencing the impacts such as droughts,floods, hunger and disease given their lowadaptive capacity21.

Adaptation to climate change is not a newphenomenon. Historical records show that societies have adapted to natural climatevariability by altering settlement and agricultural patterns and other facets of theireconomies and lifestyles. Human-induced climate change lends a complex new dimensionto this age-old challenge21.

Adaptation is another way to address climate change alongside mitigation. However,adaptation in UNFCCC negotiations is still viewed as a secondary issue as evidenced bythe fact that there are as yet no legally-binding obligations to finance it, and currentadaptation funds are pitifully small22 (Table 2.1). As estimated, the needed cost ofadaptation is at least US$ 50 billion per yearin developing countries.23

It has been argued that developed countrieshave certainly harmed others for manydecades of excessive GHG emissions andthese countries should take responsibilityand ethical obligation to stop harming andstart helping poor countries cope with thedamage done (to adapt to climate impacts)in the context of ‘climate justice’25

The first commitment period of Parties under the Kyoto Protocol puts more weight onmitigation policies than adaptation policies. Currently, climate negotiators discuss andpropose the Post-2012 framework to address ‘adaptation’ which is now placed more orless at par with mitigation (Box 2.3). This then puts the most vulnerable countries andcommunities at the centerstage of the negotiation process.


Table 2.1 Amount of pledges to the international adaptation funds, as of April 2007Fund Total pledged US$m Total received US$mLeast Developed Countries Fund 120 48Special Climate Change Fund 62 41Adaptation Fund - -Strategic Priority on Adaptation 50 50Total 232 139Source: Global Environment Facility, cited in Oxfam Briefing Paper, 2007

Box 2.3 Proposed criteria for the post-2012 framework on adaptation1. Clearly and accurately defined2. Adequately funded3. Reliably funded4. Targeted on the poorest5. Focused on natural resource management6. Integrated with developmentSource: Tearfund 2007, p2

2.2 The Philippine Contribution to Global Climate Change

The Philippines, one of the Parties that signed the UNFCCC in 1992, ratified the KyotoProtocol in August 1994. Based on its 1994 GHG Inventory as contained in its InitialNational Communication report to UNFCCC, the Philippines has released a totalequivalent amount of 100,738 ktons of CO2 into the atmosphere, from the sectors of Energy,Industry, Agriculture, and Wastes, and the net uptake (sink) of GHGs from the Land UseChange and Forestry (LUCF) sector. Without the contribution of the still controversialLUCF sector, the national GHG total amounts to 100,864 ktons of equivalent CO2.

Of the four non-LUCF sectors responsible for the country’s sources of GHGs, the energysector (power generation, residential, industries, agriculture, transport, commercial andfugitive emissions) has the highest contribution to GHG, accounting for about 49 percentof the national total. This is trailed closely by the agriculture sector (rice cultivation,domestic livestock, agriculture residue burning, agricultural soils and grassland burning)which contributes about 33 percent, followed by the industry sector (cement, chemicals,metals and halocarbons) and the waste sector (solid wastes, municipal wastewater,industrial wastewater and human sewage), which accounted for their respectivecontributions of 11 percent and 7 percent of the total10 (Figure 2.3).


Although the Philippine GHG contribution is currently minimal compared to the GHGemissions of other nations, it is expected that the country’s emissions will further increaseas current development policies and practices entail economic activities that havecorresponding emissions equivalents and associated with the depletion of naturalresources.

2.3 A Glance at the Philippine Environment

The Philippine archipelago, composed of 7,107 islands, is one of the 17 mega-diverse countriesof the world that holds about 70 percent of the world’s total diversity of flora and fauna.11 Itsbeauty (natural resources) and tropical climate are the main attractions for ecotourism thatsignificantly contribute to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In 2007 alone, thetourism industry generated foreign exchange receipts estimated at US$ 2.9 billion, Php 100billion worth of investments and Php 3.49 million worth of jobs.12 Given the highly acclaimedbeauty of natural resources and biodiversity of the country, ensuring its environmentalsustainability with the current developmental policies and practices faces uncertainties.

3,663

3,222

1,978

3,967

26

2,763Diesel/OilHydroGeothermalCoalNon-ConventionalNatural Gas

Figure 2.3 Philippines’ 1994 GHG emissions from the four non-LUCF sectors

Source: The Philippine’s Initial National Communication on Climate Change, 1999

Figure 2.4 Philippine installed generating capacity in megawatts (2006)

Figure 2.4 illustrates thecurrent energy mix/powergeneration. Fossil fuel(diesel/oil, coal and naturalgas) comprises 67 percent,while renewable energy(hydro, geothermal, non-conventional) represents 33percent.


The following are some facts about the state of the Philippine environment and naturalresources based on the Second Progress Report on the MDGs released in 2005:

Forest resource and watershedsClassified mainly into forest land13 and alienable and disposable (A&D) land14,the country is composed of 52.9 percent forest land or 15,854,922 hectares whileA&D land is at 47.1 percent which is equivalent to 14,145,078 hectares - these sumup the 30 million hectares of land of the Philippines.Presently, forest cover comprises 7.2 million hectares or 24 percent of the totalland area of the country. The report declared that forest cover increased by 11percent compared to 1998, believed to be attributed to the slowdown of commercialtimber harvesting because of logging suspension in different provinces, log andlumber export bans and implementation of forest management-related policiesthat involve community participation or stewardship to forestry (e.g. community-based forest management agreements).The country’s forest cover is classified by type according to the following: closedforests (2.6 million hectares), open forests (4 million hectares), mangroves (247,362hectares) and plantations (329,578 hectares).There are 421 river basins/watersheds and 125 proclaimed watershed forestreserves covering a total of 1.50 million hectares in the country. One hundredforty critical watersheds that provide water for agricultural, commercial anddomestic use are mainly in the lowland areas.

Biodiversity resourcesThe country has over 52,000 species and 13,500 plants comprising 5 percent of theworld’s total flora.About 78 percent of amphibians, 68 percent of reptiles, 64 percent of mammals,44 percent of birds and flowering plants are considered unique to the Philippines.However, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) hasidentified our country, as being the “hottest of the hotspots” or the most severelythreatened of the mega-diverse countries.About 50 national parks have diminished biological importance because of habitatand ecosystem degradation. About 50 percent of the 63 national parks lost theirbiological importance in 1992 due to various levels of degradation.Loss of biodiversity has been reported primarily caused by logging, clearing offorest cover for agriculture and settlements, hunting for food and wildlife trade,pollution of coastal waters and over-extraction of biodiversity resources.

Coastal and marine resourcesThe country has a coastline of 34,000 km15 that is considered to be one of thelongest coastlines in the world. With a 267,000 sq. km. of water, it is no surprisethat about 70 percent of the municipalities depend on the coastal and marineecosystems as the sources of their livelihood.Only 5 percent of the county’s coral reefs are in excellent condition.

· Mangroves declined by as much as 75 percent in the last 23 years and seagrasslosses have been 30-50 percent over the last 50 years.


Air qualityBased on the 2004 study on the air quality of Metro Manila and some parts of theNational Capital Region and Regions III and IV, the levels of carbon monoxide,sulfur oxide and ozone were found to be within standards. However, the level oftotal suspended particulates (TSP) were not within standards based on the datacollected from the old stations nationwide with the exception of Cavite and Davaoin 2003.

Water resourcesIn 2000, the country had the lowest per capita of freshwater in Asia.Diminishing water supply is due to over-extraction of groundwater, waterpollution, denuded forests and watersheds and the lack of catchment basins andthe El Niño phenomenon.58 percent of groundwater has been found to be contaminated with coliform andneeds treatment.16

The annual economic cost of water pollution is estimated at US$1.3 billion,including health costs, losses in fisheries production, and impact on tourism.17

Waste and toxic chemicalsSolid waste generation in Metro Manila is estimated at 5,345 tons per day that isprojected to double by 2010.Only about 65-75 percent of total waste generated in Metro Manila is collectedand about 13 percent are recycled. The 25-35 percent uncollected waste gets thrownanywhere, especially in esteros and creeks, resulting to health problems andflooding.Based on a 2001 study conducted by Japan International Cooperation Agency(JICA), about 700 industrial establishments in the Philippines generate about273,000 tons of hazardous waste annually while the Asian Development Bank(ADB) study reported that there are about 30,000 tons of hospital waste generatedyearly.Presently, there is no integrated treatment facility for hazardous waste in thecountry. However, there are about 95 small-to-medium-scale treatment facilitiesthat treat hazardous waste (i.e., used oil, sludge). There are approximately 50,000tons of hazardous waste stored on or offsite due to lack of proper treatment andlandfill facilities.

Although figures on environmental indicators (forest land, mangroves, watersheds,biodiversity resources, etc.) were presented in the study, the conservation of the saidnatural resources remain uncertain since there is no assurance that the current environmentwill be guarded against exploitation unless at the minimum will be protected by law.

Under the Philippine law, declared ‘Protected Areas’ are shielded from destructive humanexploitation. Table 2.2 presents a summary of figures declared as Protected Areas18 in thecountry. Comparing the figure stated in the Second MDG Progress Report on ‘watershedforest reserve’ to the Table 2.2, there is a discrepancy of 346,371 hectares. This impliesthat 23 percent of the existing water forest reserve is not protected from human exploitationas it is not declared protected area.


* Figures are computed based on the data from Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau19

In general, the Second MDG Progress Report revealed that although there are someenvironmental improvements on how natural resources are being managed (e.g.reforestation initiatives and moratorium on harvesting timber), these improvements seemto lag behind in compensating the rate of natural resource degradation in the country.This clearly shows that much has yet to be done to ensure environmental sustainability.

International financing institutions (IFIs) that provide assistance to the country such asthe World Bank20 view the country’s natural resource degradation as a result of thefollowing:

Rapid conversion of forestlands and grasslands to urban use depletes these naturalsystems;Agricultural yields in lowland areas are stagnating, and population pressures arestimulating cultivation of fragile upland areas, causing serious soil erosion;While estimates of deforestation differ, forest cover in the Philippines has certainlybeen significantly reduced over the last forty years due to increasing urbanization,illegal logging and forest fires;Reforestation efforts by the government have been erratic with low tree survivalrates. Marine resources are heavily stressed by over-exploitation and pollution;The loss of forests and other critical habitats is also threatening the Philippines’rich biodiversity;Although the number of protected areas has grown on paper, so have the rates ofdestruction and habitat conversion within them; andManagement is hampered by inconsistent laws, inadequate regulations,overlapping institutional mandates, weak enforcement and funding shortages.21

In general, the country faces three broad environmental challenges: [1] urban air and waterpollution; [2] natural resource degradation; and [3] declining quality of coastal and marineresources 22. According to the World Bank, these can be quantified using indicators thatpresent both production/consumption and deterioration/quality factors classified into thefollowing: “Brown” agenda to describe the pollution caused by industrial, urban, transportand energy sources and their single or collective impacts and protection measures; the“Green” agenda to describe environmental impacts caused by agriculture, deforestation,land conversion and destruction of protected species and related protection measures;and the “Blue” agenda that refers to all forms of water resources management.23

Table 2.2 Summary of protected areas in the Philippines (in hectares)Initial Components

RegionNational Parks/National MarineParks/NationalMarine Reserves

Game Refugeand Bird

SanctuaryWildeness

AreaWatershed

Forest ReserveMangoveSwamp

No. Aeaa No. Area No. Area No. Area No. Area No. AreaLuzon 123 1,753,170 43 309,910 6 911,365 7 1,990 54 529,904 13 -Visayas 39 232,095 12 50,343 1 920 4 1,307 16 179,885 6 -Mindanao 47 614,005 16 163,864 1 6,300 5 0 17 443,840 8 -Total 209 2,599,270 71 524,117 8 918,585 16 3,297 87 1,153,629 27 undetermined

Total


Undeniably, the country undergoes overexploitation of natural resources, poormanagement, and unchecked industrial expansion and urbanization, which put at riskmuch of the Philippines’ environment. In turn, a rapidly degrading environment increasespollution, threatens food security and widens the gap between rich and poor.24

At the moment, the state of the country’s environment and natural resources poses a bigchallenge to sustainable development (SD). Climate change, another stressor to SD, willexacerbate the already threatened environmental condition, economic growth and povertyof the country.

2.4 Climate Trends in the Philippines

The climate of the Philippines is tropical and maritime. It is characterized by relativelyhigh temperature, high humidity and abundant rainfall. It is similar in many respects tothe climate of the countries of Central America. Temperature, humidity, and rainfall, whichare discussed hereunder, are the most important elements of the country’s weather andclimate.25

Figure 2.5 Climate types. Based on the distribution of rainfall, four climate types are recognized,which are described as follows:

El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is alarge-scale natural fluctuation of the globalclimate system26 It is a global ocean-atmosphere coupled occurrences in thetropical Pacific. This phenomenon has twophases—El Niño and La Niña27. Table 2.3illustrates the difference of the two phases.Furthermore, ENSO is quasi-cyclical,occurring on the average of every 3 to 6years and lasting an average of up to about18 months. An exception to this pattern isthe event which began in 1991 and persisteduntil early of 1995.Source: http://www.pagasa.gov.ph


Box 2.4 The Philippine climateTemperature. Based on the average of all weatherstations in the Philippines, excluding Baguio, the meanannual temperature is 26.60C. The coolest monthsfall in January with a mean temperature of 25.5o C,while the warmest month occurs in May with a meantemperature of 28.30C. Latitude is an insignificantfactor in the variation of temperature while altitudeshows greater contrast in temperature. Thus, the meanannual temperature of Baguio with an elevation of1,500 meters is 18.30C. This makes the temperatureof Baguio comparable with those in the temperateclimate and because of this, it is known as the summercapital of the Philippines.

The dif ference between the mean annualtemperature of the southernmost s ta t ion inZamboanga and that of the northernmost station inLaoag is insignificant. In other words, there isessentially no difference in the mean annualtemperature of places in Luzon, Visayas or Mindanaomeasured at or near sea level.

Humidity refers to the moisture content of theatmosphere. Due to high temperature and thesurrounding bodies of water, the Philippines has ahigh relative humidity. The average monthly relativehumidity varies between 71 percent in March and85 percent in September. The combination of warmtemperature and high relative and absolutehumidities give rise to high sensible temperaturethroughout the arc hipelago. I t i s especial lyuncomfor table dur ing Marc h to May, whentemperature and humidity attain their maximumlevels.

Rainfall is the most important climatic element in thePhilippines. Rainfall distribution throughout thecountry varies from one region to another, dependingupon the direction of the moisture-bearing winds andthe location of the mountain systems.

The mean annual rainfall of the Philippines variesfrom 965 to 4,064 millimeters annually. Baguio City,eastern Samar, and eastern Surigao receive thegreatest amount of rainfall while the southern portion

of Cotabato receives the least amount of rain. AtGeneral Santos City in Cotabato, the average annualrainfall is only 978 millimeters.

Seasons. Using temperature and rainfall as bases,the climate of the country can be divided into twomajor seasons: (1) the rainy season, from June toNovember; and (2) the dry season, from Decemberto May. The dry season may be subdivided furtherinto (a) the cool dry season, from December toFebruary; and (b) the hot dry season, from Marchto May.

Climate by Coronas. Typhoons have a great influenceon the climate and weather conditions of thePhilippines. A great portion of the rainfall, humidityand cloudiness are due to the influence of typhoons.They generally originate in the region of theMarianas and Caroline Islands of the Pacific Oceanthat have the same latitudinal location as Mindanao.Their movements follow a northwesterly direction,sparing Mindanao from being directly hit by majorityof the typhoons that cross the country. This makesthe southern Philippines very desirable for agricultureand industrial development.

Source: http://www.pagasa.gov.ph


Table 2.4 ENSO episodes in the Philippines1950-2000

Year ENSO Episodes1950-51 La Niña1954-55 La Niña1955-56 La Niña1957-58 El Niño1969 El Niño1970-71 La Niña1972-73 El Niño1973-74 La Niña1975-76 La Niña1982- 83 El Niño1988-89 La Niña1997-98 El Niño1998-99 La Niña1999-2000 La Niña

Source: Greenpeace

Table 2.3 Manifestations of El Niño and La Niña episodes in the PhilippinesDuring El Niño Episodes During La Niña Episodes

Early termination of rainy seasonWeak monsoon activity

Isolated heavy downpour on short durationWeak tropical cyclone activity

Tracks of Tropical Cyclones are far from thePhilippinesLess intense tropical cyclonesTropical cyclones passing over the countryare not rain effective

Delayed onset of the rainy seasonDrier than normal weather conditionWarmer than normal temperature

Longer rainy seasonActive monsoon activity

Increased cloudiness Widespread rains

Active tropical cyclone activityNear normal to above normal tropicalcyclone occurrences in the PARNear normal tropical cyclone tracksRain effective tropical cyclones

Near normal or early onset of the rainy seasonWetter than normal weather conditionNear normal to cooler than normal temperature

Source: Jose, A. Climate Variability & Extreme Climate Events (ECEs) in the Philippines, 2002

The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record(1861-2000). The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th centuryby about 0.6°C, and global average sea level was recorded to increase by 0.1 to 0.2 meters.Rainfall has been recorded to increase by 0.2 percent to 0.3 percent per decade over thetropical (10°N to 10°S) land areas.28

Although, the debate regarding the impact of global warming on El Niño and La Niñaevents is still raging, many scientists believe that increased global temperatures will createa more persistent El Niño phenomenon.


2.4.1 Climate Anomalies and Extreme Events

The Philippines is situated in the Pacific Ring of Fire and typhoon belt of the westernPacific – reasons why natural disasters like typhoons, earthquakes and volcanic eruptionsare being experienced in the country.

In a recent study conducted by the Manila Observatory (MO) and the DENR entitled“Mapping Philippine Vulnerability to Environmental Disasters”, the areas that are at highvulnerability and risk to environmental disasters in the country were identified. Combinedrisks to geophysical disaster-prone areas were mapped out as presented in Figure 2.6 andTable 2.5. This figure illustrates the result of integrated calculations from the differentgeophysical risks such as earthquakes, earthquake-induced shallow landslides, volcaniceruptions and tsunamis. This shows that the geophysical attributes of the provinces indifferent regions “naturally” make these areas prone to disasters at various levels. Thetop ten provinces prone to environmental disasters include: Sulu, Camiguin, Ifugao, DavaoOriental, Saranggani, Benguet, Surigao del Sur, La Union, Lanao del Sur, and Zambales.In general, Central Luzon and Eastern Mindanao are the high-ranking vulnerable areas.29

Figure 2.6 Combined risk to geophysical disasters

What has changed in the Philippine climate?

Studies of PAGASA, the country’s weatherbureau, reported the following anomaliesin the country’s climate:

From 1951-2006, there has been anincrease of 0.6104 degrees Celsius in theobserved mean annual mean temperature;From 1951-2006, there has been anincrease of 0.3742 degrees Celsius in theobserved annual maximum temperature;From 1951-2006, there has been anincrease of 0.8940 degrees Celsius in theobserved annual minimum temperaturethat is almost three times increasecompared to the observed change inannual maximum temperature;There are already trends of increasingnumber of hot days and warm nights,but decreasing number of cold days and

cool nights. Both maximum and minimum temperatures are generally warmer (e.g.,between 1961- 1998);Increase in annual mean rainfall and in number of rainy days, increase in inter annualvariability of onset of rainfall; andOn the average, 20 cyclones cross the Philippines Area of Responsibility (PAR) with about8 to 9 landfall each year; there was an increase of 4.2 in the frequency of cyclones enteringPAR during the period 1990 to 2003.


One of the manifestations of climate change is the occurrence of extreme weather30 events.Historically, the country has suffered far worse disasters from extreme weather eventsthat caused losses amounting to millions of dollars.

From 1975 to 2002, intensifying tropical cyclones caused an annual average of 593 deathsand damage to property of 4.5 billion pesos (around US$ 83 million), including damageto agriculture of 3 billion pesos (around US$ 55 million).31

In the light of the increasing trend of natural disasters that struck the country in recent years,based on the 2006 Global Climate Risk Index (CRI),32 the Philippines ranks the world’s fourthmost disaster-prone country. As reported by the International Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties, some 5.9 million Filipinos were killed or injured as a consequence of natural or man-made calamities in 1992-2001 (CDRC 2007). For the period from 1971 to 2001, about 85 percentof economic damages wrought by natural calamities had been caused by weather and climate-related hazards such as tropical cyclones, floods and droughts.

With increased and/or intense precipitation/rain, comes flood and landslides. There wereseven (7) extreme tropical cyclone/southwest monsoon- induced extreme events from 1991to late 2004, namely, the Ormoc Catastrophe, 1991; Cherry Hill Tragedy, 1999; PayatasGarbage-slide, 2000; Baguio-La Trinidad landslides, 2001; Camiguin flashfloods, 2001;Southern Leyte-Surigao disaster, 2003; and the Aurora floods, 2004. These extreme eventshave one thing in common – persistent torrential rains, causing landslides and flash floods,killing people and destroying properties and the environment along its path.33 Table 2.5shows the regional areas vulnerable to landslide.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations ofincreases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow andice, and rising global average sea level34

. As the global average temperature increases, seawater itself will expand in size. This effect, combined with the partial melting of sea-iceand land-based glaciers will result in sea level that threatens coastal areas, islandecosystems and low-lying communities35

PAGASA identified 26 most destructive tropical cyclones in the country from 1948 to2000. Table 2.6 shows that on the average, tropical cyclones from 1948-2000 last for 6days. The most destructive tropical cyclone cost an average damage amount of Php 1.7Billion. Table 2.6 also shows that from 1948 to 2000, the most destructive tropical cyclonesfrequently occur in the months of October and December.

Table 2.5 Regional areas at risk to landslideRegion Area at risk to landslide (in hectares)

Luzon 2,118,107Visayas 558,985Mindanao 923,861

TOTAL 3,600,953

Note: Region 7 and NCR is not includedComputed figures are based on Greenpeace’s ‘ThePhilippines: A Climate Hotspot’


Table 2.6 Most destructive tropical cyclones in the Philippines from 1948 to 2000Month Typhoon Date/Occurrence Duration Reported Damage

Name (in days) Casualties (in Millions)

January Asiang (5 to 9 Jan.1972) 5 209 Php 145Auring (22 to 25 Jan. 1975) 4 48 Php 16

February No data No data No data No data No dataMarch Bising (22 to 29 Mar. 1962) 8 203 Php 587.5April Atang (18 to 27 Apr. 1978) 10 111 Php 245

Bebeng (12 to 20 Apr. 1979) 9 93 Php 267.2May Klaring (11 to 22 May 1966) 12 82 dead Php 120

Didang (12 to 26 May 1976) 15 347 Php 624.7June Konsing (22 to 25 June 1972) 4 131 dead Php 100July Gading (6 to 10 Jul. 1986) 5 109 Php 620.9

Goring (13 to 16 Jul. 1989) 4 97 Php 1,373.3August Nitang (31 Aug. to 04 Sep.1984) 5 1,492 Php 4,100

Herming (8 to 14 Aug. 1987) 7 94 Php 2,000September Pitang (8 to 12 Sep. 1970) 5 175 Php 9.0

Openg (14 to 20 Sep. 1977) 7 65 Php 16.0October Trix (17 to 22 Oct. 1952) 6 995 dead Php 88

Rosing (30 Oct. - 4 Nov. 1995) 6 882 Php 9,330.4Sening (10 to 15 Oct. 1970) 5 768 Php 460Saling (15 to 20 Oct. 1985) 6 101 Php 2,132.9Unsang (21 to 26 Oct. 1988) 5 217 Php 5,635.9

November Yoling (17 to 20 Nov. 1970) 4 611 Php 460Anding (22 to 27 Nov. 1981) 6 409 Php 649.9Undang (3 to 6 Nov. 1984) 4 1,167 1,540.0Sisang (23 to 27 Nov. 1987) 5 979 Php 1,119.0Ruping (10 to 14 Nov. 1990) 5 748 Php 10,276.5

December Fran (27 Dec.’50 - 02 Jan.’51) 7 5 dead Php 4.0Monang (3 to 7 Dec. 1983) 5 363 Php 2,463.2

Given the archipelagic characteristic of the Philippines, one-meter rise in sea level isprojected to affect 64 out of 81 provinces, covering 703 out of 1,610 municipalities,inundating almost 700 million square meters of land and potentially displacing at least1.5 million Filipinos36 Table 2.7 sums up the vulnerable areas to one meter rise in sea levelin the country by Region.

Table 2.7 Regional vulnerability to one-meter sea-level rise

Luzon 34,053,598 61,550,285,400 205,286,400Visayas 13,746,707 16,506,947,200 166,527,900Mindanao 12,623,218 31,881,049,200 289,826,100

Total 60,423,523 109,938,281,800 661,640,400

Note: CAR not included

Region Population(2000)

Total Area(in square meters)

Area vulnerable to a one-meter rise insea level (in square meters)

Computed figures are based on Greenpeace’s The Philippines: A Climate Hotspot


2.4.2 Philippine climate- and weather-related risk maps

This section presents the figures and data based on Manila Observatory and the DENRstudy entitled Mapping Philippine Vulnerability to Environmental Disasters. Climate-and weather-related hazards refer to the direct and indirect effects of observed changesand/or projected deviations from present-day conditions of natural climate events (suchas increases and decreases in precipitation and temperature); and impacts of changes inthe frequencies and occurrences of extreme weather/climate events (such as tropicalcyclones, droughts, and El Niño and La Niña events)37. Noticeable difference in regionalvulnerability to temperature increase, El Niño, typhoons, rainfall change and combinedrisk to climate disaster is presented in the following.

Box 2.5 Top 20 provinces at risk to projectedtemperature increase by 20801. Sulu2. Basilan3. Lanao Del Sur4. Maguindanao5. Lanao Del Norte6. Davao Del Sur7. Zamboanga Del Sur8. Tawi-tawi9. Misamis Occidental10. Camiguin

11. Siquijor12. Misamis Oriental13. Cebu14. Agusan Del Norte15. Zamboanga del Norte16. Albay17. Sarangani18. Negros Oriental19. Negros Occidental20. Ifugao

http://www.observatory.ph/vm/cw_maps.html

Figure 2.7 Risk to projected temperatureincrease


Figure 2.8 Risk to El Niño

Box 2.6 Top 20 provinces at risk to drought

Areas highly at risk to El Niño-induced drought are Central and West Mindanao38 asillustrated in Figure 2.8. Majority of the identified provinces prone to El Niño were alsoidentified as vulnerable to temperature increase.

1. Sulu2. Basilan3. Maguindanao4. Lanao Del Sur5. Lanao Del Norte6. Davao Del Sur7. Misamis Occidental8. Sarangani9. Zamboanga Del Sur10. South Cotabato

11. Zamboanga del Norte12. North Cotabato13. Sultan Kudarat14. Siquijor15. Tawi-tawi16. Negros Oriental17. Camiguin18. Davao del Norte19. Misamis Oriental20. Bukidnon



Figure 2.9 Risk to typhoons

Box 2.7 Top 20 provinces at risk to typhoons

Figure 2.10 Risk to projected rainfall change

Box 2.8 Top 20 provinces at risk to projectedrainfall change

1. Cagayan2. Albay3. Ifugao4. Sorsogon5. Kalinga6. Ilocos Sur7. Ilocos Norte8. Camarines Norte9. Mountain Province10. Camarines Sur

11. Northern Samar12. Catanduanes13. Apayao14. Pampanga15. La Union16. Nueva Ecija17. Pangasinan18. Masbate19. Tarlac20. Western Samar


1. Albay2. Pampanga3. Ifugao4. Rizal5. Cavite6. Sorsogon7. Laguna8. Biliran9. Batangas10. Pangasinan

11. Masbate12. Metro Manila13. Tarlac14. Nueva Ecija15. Northern Samar16. Aklan17. Capiz18. La Union19. Western Samar20. Romblon


The map of risk to projected rainfall changeshown in Figure 2.10 incorporates bothrainfall decrease during the dry season andrainfall increase during the wet season. Theareas most at risk to projected rainfallchanges are Central, South and SoutheastLuzon and Eastern Visayas.39


Figure 2.11Combined risk to climate disaster

Box 2.9 Top 20 provinces vulnerable tocombined risk to climate disasters1. Albay2. Pampanga3. Ifugao4. Sorsogon5. Biliran6. Rizal7. Northern Samar8. Cavite9. Masbate10. Laguna

11. Batangas12. Sulu13. Western Samar14. Nueva Ecija15. Tarlac16. Pangasinan17. Basilan18. Metro Manila19. Camarines Sur20. La Union

Summing the four individual risk scores reveals that the areas most at risk to climate-and weather-related risks in general are Southeastern Luzon and Eastern Visayas. Thisindicates that the risk to typhoons and the risk to projected rainfall change dominate thesum. The lower composite risk scores of Mindanao likewise indicate that althoughMindanao has higher risk to temperature increase and El Niño-induced drought comparedto other areas, the difference in the scores is not large.40

Although many skeptics continue to contest the reality and/or science of climate change,the manifestations of changes in the global climate system are already observed in thePhilippines and in various countries across the globe. Climate and weather-related hazards,such as typhoons and droughts, as well as geophysical hazards, like earthquakes, volcaniceruptions and tsunamis, are natural hazards. Anthropogenic, or man-made, hazardsinclude deforestation, mining and climate change.41 Thus, the geophysical attributescombined with climate change will put further the impacts on identified disaster-vulnerable regions of the country, placing the lives of Filipinos at higher risks leavingthose with the incapacity to cope with such disasters, specifically the poor, at extremevulnerability.


138,600

442,352

252,010

675,656

Agriculture, f ishery& forestry

Industry sector

Service sector

Net factor incomefrom the rest of thew orld

2.5 Potential Climate Change Impacts on the Philippines

Climate change (CC) is one of the stressors to human development and the environment.Its impacts are translated to corresponding economic losses to nations across the globe.This further establishes how climate change is not only an environmental issue but also asocioeconomic concern. This section presents an overview of the potential impacts ofclimate change on the country’s economy, particularly its key sectors- agriculture, fisheryand forestry, as well as water and health.

The country’s Gross National Product (GNP) 1 is divided into four major sectors/industrialorigin; Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery, Industry sector, Service Sector and Net factorincome from the rest of the world (Figure 3.1).

Figure 2.12 2007 Philippine GNP by industrial origin (in million pesos)

Figure 2.12 illustrates the sectors comprising the country’s GDP• Agriculture, fishery and forestry represents 17 percent;• Industry (mining and quarrying, manufacturing, construction, and electricity, gas

and water) with 29 percent;• Service (transportation, communication and storage, trade, finance, private

services and government services) with 45 percent; and• Net factor income from the rest of the world with 9 percent

2.5.1 Impacts on Agriculture, Fishery and Marine Resources, and Forestry

Although the ‘Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry’ sector ranked only 3rd in terms of itscontribution to the country’s GDP as illustrated in Figure 2.12, the Labor Force Survey(LFS) conducted by the National Statistics Office (NSO) in January 2008 revealed that 35percent (or one-third) of the country’s labor force belongs to this sector. This representsthe second largest industry sector (next to ‘Services’ with 50.2 percent) and employer inthe Philippine economy. ‘Farmers, Forestry Workers and Fishermen’ comprise 18.2 percentof the overall occupation of the labor force that comes second to ‘Laborers and UnskilledWorkers’ with 31.6 percent 2

Source: http://census.gov.ph/data/nationalaccounts/index.html


2.5.1.1 Agriculture

The Philippines has a total agricultural land area of about 10 million hectares, 45 percentof which is located in the lowlands and 33 percent in the uplands. Hence, approximatelyone-third of the total area is devoted to rice crops3. Agricultural productivity may behindered by an increasing population, the spread of urbanization, lack of adequate waterresources and environmental pollution made worst by stresses of climate change4.

Rice is a staple food in the Philippines. Recently, the local news reported that the countryis facing a rice crisis. The Department of Agriculture identified 5 critical reasonsattributable to the current rice situation – [1] a supply largely affected by an increaseddemand resulting from rising population, [2] booming demand for biofuels, [3] continuousconversion of agricultural lands to non-agriculture use, [4] neglect of irrigation facilitiesand [5] climate change5. This crisis will further drive the country to import rice fromneighboring and ally countries in the next years to come.

Rice yield/production is highly affected by temperature increase. In a study conductedby the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), it revealed that an increase of 1 degreeCelsius at nighttime during the growing season, (well within the predicted range of globalwarming), would reduce global rice yields by about 10 percent every year.6

Moreover, extreme weather conditions of droughts, typhoons and floods have affectedthe rice production in the country. Historical data show that from 1970 to 1990, droughts,typhoons, and floods resulted to 82.4 percent of the total losses in rice production in thePhilippines. Very severe El Niño episode that occurred in 1982-1983 caused extensivedroughts in all parts of the country that reduced rice production resorting to the country’s

rice importation from neighboring countries7

In 1990 alone, domestic losses due to climaticconstraints amounted to US$39.2 million.8

The drought condition (El Niño) during thefirst half of 1998 severely affected not just ricebut also corn production, while strongtyphoons and floods (La Niña) during thesecond half of the same year had taken theirtoll on the same crops. El Niño weatherconditions were most pronounced in Southernand Central Philippines, while La Niña-induced typhoons affected the Luzonprovinces and parts of Eastern Visayas. ThePhilippine government declared the provincesof South Cotabato, North Cotabato, Davao delSur, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao, Sarangani,Davao del Norte, Davao Oriental, Davao City,Cotabato City, and General Santos City asamong those badly affected by El Niño. On theother hand, 26 provinces were reported to beseriously affected by La Niña: Pangasinan,


Nueva Ecija, Bulacan, Pampanga, Tarlac,Nueva Vizcaya, Isabela, Cagayan, CamarinesSur, Albay, Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao,North Cotabato, Iloilo, Bukidnon, Davao delNorte, Ilocos Sur, Negros Occidental,Zamboanga Sur, Occidental Mindoro, OrientalMindoro, Ilocos Norte, Laguna, Palawan,Leyte, and Quezon (PCARRD, 2001). 9

From 1995 to 2004, climatic aberrationslinked to droughts, floods and typhoonsdamaged a total of 4.1 million hectares ofprime rice and corn farmlands. Damages dueto four successive tropical cyclones towardsthe end of 2004 alone cost the nation anestimated Php 7,615.98 million.10 Cumulativelosses incurred amounted to P16 billion forrice farmers and Php7.2 billion for corngrowers.11

In 2007, typhoon “Goring” with internationalcodename “Wipha” hit several areas inNegros Occidental resulting to crop damagesin San Enrique, Pulupandan, Ilog, Bago City,Valladolid, Isabela, Pontevedra, La Carlotaand Murcia to 11.8 million. In Pontevedra,Pulupandan, Kabankalan, San Enrique,Valladolid and La Carlota, animal breederslost Php191,350 in goats, swine and poultry.12

In April 2008, South Cotabato was declaredunder a state of calamity after the rice pestMalaysian black bug and floods destroyedhundreds of farms.1 Malaysian black bugattacks rice stems and yam. It infests the basesof rice stems and drains them of sap causing the plants to weaken and stalks eventually die.These bugs have a maximum height of 8-9 mm and a life span of 200 days. They are capable ofproducing 680 eggs during their life span. According to IRRI, black bugs grow in rain-fed andirrigated wetland environments, continuously cropped irrigated areas, densely and poorlydrained fields. Furthermore, the staggered planting of the rice crop and excessive nitrogenfavors the buildup of the pest.

Pests are organisms that affect agricultural plants and animals in ways consideredunfavorable. Pests include weeds, and certain insects, arthropods, nematodes, bacteria,fungi, and viruses. Because climate variables (especially temperature, wind and humidity)control the geographic distribution of pests, climate change is likely to alter their ranges.Insects may extend their ranges where warmer winter temperatures allow their over-wintering survival and increase the possible number of generations per season14.


In general, current threats to agriculture include impacts of climate variability as a result of:• seasonal occurrence of droughts mainly due to El events,• high frequency and variability of occurrence of tropical cyclones and attendant

extreme rainfall and wind, and• natural variability of rainfall and extreme rainfall events15

2.5.1.2 Fishery and marine resources

The country’s fish catch is 2.222 million tons per year ranking among the 10 percent highestin the world16. Currently, the fishing industry represents 4.1 percent (2 percent decreasefrom 2007) of the country’s overall labor force. Approximately 60 percent of the populationresides within the 832 coastal municipalities17 Nearly two-thirds of the country’spopulation is concentrated in the coastal zone, which is the base for major industrial,commercial, social as well as recreational activities.18

Strong typhoons make it difficult anddangerous for fishermen to catch fish astreacherous waves can easily capsize anddestroy small fishing boats affecting livelihoodof fisher folks. Typhoons can cause extensivedamage to reefs such as the reportedexperience of the Danjugan Island in NegrosOccidental in 1980s. The Philippine reefs, 2ndlargest coral reef cover in the world19, areendowed with high coral diversity (~400species) and contribute at least 15 percent tothe total fishery production annually.20

The combined high temperature and solarradiation has a detrimental effect on the livesof corals. Coral bleaching21, the loss of colorfrom corals under stressful environmentalconditions22 is a stress response caused by highwater temperatures that can lead to coral death.23

As evidenced by the country’s experience inthe first documented mass bleaching eventin the country in 1998, it was reported thatcoral bleaching occurred in the areas ofBolinao, North Palawan, Tubbataha reefs andKalayaan Island Group.24

Climate-related attribution to coastal andmarine resources impacts is not solely toblame. Unabated human-induced disturbances(e.g. destructive fishing practices, siltation,coral harvesting) are the reasons why thecountry’s reefs are now considered to be oneof the highly threatened reefs in the world.25


Since 1983, the occurrence of red tide or pyrodinium blooms has become a health and afishery problem in the country. Red tide has been associated with increased sea surfacetemperature. Dry episode triggers the spawning of red tide while humid conditions atthe start of the rainy season provide nourishment for its further growth.26 Such occurrencesof increased duration, persistence and biological diversity of recent coastal algal blooms,and the appearance of novel, noxious species during the past two decades may be someof the first detectable signals of climate change”27

Increasing water temperature can also change the behaviors of sea creatures that can affectlivelihoods of many Filipinos. In 2007, a news article reported that General Santos (GenSan)experienced a decline in tuna trade by 80 percent. This article attributed the decrease intuna supply to the effects of global warming, arguing that the warming temperature ofwater has been driving tuna species deeper underwater making it difficult for fishermento catch them. The scarcity in tuna supply has pushed the price of the fish to as high as$1,400 per metric ton. It has also put jobs of at least 10,000 canning workers at risk.28 Inaddition, the decreasing reproduction of sea creatures caused by climate change candisrupt the food web and subsequently the balance of food chain, in the marine and entireecosystem.

2.5.1.3 Forestry

From 2000 to 2005, Forestry accounts anaverage of Php 1,159,793.667 (in millions) or0.08 percent of the GNP (at constant prices).In 2007, the forestry sector had a minimalincrease in percentage of contribution to theGNP at 0.09 percent. According to WorldBank’s 2004 Philippines Environment Report,22 percent of the country’s population livesnear forests relying on forest resources fortheir livelihood.29

Change in forest cover reveals that between1990 and 2000, the Philippines lost anaverage of 262,500 hectares of forest per year.This amounts to an average annualdeforestation rate of 2.48%30. Between 2000and 2005, the rate of forest change decreasedby 20.2% to 1.98% per year.31 In total, between1990 and 2005, the Philippines lost 32.3% ofits forest cover, or around 3,412,000 hectares.Measuring the total rate of habitat conversion (defined as change in forest area plus changein woodland area minus net plantation expansion) for the 1990-2005 interval, thePhilippines lost 7.9% of its forest and woodland habitat.32

Change in rainfall pattern may increase the rate of conversion of forest(s) to agriculturallands due to human migration from areas degraded by drought and erosion to improveproductive forest lands.33 Although forest degradation has been attributed partly to upland


farming34, and mostly commercial timber harvesting and illegal logging, forest losses canalso be attributed to extreme weather events as previously reported. To replace incomeloss during the most intense ENSO events in 1997-1998, thousands of hectares of secondarygrowth and logged-over forest were extracted35.

As forest degradation caused by unsustainable human practices and climate-relatedcatastrophes continue, natural habitats and species are also at high risk to disturbanceaffecting the environment’s natural system that could result to possible endangermentand/or extinction of flora and fauna species.

2.5.2 Impacts on water resource

The water sector, together with electricityand gas, contributes 3 percent to thecountry’s GNP under the “Industry” sector.Water is vital to run the country’s irrigationfor agriculture, residential and industrialuse. Although the country is endowed withrich water resources, the Philippines ranksamong the lowest in terms of annualfreshwater availability per capita at 1,907 m3

within South Asia.36

As of 2003, 86 percent of the total population has access to an improved water source,with 79 percent and 91 percent access in rural and urban areas, respectively.37 Of thecountry’s water resources, 63 percent of groundwater is consumed by the domestic sector,the remaining share by agriculture (17 percent), industry (13 percent), and other sectors(7 percent).38 Northern Mindanao has the lowest potential source of ground watercompared to its surface water potential while Ilocos and Central Visayas have the highestpotential. About half the population uses groundwater for drinking purposes.39

More than 2.2 million MT of organic pollution contaminate the Philippine water that isproduced annually by three main sources: domestic (48 percent), agricultural (37 percent),and industrial (15 percent) sectors40 As the current state of the country’s water supply andquality present is generally poor, the Philippine water condition is further affected byseasonal variability.

The number of occurrence and intensity of rainfall can affect the country’s water supply.In 1998 a water crisis induced by El Niño reduced water supply by 40 percent.41 It hasbeen presented earlier in the study that country’s water supply is decreasing and its qualityis degrading in different parts of the country for various reasons.

In 2003, even without the occurrence of El Niño, the Angat Dam, one of the major sourcesof water for Metro Manila and generator of hydropower to feed the Luzon Grid, recordedlow water level. The PAGASA recorded a 179.2 millimeters rainfall in the inland plains ofCentral Luzon during the fourth quarter of 2003. This is 45 percent lower than the 35-yearaverage of 342.6 mm. Such rainfall deficiency is attributed to the non-occurrence of tropicalcyclones in Northern and Central Luzon, especially in October in the same year.42


2.5.3 Impacts on health

In an economy that depends primarily on the‘Service Sector’ like the Philippines, issueson health should be dealt with great concern.Public sanitation (quality of water, land andair) affects the health of millions of Filipinos.

Climate change has direct and indirect effectson health. Directly, one near-certain outcomeof climate change is an increase in heat-relatedmorbidity and mortality, particularly inresponse to episodes of stressful weather.These health effects are not just caused byabsolute temperatures but are often combinedwith other factors like humidity and windvelocity.43 Indirectly, CC health effects arisefrom drinking contaminated water andsusceptibility to infectious diseases. The IPCC-Third Assessment Report (TAR) revealed thatthere would be a net increase in the geographicrange of potential transmission of malaria anddengue- two vector borne infections each ofwhich currently impinges on 40-50% of theworld population. More rainfall in certainareas and warmer temperatures overall areproviding optimal conditions formosquitoes—which spread the virus thatcauses dengue—to breed and expand into newterritories.44 Heat waves often exacerbated byhigh humidity and urban pollution wouldcause an increase in heat-related deaths andillness episodes affecting the elderly, sick andthose without access to air-conditioning. Non-vector borne diseases such as cholera, diarrhea caused by Salmonella, Shigella, Amoeba,Rotavirus may also be more frequent when higher temperatures and higher humidity aresuperimposed on existing conditions in the tropical Asian region.45 Water-borne and water-related diseases are also likely to become more common.46

In the Philippines, the disruption of health services and infrastructure could be contributedto change in climatic events. This was the case during the 1997-98 El Nino and the 1998 ElNina episodes. Reports from the Department of Health (DoH) reveal that several outbreaksof cholera, dengue, malaria and typhoid fever were reported in 1998 in various parts of thecountry particularly in the national capital region. One such case is the high transmission ofmalaria in the endemic barangays of Montalban, Rizal, a locality near the suburban area ofMetro Manila. As of March 8, 2008, a total of 6,653 dengue cases were monitored by DoH47. Ina news article, a warning was issued by the World Health Organization (WHO), that by theyear 2085, between 50 to 60 percent of the world’s population will be exposed to dengue


because of climate change. At the height of the El Niño phenomenon in 1998, more than35,000 Filipinos were diagnosed to have dengue. The WHO said that extreme weather affectswater and food-borne diseases, vector and rodent-borne illnesses, and food and watershortages.48 The DOH affirmed that the above-average incidence of these diseases had beendue to hot climate brought about by the El Nino phenomenon and the fairly high humidityassociated with the onset of the rainy season.

Furthermore, a reduction in crop yields and food production particularly in the tropics,will predispose food-insecure populations to malnutrition, leading to impaired childdevelopment and decreased adult activity. Each year, undernutrition kills 3.7 millionchildren, while about 1.8 million and 1.1 million die from diarrhea and malariarespectively.49

Figure 2.13 provides an overview of the state of environmental health risk that thePhilippines faces. Water shortage and surface water pollution is predominant nationwide,and Schistosomiasis is endemic in the south.


Figure 2.13 Philippine environmental health risk map

Source: World Bank’s Philippines Environment Report 2006


2.5.4 Impacts on Key Millennium Development Goals

In September 2000, leaders of 189 member states of the UN committed towards reducing povertyand the worst forms of human deprivation by adopting the Millennium Declaration whichembodies specific targets and milestones in eliminating extreme poverty worldwide whichoutlined eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that are set within 2015 to affirm andreinforce the agreements on the goals and targets reached at the global conferences of the 1990s.

Figure 2.14 below presents the links between MDGs and climate change, specificallyshowing how current efforts to reduce poverty through the MDGs will be adverselyaffected by the impacts of climate change.

Change in precipitation, run-off and variability leads to greater WATER STRESS

Increased incidence or Intensity of climate related

Disasters leads to damage toINFRASTRUCTURE

Increased temperature and Changes in precipitation

reduces AGRICULTURAL & NATURAL RESOURCES

Temperature, water and vegetation

changes contribute to INCREASED

PREVALENCE OF DISEASE

LESS SECURE LIVELIHOODS(Due to depleted social,

financial, physical, natural resource and human assets &

increased displacement of people

INCREASED HEALTH RISKS (Malaria, Dengue, Cholera,

Dysentery, Malnutrition, Exposure)

CONSTRAINED ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES (Short and

long term impacts of droughts and extreme events)

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme povertyand hunger

Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education

Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality

Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality

Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health

Goal 6: Combat Major Diseases

Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability

Goal 8: Promote Global Partnerships

Changes in mean climate,variability, extreme events

and sea level riseIncreasing vulnerability of the

poorImpacts on MDG

Source: ADB/UNDP/WB, 2002

The Philippines was among the developing countries that signed and committed to theattainment of the MDGs that seek to halve poverty by 2015. The interlinked problems ofpoverty and environmental degradation the country has been facing over the past decadesare underpinned by a flawed development model that is based on unfettered economicgrowth and wealth creation, spawned by foreign investments in mining and other resource-extractive industries, the opening up of markets, and the exportation of Filipino labor. Inthe context of climate change, these problems highlight the need for a paradigm shift thatwill reverse these trends towards an alternative path of low-carbon emissions, equitableand sustainable development.

A closer examination of the country’s attainment of its MDG targets reveals a not so rosypicture. As of 2006, the Philippines, with a current population estimated at over 90 millionthat is projected to increase by over 4 million by the year 2010,50 ranks among countries inthe Asia and the Pacific regions which are falling further behind along with Indonesia,Bangladesh, Myanmar, Pakistan and Papua New Guinea (Serrano, 2007).

Figure 2.14 Links between the Millennium Developent Goals and climate change


On eradicating extreme poverty (Goal 1), some 11 million Filipinos are believed among the1 billion across the globe living on less than $1 a day, the threshold defined as extremepoverty by the United Nations, (International Food Policy Institute).51 Of this number,7.4 million are subjacent poor (living on 75 cents to $1) and 3.6 million were medial poor(living on 50 to 75 cents).52 As of 2003, 13.8 percent of the population (10.4 percent of allFilipino families) were living below the subsistence food threshold or were food poor.This represents a decline from the 2000 figure of 15.8 percent of the population (12.3percent of families). The subsistence level or threshold was estimated at Php 8,134.00 percapita per year or Php 3,389.00 per month for a family of five members. Regions IX andXIII showed the highest percentage of food-poor population. Six regions, all in Luzon,were in extreme poverty, lower than the national average. Furthermore, in terms of overallpoverty incidence, 30.4 percent of the Filipinos (or 24.7 percent of Filipino families) wereconsidered income poor in the same year.53

Moreover, considering socio-economic factors, people living in poverty in many urbanpopulations in developing countries like the Philippines are particularly affected by heat stress.Poor housing, the urban heat island effect and the lack of air conditioning are among theprimary causes cited54 and to mention poor housing is also vulnerable to strong typhoon.

Climate change is pushing poor people further into poverty. Unpredictable weather – longerdroughts, more frequent floods, more intense hurricanes – are keeping people poor takingpeople’s crops, homes, everything they need to survive – this is called climate poverty55.

On achieving primary education (Goal 2), government’s priorities for action include: a)improving school-retention, capacity; b) improving quality; and c) improving governanceand resource allocation and utilization56. Based on the 2003 Functional Literacy, Educationand Mass Media Survey (FLEMMS), the simple literacy rate stood at 93.9 percent one ofthe highest in Southeast Asia. Across regions, the Autonomous Region of MuslimMindanao (ARMM) registered the lowest with 70.7 percent, in sharp contrast to the 99.1percent literacy rate in the NCR.57 Weather-related disasters threaten school buildings inmany poor countries. Natural disasters and drought may require children to help morewith household tasks, leaving less time for schooling. In addition, loss of employmentand other assets may reduce opportunities for education when it becomes a low priorityfollowing the loss of a home or the need to migrate following a flood, storm or drought.58

On gender equality (Goal 3), women and men experience different vulnerabilities and copewith natural disasters differently; therefore, an increase in the magnitude and frequencyof natural disasters will have different implications for men and women59. As climatechange disproportionately affects poor women, governments should analyze and identifygender-specific impacts and protection measures related to floods, droughts, heat waves,diseases, and other environmental changes and disasters. The global community shouldprioritize reducing the high levels of female mortality rates resulting from climate-induceddisasters and livelihood changes60.

On health-related issues (Goals 4, 5 and 6), many Filipinos continue to grapple with foodinsecurity. The proportion of Filipino households with per capita intake below 100 percentdietary energy requirement decreased from 69.4 percent in 1993 to 56.9 percent in 200361.The percentages of children under 5 years who are moderately or severely underweight


and the undernourished relative to the total population (age group 0-48 mos.) still remainhigh at 27.6 percent in 2003 and 19 percent in 2002, respectively. Similarly, infant mortalityrates for 0-1 year olds and under 5 years account for 41 and 34 per 1000 live births,respectively, although these figures represent a decrease from 1990 levels (MDG Report2007). Based on the latest study of the World Bank and the United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID), 27 million Filipinos have no sanitary toilets and 13million have no access to clean water. About 38 million Filipinos are afflicted with diarrheaevery year, 11,338 of whom die every year (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2008). It is ironicthough that these cases, along with tuberculosis, malaria and other illnesses are preventablein nature. In a study conducted by World Bank, provinces with an income less than Php100,000.00 have twice the incidence of diarrhea, a six times higher incidence of typhoidfever, and a 50 percent higher incidence of pneumonia as compared to those with averageincomes of over Php 200,000.0062.

As climate change affects the rate of production of food (agricultural, fishery and livestock)and water, the price of food and water is more inclined to increase. This will even morehurt poor people who cannot afford the current prices of commodities such as food fornourishment and for medical expenses. Moreover, climate change is most likely to causea decline in the quantity and quality of drinking water, which is vital for good health.

On environmental sustainability (Goal 7), one of the reasons for the widespread poverty inthe country is the mismanagement of its natural resources63. For instance, practices inwaste disposal add up to pollution. About 3.3 percent of Filipino houses are connected tosewers and most of the dirty household water, comprising about 95 percent of liquidwaste, end up polluting rivers and seas. Overall, the ability of the major ecosystems toprovide and maintain a regular stream of economic goods and ecological services in thecountry has been significantly constrained by declining stocks and reduced coverage andquality64. Sectors such as Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry have important contributionsto the country’s GDP however, the same sectors are highly vulnerable to climate change.Furthermore, many poor countries depend on tourism like the Philippines, but climatechange could destroy the beaches, reefs and coastal infrastructure on which this depends.

On global partnerships (Goal 8), the country has suffered from tremendous losses due tonatural disasters. From 1984 to 2006, losses due to these disasters averaged an amount ofUS$ 279.14 million. In the 1990s alone, losses amounted to US $493 million (computedbased on Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) data). Known to be the fourth most disaster-prone country in the world, the country’s disaster management capacity is being testedby extreme weather events, thus drawing attention from the international community forhumanitarian assistance to victims of natural disasters.

In the context of a business-as-usual scenario characterized by continued increase in GHGemissions, the driving forces of unsustainability described above will become even moreoverwhelming for the country to meet its MDG commitments. These driving forces will increasethe vulnerability of poor households and communities to climate change impacts. As predicted,this global phenomenon will exacerbate the effects of the growing environmental problemsthrough more frequent and intense typhoons and extreme climate events that will consequentlyput these poor communities at greater risk. Hence, the government must muster its resourcesand political will in order to overcome these challenges.


Endnotes1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change2 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change4 IPCC, Summary of Policymakers: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, p.25 Ibid.6 IPCC, Summary of Policymakers: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, p 117 Ibid.8 IPCC, Summary of Policymakers: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, p 119 The Philippine’s Initial National Communication on Climate Change, 1999, p.4010 Ibid.11 Medium Term Development Plan of the Philippines 2004-201012 http://www.gov.ph/news/default.asp?i=1989113 Forest land refers to the lands of the public domain which have not been declared as alienable or disposable,

public forests, permanent forests or forest reserves, forest reservations, timberlands, grazing lands, gamerefuge, and bird sanctuaries. http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno7900.htm

14 Alienable and Disposable (A&D) lands refer to those lands of the public domain which have been the subjectof the present system of classification and declared as not needed for forest purposes. Ibid.

15 Amadore, et al, 199916 Serrano, I. Social Watch Philippines, 2006, p 2617 http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/EXTEAPREGTOPENVIRON

MENT/0,,contentMDK:20266328~menuPK:3558267~pagePK:34004173~piPK:34003707~theSitePK:502886,00.html

18 Protected Areas under the Philippine law - National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS), are outstandingremarkable areas and biologically important public lands that are habitats of rare and endangered speciesof plants and animals, biogeographic zones and related ecosystems, whether terrestrial, wetland or marine.It refers to identified portions of land and water set aside by reason of their unique physical and biologicalsignificance, managed to enhance biological diversity and protected against destructive human exploitation

19 http://denr.gov.ph/section-facts-figures/PAS_04.pdf20 The World Bank is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the

world. We are not a bank in the common sense. We are made up of two unique development institutionsowned by 185 member countries—the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) andthe International Development Association (IDA). http://web.worldbank.org

21 http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/EXTEAPREGTOPENVIRONMENT/0,,contentMDK:20266328~menuPK:3558267~pagePK:34004173~piPK:34003707~theSitePK:502886,00.html

22 Serrano I., Social Watch Philippines23 World Bank: Philippines Environment Monitor 2000. p4-524 http://www.adb.org/Documents/News/2001/nr2001058.asp25 http://www.pagasa.gov.ph26 Jose, A. Climate Variability & Extreme Climate Events (ECEs) in the Philippines, 200227 El Niño and La Niña are are officially defined as sustained sea surface temperature anomalies of magnitude

greater than 0.5°C across the central tropical Pacific Ocean. When the condition is met for a period of lessthan five months, it is classified as El Niño or La Niña conditions; if the anomaly persists for five months orlonger, it is classified as an El Niño or La Niña episode. Historically, it has occurred at irregular intervals of2-7 years and has usually lasted one or two years. www. wikipedia.org

28 Greenpeace, Crisis or Opportunity: Climate Change Impacts and the Philippines, 2005, p 429 http://www.observatory.ph/vm/findings.html


30 Weather is defined as the specific conditions of the atmosphere at a particular place and time. It is measuredin terms of such parameters as wind, temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, cloudiness and precipitation.In most places, weather can change from hour to hour and season to season. http://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/cab/statfram.htm

31 http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/en/NewsInfo.asp?NewsId=549632 CRI has identified countries most affected by extreme weather events in specific time periods based on four

indicators: total number of deaths, deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, absolute losses in million US $ purchasingpower parities and losses per unit Gross Domestic Product in percent. Harmeling, 2008, GermanwatchClimate Change Index.

33 Greenpeace, Crisis or Opportunity: Climate Change Impacts and the Philippines, 2005, p 534 Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report, IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science, p 535 Greenpeace. The Philippines: A Climate Hotspot. Climate Change Impacts and the Philippines. 2007, p1036 Greenpeace. The Philippines: A Climate Hotspot. Climate Change Impacts and the Philippines. 2007, p1237 http://census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2005/lf050201.htm38 Tibig L., Responding to the Threats of Climate Change to Philippine Agriculture, Disturbing Climate, 200539 Lantin R., The Philippine Agriculture in a Changing Climate, Disturbing Climate 200140 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080412-129873/RP-Rice-price-crisis-not-

food-crisis41 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=10585842 Tibig L., Responding to the Threats of Climate Change to Philippine Agriculture, Disturbing Climate, 200543 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3Y-41P172D-&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=

&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5fa724290ca9b109eb2cb47c9d95a28b

44 Greenpeace, Crisis or Opportunity: Climate Change Impacts and the Philippines, 2005, p18-1945 http://www.philippinestoday.net/index.php?module=article&view=7946 Seasonal Climate Forecast (SFC) Project Updates, Vol.II Nos. 1&2, December 200647 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view_article.php?article_id=8994348 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20080410-129610/Rice-pests-destroy-S-

Cotabato-farms49 http://www.ciesin.org/docs/004-145/004-145.html50 Tibig L., Responding to the Threats of Climate Change to Philippine Agriculture, Disturbing Climate, 200551 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEEI/Data/20858573/Philippines.pdf52 http://ecogovproject.denr.gov.ph/docs/CRM.htm53 ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1451e/a1451e00.pdf54 Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, cited in The Philippines:A Climate Hotspot, p 655 Arceo O., et al Coral Bleachig in the Philippines, Disturbing Climate, 200156 Coral reef bleaching, the whitening of diverse invertebrate taxa, results from the loss of symbiotic

zooxantheallae and/or a reduction in photosynthetic pigment concentrations in zooxanthellae residing withinscleractinian corals. Coral reef bleaching is caused by various anthropogenic and natural variations in thereef environment including sea temperature, solar irradiance, sedimentation, xenobiotics, subaerial exposure,inorganic nutrients, freshwater dilution, and epizootics. http://www.marinebiology.org/coralbleaching.htm

57 http://www.encora.eu/coastalwiki/Coral_bleaching58 http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/problems/climate_change/coral_bleaching/

index.cfm59 Arceo H., et al, Coral Bleaching in the Philippines, Disturbing Climate, 2001, p2660 Ibid.61 The Philippine’s Initial National Communication on Climate Change, December 1999, p 5962 WHO quoted by Silberschmidt, cited in Baylon L., et al 2001, p 72


63 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view_article.php?article_id=7414464 Guillen R., et al, Commitment to a Cause vs. the Cost of our Commitment, Moving Forward with the

Millennium Development Goals: May Pera Pa Ba?65 http://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation/2000/Philippines.htm66 Ibid.67 Ibid.68 The Philippine’s Initial National Communication on Climate Change, December 1999, p 58-5969 Pulhin et al., 2006 cited in the Fourth Assessment Report70 Glantz, 2001; PAGASA, 2001 cited in the Fourth Assessment Report71 World Bank’s Philippine Environmental Monitor 200472 Water Resources Institute, 2000-2001 cited in World Bank’s The Philippine Environment Monitor Report

2004,p2873 World Bank’s Philippine Environmental Monitor 2004, p2974 World Bank’s Philippine Environmental Monitor 2004, p2975 Ibid.76 http://www.manilatimes.net/others/special/2004/jan/19/20040119spe1.html77 Ibid.78 Baylon, L., et al, Climate Change and Public Health in the Philippines. Disturbing Climate. 2001, p. 7179 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070921-dengue-warming.html80 Baylon, L., et al, Climate Change and Public Health in the Philippines. Disturbing Climate. 2001, p 7281 Baylon, L., et al, Climate Change and Public Health in the Philippines. Disturbing Climate. 2001, p 7282 http://www.gmanews.tv/story/87162/Climate-change-will-fuel-dengue—WHO-exec83 Ibid.84 http://www.gmanews.tv/story/87162/Climate-change-will-fuel-dengue—WHO-exec

Endnotes1 http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/popproj_tablr.html2 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=995683 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=995684 Second Philippine Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals, 2005, p105 Baylon, L., et al, Climate Change and Public Health in the Philippines. Disturbing Climate. 2001, p 716 http://www.oxfam.org.uk/applications/climate/index.php7 Second Philippine Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals, 2005, p 128 Second Philippine Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals, 2005, p 129 http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/2769.html10 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/Climate%20change3/$file/Gender-2.pdf11 http://www.wedo.org/files/WEDO-CWWL%20declaration%20on%20climate%20change%

20and%20gender%20equality.pdf12 Second Philippines Progress Report on the MDGs13 World Bank. Philippine Environment Monitor Report 200614 Second Philippine Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals, 2005, p 9115 Ibid.


Chapter 3Existing Policy Responses

to Climate Change

In the past decades, international negotiations to address climate change (CC) have beenviewed unpopular. Environmentalists and climate change advocates have been faced witha difficult challenge to mainstream the issues and concerns on climate change and influencepolicy makers to address climate change with urgency. However, it is quite evident nowthat world leaders have drawn more interest to climate change as global impacts of extremeweather events associated with climate change have caused massive environmentaldestruction, economic setbacks and loss of human lives.

In 2007, a Nobel Peace Prize1 was awardedto former U.S. Vice-President Albert Arnold(Al) Gore Jr., the main persona behind thecritically acclaimed climate change film, ‘AnInconvenient Truth’, and the UNIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) ‘ for their efforts to build up anddisseminate greater knowledge about man-madeclimate change, and to lay the foundations forthe measures that are needed to counteract suchchange’2. The IPCC comprises a group of2,500 international scientists, four of whomare Filipino scientists, namely, Drs. Rex Victor Cruz, Rodel Lasco, Rosa Perez and JuanPulhin This recognition has even more heightened the momentum to integrate climatechange into development policies across the globe.


Climate change is an intergenerational equity problem which may arise in the use ofplanetary resources present in three focal areas: [1] depletion of resources for future generations;[2] degradation of the quality of resources available for future generations; and [3] reduced orbarred access to the use and benefit of resources passed on from previous generations.3 This problemputs a stress in achieving sustainable development (SD).

This section presents the existing policy and institutional framework for climate changeat the global and national levels. Responses to climate change may be considered eitheras ‘action-oriented’ or ‘institution-oriented’ policies. Action-oriented policies pertain toagreements, frameworks/systems, programs and initiatives, while ‘institution-oriented’policies are those that create and/or delegate an institution/organization to administer,facilitate or conduct activities based on specific functions as part of the institutionalmandate to further climate change efforts in the international, national and local levels.

3.1 The UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol

In 1992, the UNFCCC became the basis of global efforts to combat warming when amultilateral agreement was signed by 187 nations. This Convention seeks to achieve thestabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would preventdangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The UNFCCC enteredinto force on May 21,1994, the same year thatthe Philippine Senate ratified theConvention on 2nd of August, thuscommitting the country to its provisions asa Non-Annex I Party. All country-Parties tothe UNFCCC are committed to submit theirnational communications on climate changecontaining their national GHG emissionsinventory.4

Under the Convention, governments arerequired to

gather and share information on GHG emissions, national policies and bestpractices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and adapting to expectedimpacts, including the provision of financial and technological support todeveloping countries; andcooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change5

The first national communication in conjunction with Decision 2/CP.4 of the Conferenceof Parties (COP) has recognized the need to further maintain and enhance the nationalcapacity of concerned government agencies and local experts so as not to dissipate theexperience and skills gained from the preparation of the initial national communication6.The Philippines signed the UNFCCC in June 1992 in Rio de Janeiro.


The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement under the UNFCCC. Its major featureis the binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community forreducing GHG emissions. These reductions amount to an average of five per cent against1990 levels over the five-year First Commitment Period, 2008-2012. On the other hand,developing (Non-Annex 1) countries have no emission targets on the basis that theyrightfully hold entitlements to the atmosphere that they will not forego at the cost offuture economic development. Thus, the Kyoto can be considered the first internationalpolicy on climate change mitigation11.

While the industrialized countries are required to significantly cut down their emissionsat home, the Protocol has established three emissions trading schemes or flexibilitymechanisms, to help them achieve their emissions reduction targets. These mechanismsare therefore supplemental to such obligation. These are namely:

1) Emissions trading (ET)—allows industrialized countries to buy and sell emission creditsamong themselves; domestically between governments, between companies or withincompanies. Countries where cutting emissions is cheap, or where there is greaterinvestment in controlling emissions and faster progress can sell unused credits towhere emission reductions is slower or more costly. This scheme aims to lower thecost of reaching targets for emission cuts.

2) Joint implementation (JI)—allows countries to obtain credit for emissions reductionsby investing in low-emissions technology or the development of sinks in otherindustrialized countries. Countries where emission cuts are costly can providefinancing for increased energy efficiency or renewable energy. This scheme aims toachieve emission cuts and facilitate foreign investment and technology transfer tocountries with ‘economies in transition’ to create win-win strategies for economicdevelopment and emissions reduction.

3) Clean development mechanism (CDM)—allows industrialized countries to useinvestments in sustainable development in developing countries to purchase ‘certifiedemissions reductions’ (CERs). This scheme aims to create an incentive for industrializedcountries to supply the financing and technology needed for developing countries tomake the transition to cleaner production and develop low-emissions pathways (Smith2006).

These flexibility mechanisms enable countryParties to access cost-effective opportunitiesto reduce emissions, or to remove carbonfrom the atmosphere in other countries.While the cost of limiting emissions variesconsiderably from region to region, theeffect on the atmosphere of limitingemissions is the same irrespective of wherethe action is taken12.


Furthermore, Kyoto Protocol’s objective toreduce significantly GHG emissions relativeto the needed cuts in emissions of 60-90percent by 2100 to avert dangerous climatechange remains far from reach with countrieslike the US, the largest polluter in the planet,without ratifying the Protocol. The USaccounts for almost 25 percent of the globalCO2 emissions13. On the other hand, fastgrowing/industrializing nations like Chinaand India have to take an alternative, low-carbon economic development path towardsachieving sustainability in the long-run.

For its part, the Philippine government was one of the first parties to ratify a legally bindingcommitment to address climate change, on April 15, 1998 and ratified it on November 20,2003. Being a developing country, the Philippines is eligible to engage in CDM.

The crafting of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol that constitute the global effort ofnations to combat climate change and its harmful effects was guided by one of thePrinciples adopted in the Rio Earth Summit in 1992—i.e., ‘common but differentiatedresponsibilities’ of nations.

Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration states:

“In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, Stateshave common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledgethe responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable developmentin view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of thetechnologies and financial resources they command.”7

This Principle has been the foundation for the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol’s “equityconsiderations/principles”, taking into account the historical GHG contributions of variousStates and their futuristic needs to achieve sustainable development, “recognizing thatdeveloped countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of GHGemissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, theProtocol places a heavier burden on developed nations.”8

Historically, international negotiations on Climate Change mitigation and adaptation havebeen a series of tedious debates between developed and developing countries (betweenthe “North (or the so-called Annex I) and South” (Non-Annex I) countries). While countriesof the North are historically the major sources of GHGs, the countries of the South areexpected to increase their emissions in the future.9

The 13th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-13) of the UNFCCC held in Bali, Indonesiain December 2007 was attended by over 10,800 participants around the world, including more than3,500 government officials, 5,800 representatives from the UN bodies and agencies, nearly 1,500 accreditedmembers of the media, and intergovernmental organizations and non-government organizations10.


During the Conference, the essence of common but differentiated responsibilities wasclamored by developing countries in their sound proposal for the developed countries tohave a stronger commitment to reduce their emissions and to provide more support topoor countries especially in areas on adaptation and technology transfer. However, theproposal of developing countries was diluted due to trade pressures brought byindustrialized States resulting to a failure to secure a stronger binding emission reductioncommitment from the developed countries.

On the other hand, developing countries remained having no global commitment to reducetheir emissions in the context of their “right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitablymeet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations”11. Furthermore,developing countries are even more challenged to not only rely on the funding supportof developed countries but also to establish their own fiscal mechanism to fund climatechange efforts.

Nevertheless, the Conference achieved success in the agreement to launch the “BaliRoadmap”, a negotiating process to be concluded by 2009 to feed into a post-Kyotoarchitecture that consists of the key building blocks, including adaptation, mitigation,technology cooperation and financing. This global climate regime will build on the KyotoProtocol’s first commitment period, which ends in 2012 (Table 3.1).

Mitigation activities considered

• Developed countries will report their quantifiedemission limitations;

• Developing countries will report nationallyappropriate mitigation action taking into accountsus tainable development suppor ted bytechnology and enabled by financing andcapacity building; and

• Incentives on issues relating to reducing emissionsfrom deforestation, conservation, sustainableforest management and enhancement of forestcarbon stocks.

Adaptation activities considered

• Support to implementation actions includingvulnerability assessments, capacity building andresponse strategies, integration of adaptationactions into sectoral and national planning;

• Risk management and risk reduction strategies;and

• Disaster reduction strategies Internationalcooperat ion to suppor t urgent needs ofdeveloping countries that are particular lyvulnerable to the adverse effects of climatechange.

Table 3.1 Bali action plan on the four climate change building blocks

Technology Development and Transfer

• Cooperation on research and development ofcurrent, new and innovative technology;

• Accelerate deployment, diffusion and transfer ofaffordable environmentally sound technologies;

• Improve access to sustainable resources; and• Effective mechanism and enhanced means for the

removal of obstacle to and provision of financialand other incentives for scaling up technologydevelopment and transfer to promote access toaffordable environmentally sound technologies.

Provision of Financial Resources

• Incentives for the enhanced implementation ofnational mitigation and adaptation actions;

• Mobilizing public and private sector funding;and

• Provision of financial resources and investmentto support action on mitigation and adaptationand technology cooperation.

Source: EMB


The Philippines shares common sentiments/agenda with most of the less industrializedor Non-Annex I countries. Some key agreements/decisions of significance to thePhilippines during the Bali COP 13 are the following:

On Adaptation Fund. Countries agreed on its operationalization and modalities. Thisfund is financed by a levy on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and willmake an important contribution to adaptation financing. However, much more isneeded and adequate support of developing will be key to post-2012 deal;

On Financial Resources. Two decisions were adopted, namely: a) The fourth reviewof the financial mechanism and b) Additional guidance to the Global EnvironmentFacility. The scope of review widened to include other sources of finances andinvestment flows and the additional guidance centered on difficulties encounteredby developing country Parties in accessing the fund.

On Technology Transfer. There was an agreement to access and review the implementationof the commitment for the development and transfer of technology; the establishment oftechnology development fund; and the strengthening of the mandate of the Experts’ Groupin Technology Transfer (EGTT). Specifically, the Terms of Reference for the EGTT wererenewed for the next five years. Their work programme will address technology needsassessments, technology information, enabling environments, capacity building andmechanism for technology transfer;

On Reducing Emissions fromDeforestation and Degradation .Technical and policy issues associatedwith reducing emissions fromdeforestation was addressed to supportcapacity building, monitoring, reportingand institutional needs of developingcountries. These countries now have anopportunity to participate indemonstration activities to reduceemissions, which also recognizes theneeds of local and indigenouscommunities; and

On CDM. The threshold for small scaleforestry projects was raised from 8,000to 16,000 annual CO2 sequestration; nodecision on new HFC-23 projects; nodecision on carbon capture and storage;and expansion of adaptation fund to JIunder the Kyoto Protocol negotiationtrack12.


3.2 Existing Legal, Policy and Institutional Frameworks for ClimateChange in the Philippines

3.2.1 National Development Frameworks: Avenues to Incorporate Climate Change

The issue on climate change and its integration into sustainable development (SD) arestill very much new in the Philippines. Currently, the country’s developmental policieslack incorporation of climate change in the national development frameworks in particular,the Philippine Agenda and the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP).These are critical policies that direct the country in next years to come.

As early as 1989, the Philippines crafted and adopted the Philippine Strategy forSustainable Development (PSSD), which initially identified 10 strategies for sustainabledevelopment. This was subsequently elaborated into the Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21)after the UNCED Rio Earth Summit in 1992.13 PA 21 represents the country’s national willto pursue a development approach that: 1) implies the balance of growth, equity, andecological integrity; 2) requires the operationalization of SD parameters; and 3) is bothpeople-oriented and ecosystem-based.14 It departs from traditional conceptual frameworksthat emphasize sector-based and macro concerns by promoting harmony and achievessustainability by emphasizing:15

A scale of intervention that is primarily area-based. The national and global policyenvironment builds upon and supports area-based initiatives.Integrated island development approaches where applicable. This recognizes thearchipelagic character of the Philippines which includes many small islandprovinces.People and integrity of nature at the center of development initiatives. This impliesthe strengthening of roles, relationships, and interactions between and amongstakeholders in government, civil society, labor and business. Basic sectors havean important role to play in achieving equity and managing the ecosystems thatsustain life.16

The MTPDP is the basic outline to ensure that the country’s policy strategies and programsare parallel to the President’s agenda. In the latest 2004-2010 MTPDP, the Plan did notgive much emphasis on environmental-related targets under the National DevelopmentAgenda neither any explicit mention of climate change concerns (Annex B). Nevertheless,evident in the MTPDP is the government’s strategy to tap CSOs in promoting it’s programsand targets specifically in the following areas: Forest ecosystems, Waste, Housing,Microfinance, Agriculture, Energy, Health, Youth with special needs, Empowerment ofthe poor Education, Culture, Anti-crime activities and Fight against graft and corruption(Annex C). Government’s shortcomings on the lack of resources to address the need ofthe wider population on delivering social services has been an opportunity for workingpartnerships with the CSOs. The track record of CSO’s involvement by the government tohelp facilitate social programs, is in general an indication of CSO’s existing capacity todeliver social services and establish working relations with different stakeholders.


Box 3.1 Types of Philippine legislationby the President or repassed by Congress over apresidential veto, they become laws.23

Joint Resolution—like a bill, joint resolution requiresthe approval of both houses and the signature of thePresident. It has the force and effect of a law ifapproved. There is no real difference between a billand a joint resolution. The latter generally is used whendealing with a single item or issue, such as a continuingor emergency appropriations bill. Joint resolutions arealso used for proposing amendments to the Constitution.24

Concurrent Resolutions—A concurrent resolution isusually designated in the Senate as S. Ct. Res. It is usedfor matters affecting the operations of both houses andmust be passed in the same form by both of them.However, they are not referred to the President for hissignature, and they do not have the force of law.Concurrent resolutions are used to fix the time ofadjournment of a Congress and to express the “senseof Congress” on an issue.25

Simple Resolutions—It is usually designated with P. S.Res. A simple resolution deals with matters entirely withinthe prerogative of one house of Congress, such asadopting or receiving its own rules. A simple resolutionis not considered by the other chamber and is not sentto the President for his signature. Like a concurrentresolution, it has no effect and force of a law. Simpleresolutions are used occasionally to express the opinionof a single house on a current issue. Oftentimes, it is alsoused to call for a congressional action on an issueaffecting national interest.26

Executive Agencies’ Administrative Orders—areissued by a particular executive agency in thebureaucracy most likely concerning internal agency and/or inter-agency policies or programs (e.g., DENRAdministrative No. X)Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs)—areissued by the government agencies designated the powerto promulgate such rules and regulations necessary forthe effective implementation of the provisions of laws,decrees, orders or instructions pertaining to thedepartment, bureau or office or which it is in chargedof enforcing. The IRRs are subject to the approval of thePresident.27

Executive Orders—Acts of the President providing forrules of a general or permanent character inimplementation or execution of constitutional or statutorypowers shall be promulgated in executive orders.17

Administrative Orders—Acts of the President whichrelate to particular aspect of governmental operationsin pursuance of his duties as administrative head shallbe promulgated in administrative orders.18

Proclamations—Acts of the President fixing a date ordeclaring a status or condition of public moment orinterest, upon the existence of which the operation of aspecific law or regulation is made to depend, shall bepromulgated in proclamations which shall have the forceof an executive order.19

Memorandum Orders—Acts of the President on mattersof administrative detail or of subordinate or temporaryinterest which only concern a particular officer or officeof the Government shall be embodied in memorandumorders.20

Memorandum Circulars—Acts of the President onmatters relating to internal administration, which thePresident desires to bring to the attention of all or someof the departments, agencies, bureaus or offices of theGovernment, for information or compliance, shall beembodied in memorandum circulars.21

General or Special Orders—Acts and commands of thePresident in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of theArmed Forces of the Philippines shall be issued as generalor special orders.22

Republic Acts—ratified bills by both houses of Congressand finally signed by the President enacted as Philippinelaws.House/Senate Bills—filed in the House ofRepresentatives or the Senate to be discussed and/ormentioned in the Order of Business in a particular session– presenting the interest or stand of a legislator on aparticular subject/issue. These are general measures,which if passed upon, may become laws. The vastmajority of legislative proposals––recommendationsdealing with the economy, increasing penalties for certaincrimes, regulation on commerce and trade, etc., aredrafted in the form of bills. They also include budgetaryappropriation of the government and many others. Whenpassed by both chambers in identical form and signed


3.2.2 ‘Action-oriented’ Policies that Address Climate Change

3.2.2.1 National Action Plan on Climate Change

The Philippines was one of the first countries in the world to create a National ActionPlan (NAP) on Climate Change28 The NAP, which was initially drafted in April 1997, wasfunded by the US, is a policy document aimed in determining CC-related issues andconcerns of stakeholders.29

Furthermore, NAP is a framework aimed at formulating GHG mitigation and climatechange measures as part of its thrust toward sustainable development.30 The action planis designed to integrate climate change concerns into the country’s national developmentplans and programs, develop adaptation responses to climate change impacts, and designmitigation measures which are “no regrets” in character. It also aims the various sectorsof the society to mobilize them for the implementation of the national action plan.31 Allprevious studies on climate change were consolidated through NAP and, from that time,it has taken lead in the vulnerability and adaptation studies in the Philippines.32

The prescribed mitigation measures are largely directional meant to provide guidance tosectoral agencies like the Departments of Energy, Agriculture and Trade and Industry,among others. For the energy, transport and industry sectors, the following actions areproposed under the NAP33:

1. Energy and Transformation

A Shift the energy mix towards renewable energy• Building of commercial proto-types to accumulate operating data• Least cost planning and full cost accounting• Research and technology cost trends of renewables (solar, wind, biomass,

hydro)

B. Revise Efficiency Targets• Supply-side efficiency improvements; power plants efficiency improvement;

transmissions loss reduction; replacement of coal plants with natural gascombined cycle plants

• Demand-side efficiency improvements; energy conservation, use of energyefficient technologies

• Energy-efficient designs for new buildings

Box 3.1 presents the types of legislation in the Philippines. These legislative measures areavenues to integrated climate change framework and/or initiatives. Although only thelegislative bodies enact laws and policies , CSOs may coordinate with these legislativeentities to present their positions on certain issues in their lobby efforts.


2. Transportation

A. Traffic Improvement Scheme• Development and use of efficient mass transport systems• Use/promotion of non-motorized transport modes• Emission control schemes focusing on improved fuel and vehicle efficiency• Parking facilities development by public and private sector• Improvement of road markings and signages, as well as, intersection control

B. Travel Demand Management• Traffic volume reduction measure such as the Unified Vehicular Volume

Reduction Program (UVVRP)• Road pricing or area licensing scheme for urban railway corridors (i.e. MRT

and LRT)• Staggered commuting scheme• Fuel and vehicle tax policy34

• Land use control and growth management

3. Industry• Implementation of energy efficiency measures• Promotion of energy conservation• Use of alternative non-CO2 emitting industrial processes

For the agriculture sector, the NAP proposed the following:

• Use of tubular polyethylene bio-digesters and urea-molasses mineral block asnutrient supplement in animal production

• Use of sulfate fertilizers to reduce methane emissions• Use of rice straw, water management and low-emitting cultivars• Upgrading of food storage and distribution systems• Promotion and implementation of judicious land–use planning35

3.2.2.2 The Philippine Environment Code.The Philippine Environment Code (PD No.1152) was established on June 6, 1977. ThisCode put in place specific environment andnatural resource management policies andprescribes environmental quality standards.It promotes environmental protection whichindirectly enhances resilience to climaterisks.36

3.2.2.3 The Environmental Impact Statement System of the Philippines (PD No. 1586) wascreated by virtue of the Philippine Environmental Policy (PD No. 1151) issued in June 1978.This system aimed to facilitate and maintain a rational and orderly balance betweensocioeconomic growth and environmental protection in the implementation of programs andprojects in the country. In January 1996, the President signed EO 291 entitled “Improving theEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) System” that seeks to integrate the EIS system early


into the project development cycle to promoteits ultimate function as a planning tool forsustainable development and environmentalplanning and conservation. It also encouragesthe establishment of environmental units (EUs)in all implementing agencies of government,including government-owned and controlledcorporations and government financialinstitutions, particularly those whose mandatesinclude the introduction of physical plants andinfrastructure.37 However, some critical views(NGOs/POs) claim that EIS needs to be revisedotherwise they are easily abused by privatecorporations and Transnational Corporations(TNCs).38

3.2.2.4 The Philippine Clean Air Act (RANo. 8749) was approved on June 23, 1999.This legislation promotes the participationof LGUs, NGOs, POs, the academe and otherconcerned entities from the private sector, inthe formulation and implementation of theIntegrated Air Quality ImprovementFramework - a comprehensive air pollutionmanagement and control program that prescribes the emission reduction goals usingpermissible standards, control strategies and control measures to be undertaken within aspecified time period, including cost-effective use of economic incentives, management strategies, collective actions, and environmental education and information.39

This legislation explicitly gave due concern on the effects of climate change, designatingthe DENR to promote the use of state-of-the-art, environmentally-sound and safe non-burn technologies for the handling, treatment, thermal destruction, utilization, anddisposal of sorted, unrecycled, uncomposted, biomedical and hazardous wastes40.Furthermore, its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs) include a National Plan forReduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions41 to prepare and implement a national planconsistent with the UNFCCC and other international agreements, conventions andprotocols on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.42

An important provision in this Act is the Ban on Incineration which is defined as the burningof municipal, biomedical and hazardous wastes, which emit poisonous and toxic fumessuch as dioxins and furans. This prohibition does not apply to traditional small-scalemethod of community/neighborhood sanitation ”siga”, traditional, agricultural, cultural,health, and food preparation and crematoria. Further, existing incinerators dealing withbiomedical wastes shall be phased out within three (3) years after the effectivity of thisAct. Finally, in the interim, such units shall be limited to the burning of pathologicaland infectious wastes, and subject to close monitoring by the DENR.43 This act alsoestablished an Emission Charge System to encourage the industries and motor vehicles toabate, reduce, or prevent pollution44.


LGUs are mandated to promote, encourage and implement in their respective jurisdictionsa comprehensive ecological waste management that includes waste segregation, recyclingand composting.45 This Act also identified the following as air pollutants with maximumpermissible limits: Antimony and its Compounds, Arsenic and its Compounds., Cadmium andits Compounds., Carbon Monoxide, Copper and its Compounds., Hydrofluoric Acid and FluorideCompounds, Hydrogen Sulfide, Lead, Mercury, NOx, Particulates, Phosphorus Pentoxide, SulfurOxides, Zinc and its Compounds46. It must be noted however that carbon dioxide, a dominantGHG, is not considered a pollutant under this law.

3.2.2.5 The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA No. 9003), which was approvedon January 26,200147, adopted a systematic, comprehensive and ecological solid wastemanagement program. The Program promotes policies that:

(a) Ensure the protection of the public health and environment;(b) Utilize environmentally-sound methods that maximize the utilization of valuable

resources and encourage resource conservation and recovery;(c) Set guidelines and targets for solid waste avoidance and volume reduction through

source reduction and waste minimization measures, including composting, recycling,re-use, recovery, green charcoal process, and others, before collection, treatment anddisposal in appropriate and environmentally sound solid waste management facilitiesin accordance with ecologically sustainable development principles;

(d) Ensure the proper segregation, collection, transport, storage, treatment and dis-posal of solid waste through the formulation and adoption of the best environ-mental practice in ecological wastemanagement excluding incineration;

(e) Promote national research anddevelopment programs for improvedsolid waste management and resourceconservation techniques, moreeffective institutional arrangementsand indigenous and improvedmethods of waste reduction, collection,separation and recovery;

(f) Encourage greater private sector participation in solid waste management;(g) Retain primary enforcement and responsibility of solid waste management with

local government units while establishing a cooperative effort among the nationalgovernment, other local government units, non- government organizations, andthe private sector;

(h) Encourage cooperation and self-regulation among waste generators through theapplication of market-based instruments;

(i) Institutionalize public participation in the development and implementation ofnational and local integrated, comprehensive, and ecological waste managementprograms; and

(j) Strengthen the integration of ecological solid waste management and resourceconservation and recovery topics into the academic curricula of formal and non-formal education in order to promote environmental awareness and action amongthe citizenry.48


Under this law, every barangay or cluster of barangays is mandated to put up its ownmaterial recovery facility (MRF) - where waste segregation, recycling, composting ofbiodegradable waste and storing of recyclable materials are supposed to be made.49 Since2001, a total of Php 20 million a year, or a total of Php 140 million, should have beenreleased to implement the solid waste law, Republic Act 9003.50 The EnvironmentalManagement Bureau (EMB), which is tasked to oversee the implementation of the law,has only been receiving an annual budget of Php 7 million51.

3.2.2.6 The Biofuels Act of 2006 (RA No. 9367) was approved on January 12,200752. Thismandates direct use of biofuels and establishment of a Biofuels Program that addressesthe following:

a) Develop and utilize indigenous renewable and sustainably-sourced clean energysources to reduce dependence on imported oil;

b) Mitigate toxic and GHG emissions;c) Increase rural employment and income; andd) Ensure the availability of alternative and renewable clean energy without any

detriment to the natural ecosystem, biodiversity and food reserves of the country.53

The introduction of using ethanol in the Philippines goes way back in 1985 in PD No. 2001 thatmandates the establishment of the National Ethanol Program, which directs the gradualwithdrawal of the use of tetraethyl (TEL) in gasoline in blending ethanol with gasoline beginningwith a 5 percent blend up to 20 percent blend which maximum blend is to be attained as soonas practicable but not later than 5 years from date it was approved on November 16,1985.54

However, this program, together with the rest of the programs of former President FerdinandMarcos, ceased to be fully implemented when the Marcoses were overthrown from powerduring the 1986 EDSA Revolution “People Power” phenomenon when former PresidentCorazon C. Aquino created the Presidential Commission on Government Reorganization whichsaw the need to “de-Marcosify” the bureaucracy55.

Under the recently-passed Biofuels Act, bioethanol, biodiesel and other fuels made frombiomass are covered with quality specifications in accordance with the Philippine NationalStandards (PNS)56. Although, the obvious limitation that is posed by the Act is that thespecifications in the PNS is now applicable for all biofuels, hence the challenge for theDOE in drafting the rules and regulations is to devise a better benchmark that will makepossible the use of all biofuels, at the same time keeping with industry standards.57


Furthermore, the law requires that a minimum of 1 percent biodiesel blend be sold withinthree months of its effectivity and at least 2 percent within two years58. And in order tomeet the 2 percent blend for biodiesel, the government is implementing an alternativefuel program that includes some 97,022 hectares planted to jatropha are required in 2009and 120,808 hectares in 2015.59

In January 2008, after just a year of the approval of the Act, solons were urged to review theimpact of the biofuels program on food security and global warming. Some farmers in Mindanaohave converted part of their ricelands to jatropha farming, lured by the promise of higherincomes from the shrub, known locally as tuba-tuba, that produces oily seeds.60

The Philippine National Oil Co. (PNOC) Alternative Fuels Corp.61 is looking at some 1.2million hectares as its main hub for jatropha production in Mindanao.62 The Land Bank ofthe Philippines has signed an agreement to provide PNOC Alternative Fuels Corp. withPhp 5 billion to finance the jatropha development program.63 Local governments, includingNegros Occidental and Quezon, have offered large tracts of land for jatropha production,as foreign investors have expressed interest in such ventures.64

The review on biofuels policy goes worldwide as UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon hasrecently called for a comprehensive review of the policy on biofuels as a crisis in globalfood prices - partly caused by the increasing use of crops for energy generation - threatensto trigger global instability.65

Even though biofuels are considered as a“climate-friendly” technology, the massive-scale promotion of biofuels in the countryand in the global market has beenbombarded with criticisms especially fromenvironmental CSOs that questioned its“sustainability”, its effects on the foodsupply and real benefits provided for thelocal communities.

An Oxfam’s Briefing Note (2007) entitled “Bio-fuelling Poverty, Why the EU renewable-fueltarget may be disastrous for people” haspresented how EU’s biofuels policies withregard to their growing demand for biofuelsto meet their emission reduction commitmenthas necessitated to import from developingcountries, where much more efficient biofuel

feedstocks such as sugarcane and palm oil can be grown. Besides, the debate on food security,poor people in the developing countries like Brazil and Indonesia whose governments havejoined the bandwagon of converting lands for biofuels production have had experienced socialinjustice. The chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues recently warned that60 million indigenous people worldwide face clearance from their land to make way forbiofuel plantations.66 Moreover, problems with regard to labor standards on plantations andexploitation of smallholders were also encountered.


This is to say that, proposed ‘climate solutions’ are to be studied carefully as its impact isnot just limited to environmental aspects but also has implications to socio-economicconcerns.

As emphasized earlier, the impacts of climate change are cross-sectoral. The integrationof climate change framework promoting mitigative and adaptive measures has yet to bestudied, developed, customized and/or harmonized with existing sectoral policies. Thecountry’s sectoral legislation deals with three main sectors: natural resources (forestry,fisheries, and mineral resources) management and conservation, pollution control andland use planning and management – all of which relate in one way or another to climatechange.67

3.2.2.7 In the realm of disaster risk management, the Presidential Decree (PD) 1566 andits implementing rules and regulations (IRR) were issued on 11 June 1978 mainly to providethe policies for strengthening the “Philippine Disaster Control Capability”. This decreeaims to strengthen Philippine disaster control capability by establishing a national programon community disaster preparedness. This 25-year old decree remains “the single mostextant and definitive piece of legislation governing disaster management in thePhilippines” (Alcid, et. al., 2004). Through this legal mandate, the National Calamitiesand Preparedness Plan (NCPP) was crafted in 1983. The NCPP was later revised in August

1988, along with the IRR of PD 1566.

The salient provisions of this Decree are thefollowing: 1) Emergency response is theresponsibility of local officials; 2)Organization of the local regional disastercoordinating councils (DCCs) ; 3) thepreparation of a Disaster Preparedness Plan(usually facilitated by the Office of CivilDefense (OCD), the secretariat to the NDCC;4) Conduct of periodic drills and exercises;and 5) Allocation of funds for disaster inaddition to the 5 percent of the Local

Government Code as mandated by RA 8185 (Local Calamity Fund). It covers activitiesfrom pre-disaster to post-disaster. It also includes police security, marshalling, transport,etc. The Mayor or Governor heads the DCCs in their respective areas.

In support of PD 1566, the basic disaster management legislation, other laws were enactedand put into effect. These include the following: 1) National Structural Code of thePhilippines (or the Building Code); 2) Fire Code of the Philippines; and 3) 1991 LocalGovernment Code (RA 7160). In addition, the government adopted executive orders,presidential memorandum orders, and other issuances that deal with specific disastermanagement concerns.

Other selected sectoral policies currently implemented in the country that relate to climatechange are found in Annex C.


3.2.3 ‘Institution-oriented’ Policies that Address Climate Change

3.2.3.1 The Inter-Agency Committee on Climate Change (IACCC) was created by virtueof Administrative Order (AO) No. 220 on May 1991, to coordinate various climate changerelated activities, propose climate change policies and prepare the Philippine positionsto the UNFCCC negotiations.68 The Philippines was among the first countries to set up anational committee, the IACCC, to discuss and develop positions on climate change evenprior to the establishment of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, which thennegotiated the UNFCCC69

The functions of the IACCC are as follows:Coordinate, develop, and monitor implementation of various climate changerelated activities;Coordinate representation(s) and formulated the Philippine position(s) tointernational negotiations, conferences, and meetings on climate change;Formulate and recommend climate change related policies and actions; andServe as technical committee for the review and evaluation of project proposalsfor GEF funding.70

3.2.2.8 Assessment of GEF–funded climate change and biodiversity programs in thePhilippines. Since 1992, the GEF through World Bank, UNDP, UNEP and ADB has supportedenvironmental management projects worth US$ 188.7 million in the Philippines. Most of theseprojects have focused on climate change (58 percent or about US$ 68.9 million), with a smalleramount intended for biodiversity conservation (37 percent or US$ 43.9 million). The net resultof these projects has been mixed, with some success stories, while the lack of an integrated andcomprehensive approach has spawned poor impact. On the whole, the present state of thePhilippine environment is considered to be in worse shape than before. The main cause of thisproblem is not solely related to financial resources but how and where the funds were used.The GEF evaluation yielded the following assessment points:

• “at best uncoordinated at donor, government and project levels; and at worst conflictingand competitive;

• lacking coherence in terms of policy and institutional aspects;• poorly and not integrated at all and have talen a single focal area approaches that were

heavily tilted towards climate change and biodiversity conservation; consideration ofintegrated ecosystems use and management has not been a characteristic of project designs;

• inadequately prioritized, selected and sequences in space and time; in other wordsselectivity and continuity are not evident in the activities that have been carried out overthe last 25 years;

• characterized by weak design and implementation frameworks since many have notinternalized and replicated lessons learned from older projects;

• heavily reliant on external sources of funding.”

These findings highlight the need to develop a coherent sector-wide framework that is anchoredon demonstrable prioritization, selectivity, coordination, lessons learned and a results focus.

The above experiences provide valuable lessons for the design, development andimplementation of future sustainable ENR programs, including climate change.


The IACCC is composed of 15 government agencies and a representation from the NGOs. It ischaired by the Secretaries of DENR, and DOST. Among its members are the representatives ofPAGASA, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), the Environment Committees of the twohouses of the Philippine Congress (House of Representatives and the Senate), DOE, theDepartment of Transportation and Communication (DOTC), the Department of Agriculture(DA), the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), Department of Trade andIndustry (DTI), National Mapping Resource and Information Agency (NAMRIA) ForestManagement Bureau (FMB) Department of Works and Highways (DPWH) and the PhilippineNetwork on Climate Change (PNCC) which represents the NGOs. The EnvironmentalManagement Bureau (EMB) acts as the Secretariat to the IACCC.

One of the initiatives of the IACCC is the implementation of the Philippine Climate ChangeMitigation Program (1998-2001) whose basic strategy is to slow down the growth of GHGemissions through the expanded use of clean fuels in power generation which wasconducted in partnership with the DOE.71

The Climate Change Information Center (CCIC) was established in 1999 under theClimate Studies Division of the Manila Observatory at the Ateneo de Manila Universityas a joint venture of the IACCC, DENR and DOE under the Philippine Climate ChangeMitigation Program with funding assistance from the USAID.72 CCIC, now known asKlima, represents the combined efforts of government, international and nongovernmentalorganizations and the academe.

3.2.3.2 DENR as the Designated National Authority (DNA) for Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM). The DENR was designated as the DNA on June 25, 2004 by virtue ofExecutive Order No. 320, in accordance to the ratified CDM by the Philippines. Its ImplementingRules and Regulations (IRRs) were issued in August 2005 under DENR AO 2005-17.

DENR’s basic policy as the DNA is to facilitate and promote CDM project activities that:Contribute to the UNFCCC objective of stabilization of GHG concentrations inthe atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interferencewith the climate system; Lead to the transfer of environmentally safe and sound technology and know-how; Contribute to the conservation of biological diversity and sustainable use ofnatural resources; Comply with all other pertinent laws and regulations; Provide measures to alleviate poverty; and Contribute to sustainable development.73


The DENR’s functions as the DNA are as follows:

· Formulate and develop a national CDM policy;Develop the criteria, indicators, standards and procedures, and evaluation toolsfor the review of CDM procedures;Undertake the assessment and approval of CDM projects Undertake the assessmentand approval of CDM projects that will be submitted to the UNFCCC;Monitor the implementation of CDM projects; andPerform other functions related to and in pursuance of the development of CDM.74

Box 3.2 Guiding principles of DENR as the DNA• States have right to, and should promote Sustainable Development; policies and measures

appropriate to conditions of the State;• Economic development essential to adopting measures to address climate change;• Process shall be transparent, participatory, credible, efficient and effective;• Responsive to the needs and demands of project proponents, the Government and various

stakeholders; updated regularly to meet evolving international CDM guidelines and recentdevelopments in national policies, laws, rules and regulations.

Source: IACCC Secretariat, EMB

Figure 3.1. Organizational Structure of the DENR as the Designated National Authority



Environmental Dimension

recognizes that ecological integrityis a key pillar of Philippine SD bypushing CDM project activities that:• Comply with environmental

policies and standards;• Improve local environmental

(e.g. air, water, soil) quality;and

• Promote sustainable use ofnatural resources.

Social Dimension

works toward instituting social orderbased on fairness and provision ofsupport systems that look after thewelfare of every Filipino bysupporting CDM project activitiesthat:• Provide education and

training which build thecapacities of localstakeholders;

• Provide vulnerable groupsaccess to local resources andservices; and

• Promote local participationin the project activity.

Figure 3.2 CDM approval process basic steps

Source: IACCC Secretariat

Economic Dimension

seeks to adhere to the antipovertygoals articulated in the PA21 andMTPDP by upholding projectactivities that:• Provide livelihood and other

economic opportunities in thecommunity;

• Provide proper safety netsand compensatory measuresfor affected stakeholders;

• Promote the use of cleaner,more efficient andenvironment-friendlytechnology in the sector; and

• Provide new financialresources.

Source: EMB

Table 3.2 Context of the Philippine CDM policy


Box 3.3 National approval criteria for a CDM projectPhilippine project proponents possess the legal capacity to participate in the proposed CDM project activity• Authorization is required in order to open accounts in CDM Registry• Host Party that authorizes an entity’s participation shall remain responsible for the fulfillment of its

obligations and ensure that such participation is consistent with COP/MOP decisions

The proposed project activity will assist the Philippines in achieving sustainable development• Sovereign matter• SD Criteria meaningful from a project level perspective and are in line with the Philippine Agenda 21• To select better-designed CDM projects that provide the largest sustainable development benefits for

the countrySource: EMB

Table 3.3 Status of CDM project activities in the Philippines as of February 15, 2008



Box 3.4 CDM project expensesDNA (DENR) TransactionsCDM Filing Fee : Php 600.00Processing Fee : Small Scale Project : Php 5,000.00

Regular Scale Project : Php 10,000.00* Project Design Document (PDD) Preparation : less than Php 100,000.00

* Validation Expense : USD $25,000.00(cost of transaction with the Designated Operational Entities to validate, verify and/or certify proposedCDM Project activitiesNote: * Rough estimation

Types of small-scale CDM project activities (SSC)75

Type I: Renewable energy project activities with a maximum output capacity equivalentto up to 15 megawatts (or an appropriate equivalent);

Type II: Energy efficiency improvement project activities which reduce energyconsumption, on the supply and/or demand side, limited to those with amaximum output of 60 GWh per year (or an appropriate equivalent);

Type III:Other project activities limited to those that result in emission reductions of lessthan or equal to 60 kt CO2 equivalent annually;


• Lack of a formally functional methodologicalevaluation for sustainable development criteria;

• Project participants require greater clarity tounderstand the application and provide adequatedocumentation of these criteria;

• Uncertainty in the actual achievement of CDMprojects’ stated sustainable development benefitsin the absence of monitoring or repor tingmechanisms;

• Limited resources for development of newmethodologies;

• Continuous updating of the requisite informationand baseline data remains a challenge;

• Limited awareness of specific stakeholder groupson CDM, e.g., senior policy makers and officials.

• CDM participation still dominated by a fewgroups;

• Absence of locally-based designated operationalentities;

• Lack of full-fledged human and infrastructuralcapacities to sustain operations;

• Existing CDM project activities confined to a smallnumber of sectoral scopes;

• CDM project activities not widely distributedacross the country;

• Lack of awareness of risk management measuresin case of non-/under-delivery of CERs due tonon-/under-performance;

• Limited understanding on Programmatic CDM;• Uncer tainty of status of proposed project

activities with host country approval (i.e., issued6-12 mos. ago) but have not applied forregistration or completed validation; and

• Determining legal nature of CERs, options fortaxation on revenues from CERs, subsidies forproject activities that have acquired CDM statusand CER sharing schemes;

• Uncertainty with respect to the future of CDMbeyond 2012;

• Non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by USA andAustralia undermines the principle of common butdifferentiated responsibilit ies; for Annex Icountries to take the lead;

• Lack of internationally accepted criteria fordemonstrating high sustainable developmentcontribution of a project activity to ensure thatthe DUAL objectives of the CDM are met and CERsfrom such projects with high SD benefits areaccorded first-rate values;

• Inadequate documentary evidence to support thejustification for additionality of a project activity.

• Frequent revisions of approved methodologies;and

• Small-scale project participants remain at adisadvantage in terms of CER pricing.

National Level

Table 3.4 Key issues on CDM implementationGlobal Level

Source: EMB and Smith (2006)


On the whole, the CDM experience generally reveals that the potential ‘developmentdividend’ of CDM faces the risk of being negated. As Smith (2006) argues, only a handfulof projects have been so far approved, with too much emphasis on end-of-pipetechnological fixes rather than sustainable development, and investments accrue moreon advanced countries. Small-scale, community-driven CDM projects fare less than large-scale industrial projects due to cost and lack of capacity to meet the complex requirementsfor project approval.

3.2.3.3 The Presidential Task Force on Climate Change (PTFCC) was created by virtueof Administrative Order No. 171 on February 20, 2007. PTFCC’s mandate and functionscover the following:

1. Conduct rapid assessment on the impact of climate change on the Philippinesetting, especially on the most vulnerable sectors/areas, like water, agriculture,coastal areas, as well as on the terrestrial and marine ecosystems, among others;

2. Ensure strict compliance to air emission standards and act with urgency to combatdeforestation and environmental degradation as well as apprehend violators;

3. Undertake/initiate strategic approaches and measures to prevent or reduce GHGemissions in the Philippines, including fuel efficiency, energy conservation, useof renewable energy, waste management, etc.;

4. Conduct a massive and comprehensive public information and awarenesscampaign nationwide to educate the public on the climate change situation andits adverse effects, and mobilize multi-sectoral actions on climate change;

5. Design concrete risk reduction and mitigation measures and adaptation responses,especially to address short-term vulnerabilities, on sectors and areas where climatechange will have the greatest impact;

6. Collaborate with international partners at the bilateral, regional and multilaterallevels to support a global front to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions and institutemitigating and adaptive measures, especially for developing countries;

7. Cause the integration and mainstreaming of climate risk management into thedevelopment policies, plans and programs of government; and

8. Perform such other functions as may be directed by the President.

The PTFCC is composed of the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources as Chair,with the Secretaries of the DOE, DOST, DA, and Department of Interior and LocalGovernment (DILG), with two (2) representatives from the private sector/civil society asmembers76. Organizational changes in the PTFCC occurred right after Sec. Angelo Reyeswas reappointed from Secretary of DENR (February 2006–June 2007) to being the Secretaryof Energy in August 2007. Nevertheless, Sec. Reyes managed to remain as the PTFCCChairman.


However, when the chairmanship of the PTFCC has been transferred from the DENR tothe DOE, the secretariat that provides support for PTFCC remained delegated to the DENRin accordance to AO 171. This resulted to a “communication challenge” between the PTFCCChair who is based at the DOE and the PTFCC Secretariat which is based in anothergovernment agency (DENR). Communication becomes more ‘time consuming’ as theirrespective agencies are located at far distance, especially in conducting and/or schedulingmeetings and in transmitting hardcopy/physical documents.

In terms of organizational structure, the two “lead” government agencies mandated bythe President to further climate change efforts-the IACCC and PTFCC-have similarorganizational structure, mandated functions,and composition, as shown in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 Comparison of IACCC and PTFCC’s organizational structures

As illustrated in the above charts, the common government agencies that play an importantrole in the IACCC and the PTFCC are the DENR, DOE and DOST. Looking at how theyare positioned in both organizational structures, these agencies take different lead roles/positions in both government bodies. With similar functions as the “leading agencies”that deal with climate change initiatives in the Philippines, ‘turfing issues’ and duplicationof functions of these two agencies inevitably exist and have not yet been resolved.

3.2.3.4 The Advisory Council on Climate Change Mitigation, Adaptation and Communicationwas created by virtue of DENR Special Order No. 2007-653 on September 25, 2007.77


The Council’s objectives are as follows: Advise and recommend policies to the DENR and the IACCC pertaining to climatechange mitigation, adaptation and communication; Review proposed Philippine Positions on certain issues considered by theUNFCCC-COP; Identify and assess vulnerabilities and propose courses of action on climate changemitigation and adaptation for implementation in all levels; Engage all sectors in the dissemination of climate change mitigation andadaptation information; and Perform other relevant/related functions and activities as may be determined bythe Chairman.78

Other tasks of the Council are to constitute a Secretariat to assist in its functions andactivities; and create Expert Groups whenever necessary. Funding for the Council shallcome from the EMB.

The composition of the Council is as follows: Chair Sec. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., Co-Chair Sec.Heherson T. Alvarez and among the members are Dr. Angel C. Alcala, Sr. Maria AidaVelasquez, OSB, Dr. Ramon J.P. Paje, Dr. Antonio G.M. La Viña, Dr. Ben S. Malayang IIIand Dr. Jose T. Villarin, S.J.79

Based on the functions of the Council, the intervention of the Council’s climate changeinitiatives focuses within the DENR and the IACCC.

Other significant institution-orienteddevelopments that relate to climate change

The Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) was established onSeptember 1,1992 through EO No.15 to oversee the implementation of the country’scommitments under the Rio Summit. The Council coordinated the formulation andoversees the implementation of the Philippine Agenda 21, the broad and sectoralenvironmental blueprint for the Philippines80.

Composition of the PCSD:NEDA Director-General as Chairperson, and the DENR Secretary as Vice-Chairperson

The Council’s members are from the following departments of a position ofBureau Director or higher, duly deputized to represent their respectiveSecretaries: Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of Science andTechnology, Department of Finance, Department of Agriculture, Departmentof Public Works and Highways, Department of Education, Culture and Sports,Department of Labor and Employment, Department of Health, Department ofTrade and Industry, Department of the Interior and Local Government,Department of Social Welfare and Development, Department of Budget andManagement, Department of National Defense and Office of Energy Affairs. 81


As civil society counterpart, there are seven 7 representatives from the non-governmentcommunity in the Council based on this mandate. These representatives are selected bythe non-government community considering commitment to environmental causes, genderbalance, and sectoral representation through a process designed by them82. Currently,there are five organizations from the NGO community in the PCSD.

PCSD’s action agenda at the level of ecosystems consists of strategic and catalyticinterventions covering the following ecosystems and critical resources:

1. Forest/upland ecosystems2. Coastal and marine ecosystems3. Urban ecosystems4. Freshwater ecosystems5. Lowland/agricultural ecosystems6. Minerals and mines7. Biodiversity

Climate change is not explicitly stated in thePCSD’s action agenda. Nonetheless, climatechange impacts cut across the areas statedabove.

Unfortunately however, since 2005, the PCSD has remained inactive despite the craftingof an enhanced PA 21 document for approval of NEDA. Many CSOs consider this as asetback to vigorous efforts of CSOs at moving the process forward in order to build onthe gains achieved earlier in the localization efforts of PA 21 to put the country on thepath of sustainable development.

On the local level, the Local GovernmentCode of 1991 (Republic Act 7160) is one ofthe vital legislation to mainstream climatechange efforts to reach the local communi-ties. This Act empowers the LGUs with sub-stantial political and administrative pow-ers.83 LGUs are mandated to ‘continue toprepare their respective comprehensive landuse plans (CLUPs) enacted through zoningordinances which shall be the primary anddominant bases for the future use of land resources’84 under Executive Order No. 7285,“Providing for the Preparation and the Implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plans ofLocal Government Units Pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991 and Other PertinentLaws”. CLUPs take into consideration the requirement for food production, human settle-ments and industrial expansion.

Furthermore, Republic Act 7160 emphasizes the role of POs and NGOs in the realm ofgovernance expressed in three sections of Chapter 4 of this law entitled “Relations withPeople’s and Nongovernmental Organizations”.


SEC. 34. Role of People’s and Non-Governmental Organizations. LGUs shall promotethe establishment and operation of people’s and nongovernmental organizations tobecome active partners in the pursuit of local autonomy.

SEC. 35. Linkages with People’s and Non-Governmental Organizations. LGUs mayenter into joint ventures and such other cooperative arrangements with people’s andnongovernmental organizations to engage in the delivery of certain basic services,capability-building and livelihood projects, and to develop local enterprises designedto improve productivity and income, diversify agriculture, spur rural industrialization,promote ecological balance, and enhance the economic and social well-being of the people.

SEC. 36. Assistance to People’s and Non-Governmental Organizations. A localgovernment unit may, through its local chief executive and with the concurrence of thesangguniang concerned, provide assistance, financial or otherwise, to such people’sand nongovernmental organizations for economic, socially-oriented, environmental,or cultural projects to be implemented within its territorial jurisdiction.

3.2.3 Financing of Climate Change Initiatives at the Global and National Levels

3.2.3.1 Financing Climate Change at the Global Level

Bilateral and Multilateral Agencies

Given the relatively low budgetary allocation for the keysectors that are climate-sensitive such as environment andnatural resources, health and agriculture, the governmentwill rely heavily on external funding, specifically, bilateraland multilateral sources.,Bilateral assistance programs are comprised mainly ofgrants provided by developed country governmentsthrough their official development assistance (ODA)programs. Given the climate debt owed to developing (orthe so-called Non-Annex I) countries by high GHG emittingdeveloped (or Annex I) countries, and as mandated byUNFCCC, funding support for climate change projects inNon-Annex I countries should be over and above the ODAcurrently being provided by developed countries. DENR(2006) revealed that multilateral sources of funding are theUnited Nations organizations including UNDP, UNFCCC,UNEP, and FAO; Asian Development Bank, EuropeanUnion, Global Environment Facility (GEF), among others.

UN funding mechanisms consist of the GEF, AdaptationFund and Thematic Trust Funds. As mandated by UNFCCCand the Kyoto Protocol, GEF funding covers the SpecialClimate Change Fund and the Least Developed Countries


Fund. Adaptation Fund is financed through the 2 percent levy on CDM projects. Lastly,the Thematic Trust Funds cover the Energy Trust Fund, Millennium Development GoalFund (MDGF) and the MDG Carbon Facility.

As mentioned earlier, since 1992, the GEF through World Bank, UNDP, UNEP and ADBhas invested about US$ 118.7 million for environmental management in the Philippines.Most of these projects have focused on climate change (58 percent or about US$ 68.9million), with a smaller amount earmarked for biodiversity conservation (37 percent orUS$ 43.9 million).

In 2005, the GEF established its Resource Allocation Framework designed to strengthenthe existing coordination mechanism among concerned government agencies in definingthe parameters for prioritization and specific priority projects on climate change andbiodiversity and protected areas. Under this framework, the Philippines has been allocatedUS$ 8 million for its climate change activities over a period of four years from 2006 to2010. Half of this amount (or US$ 4 million) needs to be expended within the first twoyears, and the balance over the next two years.

The World Bank, along with regional development banks have developed fundingmechanisms and programs that seek to contribute to the global effort at curbing climatechange. Many CSOs argue that these institutions are the prime purveyor of a developmentparadigm and financing of specific projects that actually exacerbate climate change.

The World Bank currently funds oil and gas industries in the amount of some US$ 1billion per year and growing, contributing largely to global warming. In 2006, oil, gasand power commitments represented 77 percent of its total energy program. Aninsignificant 6 percent was earmarked for “new renewables” such as wind, solar and mini-

hydro (Friends of the Earth Position paper, 2008).

Recently, the World Bank proposed to set up a US$ 5-10billion Climate Investment Fund which will purportedlyfinance ‘urgent climate change challenges’. Ironically, thisfund dwarfs the amount of US$ 450 million originallypledged by developed countries in 2001 in Marrakesh tosupport adaptation measures of these countries yearly. Ofthis amount, only US$ 180 million has been made availableso far. As mentioned earlier, Oxfam estimates thatdeveloping countries will need US$ 50 billion annually tofinance their adaptation measures. Hence, the putting upof CIF has stirred a controversy among civil society groupsas it is largely viewed to undermine the on-goingnegotiation process for the post-2012 global climate policyregime.

Fossil Fuel Industry

Fossil fuel companies have also used their massive wealthto support individuals and groups to try to discredit the


science of climate change, distort the costs of action and put roadblocks to efforts toimplement measures to mitigate it. In 1999 alone, oil, gas and coal companies disbursednearly US$ 70 million lobbying politicians and officials in the US. Between 1992 and 1998,oil, gas and coal companies spent nearly US$ 63.4 million to the two US political partiesand in 2000, US$ 64 million was channeled to such groups. This funding has accordedfossil fuel companies political access and influence necessary to hamper efforts to mitigateclimate change (Retallack, 2001).

For the corporations and governments that sell fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas, whichtogether account for 56 percent of world energy supply, the expected profits are higherthan in almost all economic activities. From revenues of US$ 232.7 billion, the oil and gasgiant ExxonMobil generated profits of US$ 17.7 billion in the year 2000, more than anycorporatin has ever made. Over the next decade, it is allocating US$ 100 billion to exploreand develop new oil and gas fields (Retallack, 2001).

Philanthropic NGO Funding Sources

Funding currently available for NGOs involved in climate change is measly compared to otherdevelopment initiatives. For instance, in 1999, 800 of the largest US foundations provided atotal of US$ 11.5 billion in grants. But of this amount, only US$ 45 million were channeled toinitiatives to address climate change, representing 0.39 percent of the total grants. This fundingis no match to the advertising campaigns of the world’s largest oil companies (BP Amoco,Exxon, Mobil, Texaco and Shell) which spent more than five times this sum (Retallack, 2001).

3.2.3.2 Financing Climate Change at the National Level

National Government Budget Allocation for CC-Related Sectors

The national budget is one of the most significant legislative measures that Congress hasto enact annually as it embodies the priority thrusts and programs of the government.Over the years, the occurrence of weather or climate-related events such as typhoons andflooding has been generally viewed as opportunities for disaster response and reliefoperations rather than as an imperative of longer-term adaptation to the climate/disasterrisks. More often, pressing development issues such as poverty reduction, economicdevelopment and environmental degradation are given greater attention than the issueof climate variability and extreme events.

As pointed out earlier, developing countries like the Philippines generally have lowcapacity to adapt to climate change impacts due to lack of financial, institutional andtechnological resources86. The national government budget clearly reflects this inadequacy.

Table 3.5 presents at a glance how this national budget is divided among departments andspecial programs. Notably, the discrepancy between the relative shares of the Environmentand Natural Resources (ENR), Health, Social Welfare and Development, and the Agricultureand Fishery to the total budget is too glaring as compared to that of the country’s foreign debtservicing, which got the lion’s share of the national budget at 25.3 percent.


Table 3.5 2008 Summary of New Appropriation (Republic Act No. 9498)Department 2008 Appropriations Percentage

Congress of the Philippines 6,042,952 0.566Office of the President 5,204,928 0.488Office of the Vice President 176,941 0.016Agrarian Reform 2,323,717 0.217Agriculture 3,198,643 0.300Budget and Management 826,612 0.077Education 138,243,515 12.96State Universities and Colleges 19,638,337 1.841Energy 443,559 0.041Environment and Natural Resources 8,117,844 0.761Finance 6,979,478 0.654Foreign Affairs 10,186,536 0.955Health 19,769,690 1.854Interior and Local Government 53,241,927 4.993Justice 6,285,143 0.589Labor and Employment 6,271,776 0.588National Defense 50,927,127 4.776Public Works and Highways 94,728,959 8.884Science and Technology 5,410,084 0.507Social Welfare and Development 4,848,513 0.454Tourism 1,643,161 0.154Trade and Industry 2,485,417 0.233Transportation and Communication 20,818,581 1.952National Economic and Development Authority 1,726,779 0.161Office of the Press Secretary 840,285 0.078Other Executive Offices 4,537,938 0.425Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao 8,331,452 0.781Joint Executive-Legislative Council 1,626 0.0001The Judiciary 10,274,798 0.963Civil Service Commission 509,495 0.047Commission on Audit 3,803,311 0.356Commission on Elections 4,282,485 0.401Office of the Ombudsman 953,627 0.089Commission on Human Rights 214,269 0.020Budgetary Support to Government Corporations 12,502,743 1.172Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Program 23,343,840 2.189Allocation to Local Government Units 21,007,905 1.970AFP Modernization Program 5,000,000 0.468Agrarian ReformCalamity Fund 2,000,000 0.187Contingent Fund 800,000 0.075DepEd-School Building Program 2,000,000 0.187E-Government Fund 1,051,000 0.098International Commitments Fund 1,908,084 0.017Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund 41,003,698 3.845

continued on next page...


continuation of Table 3.4 2008 Summary of New Appropriation (Republic Act No. 9498)Department 2008 Appropriations Percentage

National Unification Fund 50,000 0.004Priority Development Assistance Fund 7,892,500 0.740Pension and Gratuity Fund 59,991,491 5.626Tax Expenditures FundDebt Service Fund - Interest Payments 269,847,000 25.30Unprogrammed Fund 114,492,091 10.73Grand Total 1,066,179,857Source: http://www.dbm.gov.ph/gaa2008/Disk%2038/SUM2008.pdfNote: Percentages were computed

Specifically, the ENR sector only had a measly share of 0.66 and 0.76 percent for 2007 and2008, respectively, of the total national budget. This nominal allocation undeniably mirrorsthe low priority being given to this sector. The government continues to pay lip service tothe imperative of ensuring the country’s environmental sustainability. At the centerpieceof the government’s economic program is the revitalization and strengthening of themining industry which the government hopes to bail the country out of poverty and othereconomic problems. Hordes of poor local and indigenous communities are in constantstruggle over their displacement from their livelihoods and ancestral domains even asthey frustratingly invoke the provision of ‘prior and informed consent of communities’under the Mining Act of 1995. The grim spectre of massive landslides and floodingspawned by large-scale open-pit mining and degraded forest cover looms large as the illeffects of climate change will exacerbate the growing problem of environmentaldegradation.

Over the past years, the government has been under-spending for basic social services. Interms of health care spending, the Philippines has the lowest investment on health as comparedto other countries (WHO). Although there has been an increase in the trend from 2004 to 2007,its health budget remains lower than its 2002 level. For 2008, the health budget only comprised1.8 percent of the total national budget. Likewise, based on the Manasan study, the budget forbasic education which had a resource gap of Php 32 billion on top of the proposed budget for2007 was less than 3 percent of the Gross National Product (GNP), whereas UNESCOrecommends at least 6 percent of GNP (Social Watch, 2007).

Agriculture comprises about one-third of the country’s labor force. However, its share tothe gross domestic product (GDP) decreased from one-fourth in the early 1980s to lessthan 20 percent in 2000. Growth of this sector can be generally characterized as erratic,but productivity is declining. Given that poverty incidence among agricultural householdsis about four times that of the rest of the population, a sustained increase in productivitywill certainly pluck poor farmers out of the poverty cycle. As Social Watch (2007) argued,although the Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) has been designedto improve the lot of poor farming communities, its target budgetary allocation was notmet. The additional allocation of Php 20 billion (on top of the regular DA budget) for thefirst year of implementation and Php 17 billion for the succeeding years, nevermaterialized. And despite the promised infusion of additional infrastructure funds inagriculture, it never veered away from highly intensive and environmentally damagingtechnologies to more sustainable production practices.


Hence, even with a supposed additional funding under AFMA of Php 23 billion, a budgetallocation of Php 3.1 billion for this sector for 2008 (or 0.3 percent of the total nationalbudget) will be too small to make a positive impact on building the resilience of the poorfarmers to climate risks.

Moreover, science and technology, which plays a crucial role in the development of appropriatemitigative and adaptive technologies, has been earmarked a budget of Php 5.4 billion or 0.51percent of the total national budget. The problems of insufficient funding and lack of properincentive schemes for the country’s scientists and researchers has consequently resulted in therecent exodus of government meteorologists out of the country to seek ‘greener pastures’ abroad.This then dampens the overall government’s capacity to develop and implement effectivemeasures for climate forecasting and adaptation.

The country’s debt has increased almost four-fifths of the value of its domestic production.Actual total debt service in 2004 (principal and interest payments) was 68 percent of thetotal National Government cash disbursements. Debt service averaged 7.7 percent of GDPfrom 1986 to 2004 or a total of Php 184.534 billion in interest and principal87. Debt serviceratio was targeted to increase from 12.3 to 17.4 percent in 2000 and 2004 respectively.88

For 2008, annual debt servicing alone consumes one-fourth of the national budget. Thegovernment’s debt-driven fiscal management puts the country deeper into the povertyand debt trap. This growth-oriented policy anchored on the notion that poverty will bealleviated through sustained economic growth as opposed to sustainable developmentwill not prosper as the country’s scarce resources will be invested in development projectssuch as large-scale commercial mining that will eventually erode its social, economic,financial and natural capital. Debt repayments for onerous and illegitimate debts such asthe mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant Project that cost the Philippine government afortune (i.e., about a few billions of pesos) without even producing a single kilowatt ofelectricity, should be reviewed and rescinded to favor environment and climate-friendlydevelopment projects.

Table 3.presents historical data on the country’s public expenditures based on its keythrusts and priorities.


Table 3.6 Trends in Philippine public expenditure, 2006-2008 (In thousand pesos)Particulars 2006 2007 2008

Amount % Amount % Amount %

ECONOMIC SERVICES 372,284,033 27.41 470,349,093 31.72 525,068,143 34.88Agriculture, Agrarian

Reform & NaturalResources 54,992,193 4.05 88,982,635 6.00 77,317,069 5.14

Trade and Industry 6,800,796 0.50 9,044,486 0.61 4,931,306 0.33Tourism 3,072,688 0.23 3,951,344 0.27 3,188,904 0.21Power and Energy 122,981,197 9.06 133,867,222 9.03 181,822,735 12.08Water Resources

Development and FloodControl 12,022,315 0.89 11,905,572 0.80 19,010,634 1.26

Communication, Roads,and other Transport 100,473,386 7.40 128,946,046 8.70 132,231,141 8.78

Other Economic Services 35,532,248 2.62 53,301,208 3.59 64,232,004 4.27Subsidy to LGUs 36,409,210 2.68 40,350,580 2.72 42,334,350 2.81SOCIAL SERVICES 326,792,741 24.06 327,294,962 22.07 356,094,700 23.65Education, Culture, and

ManpowerDevelopment 144,226,498 10.62 164,102,683 11.07 181,855,836 12.08

Health 15,665,921 1.15 21,879,969 1.48 26,538,646 1.76Social Security, Welfare,

and Employment 57,385,869 4.23 58,429,745 3.94 69,263,605 4.60Housing and Community

Development 67,716,892 4.99 26,610,974 1.79 21,411,162 1.42and Distribution 2,662,758 0.20 4,264,562 0.29 4,127,075 0.27

Other Social Services 1,055,733 0.08 7,788,159 0.53 5,228,286 0.35Subsidy to LGUs 38,079,070 2.80 44,218,870 2.98 47,670,090 3.17DEFENSE 51,395,914 3.78 54,642,922 3.68 61,612,803 4.09Domestic Security 51,395,914 3.78 54,642,922 3.68 61,612,803 4.09GEN. PUBLIC SERVICES 222,847,795 16.41 228,871,912 15.43 247,494,986 16.44General Administration 64,184,283 4.73 61,170,884 4.13 63,032,718 4.19Public Order and Safety 63,849,304 4.70 64,905,098 4.38 73,313,843 4.87Other General Public

Services 5,545,588 0.41 6,818,170 0.46 7,844,455 0.52Subsidy to LGUs 89,268,620 6.57 95,977,760 6.47 103,303,970 6.86TOTAL PRODUCTIVE

EXPENDITURES 973,320,483 71.67 1,081,158,889 72.91 1,190,270,632 79.07INTEREST PAYMENT 310,104,000 22.84 318,185,000 21.46 295,751,000 19.65FINANCIAL SERVICES 74,582,926 5.49 83,525,881 5.63 19,346,762 1.29GRAND TOTAL 1,358,007,409 1,482,869,770 1,505,368,394 Source: www.dbm.org.ph, Note: percentages were computed

It can be gleaned from the above table that for 2008, much of the government spendinggoes to the economic sector, accounting for 34.8 percent, followed by social services at23.65 percent and then general public services at 16.44 percent.


Under the economic sector, public spending on power and energy got the highest share,representing 12.08 percent, which is a huge jump from 9.03 and 9.06 percent in 2007 and 2006,respectively. This is followed by ‘Communications, road and transport’ at 8.78 percent, then‘Agriculture, agrarian reform and natural resources’ at 5.14 percent, which represents a declinefrom 6.0 percent in 2007. A more disaggregatedfigure for these sectors is needed to gain a betterunderstanding of their actual share to the totalpublic spending.

Under social services, ‘Education, cultureand manpower development’ yielded 12percent of the total, representing a slightincrease from 11.07 and 10.62 percent for2007 and 2006, respectively. This is followedby Social security, welfare and employmentat 4.60 percent, then defense which is at parwith domestic security at 4.09 percent.

Notably, however, the expenditure level forhealth services is way below at 1.76 percent ofthe total. Its increases from the previous years(2007 and 2006) were just minimal at 1.48 and1.15 percent, respectively. The low governmentspending for this sector matches its lowbudgetary allocation, confirming thegovernment’s low priority for this sector. In thecontext of climate change, this sector will playan important role in view of the projectedincrease in the incidence of vector-and water borne diseases such as dengue and malaria.

Commercial Financing Institutions

At the national level, financing institutions such as the Development Bank of thePhilippines (DBP) and the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) are now directly involvedas financial intermediaries for CDM projects. For its part, DBP’s role is to facilitate theefficient and effective flow of financial resources from climate change or CDM-basedinvestors of developed countries to local project proponents of carbon emission reductionor carbon sequestration projects through provision of financial, technological andindustrial expertise and resources. Potential CDM projects include the following: newand renewable energy, rural electric cooperatives, solid waste management, clean fueltransport, fuel switching and efficient lighting initiatives. In addition, potential adaptationprojects cover housing, health, micro-finance and small and medium enterprises.

Under this initiative, DBP initially explored supporting three bundled projects that wouldgenerate 15,000 tons of CO2 equivalent per year which would translate to about US$ 150,000per annum in additional income to project developers.


Similarly, LBP has a Climate Change Framework Loan to support investments in renewableenergy and energy efficiency. It has secured financing support from the EuropeanInvestment Bank in the amount of up to Eur 50 million.

Other local commercial banks are now also being drawn into this CDM (or carbon trading)market. However, while these banks also cater to small-scale projects using the concept of‘bundling,’ the accessibility and availability of their CDM loan portfolios to small-scale,community-based initiatives that deliver sustainable development still remains to be seen.

- - - o 0 o - - -

Footnotes1 The Nobel Peace Prize is regarded by far as the most prestigious prize in the world in the disciplines of

Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize2 http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/3 La Viña A., North and South, States and Communities: Reflections on the Global CC Negotiations.

Disturbing Climate, 2001, p 984 IACCC Secretariat, Environmental Management Bureau5 http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php6 IACCC Secretariat, Environmental Management Bureau7 http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm8 http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php9 La Viña A., North and South, States and Communities: Reflections on the Global CC Negotiations.

Disturbing Climate, 2001, p 9810 Goco, J. 13th Session of the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC, 200811 Principle 3 of the Rio Declaration, 199212 Goco, J. 13th Session of the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC, 200813 Merilo, Ma. G, IACCC, EMB Addressing Climate Change and the CDM: The Philippine Initiatives. 13th

Asia-Pacific Seminar on Climate ChangeMiyazaki, Japan14 http://www.psdn.org.ph/agenda21/rio001.htm15 http://pcsd.neda.gov.ph/pa21.htm16 http://pcsd.neda.gov.ph/pa21.htm17 http://www.chanrobles.com/administrativecodeofthephilippines.htm18 http://www.chanrobles.com/administrativecodeofthephilippines.htm19 http://www.chanrobles.com/administrativecodeofthephilippines.htm20 http://www.chanrobles.com/administrativecodeofthephilippines.htm21 http://www.chanrobles.com/administrativecodeofthephilippines.htm22 http://www.chanrobles.com/administrativecodeofthephilippines.htm23 http://www.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp24 http://www.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp25 http://www.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp26 http://www.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp27 http://www.chanrobles.com/presidentialdecrees/presidentialdecreeno1603.html28 http://www.klima.ph/policy.html29 http://www.whrc.org/policy/climate_change/ALApdf/ALA-05-PHILIPPINES.pdf30 http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/workshops/other_meetings/application/pdf/asuncion.pdf31 http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/workshops/other_meetings/application/pdf/asuncion.pdf32 http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/trofcca/_ref/asia/reginfo/adapt_stud.htm&mn=trofcca_0_1

33 http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/workshops/other_meetings/application/pdf/asuncion.pdf34 Ibid.35 Ibid.36 Lasco, R., Philippines Policies in Response to a changing climate: A review of natural resource policies

www.searca.org/web/e_library/event_materials/Biodiversity2008_paper_Lasco.pdf37 http://www.psdn.org.ph/agenda21/rio001.htm38 PHILNET-WSSD, 2001 cited in http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/measure_sdsip_philippines.pdf39 http://www.chanrobles.com/philippinecleanairact.htm40 http://www.chanrobles.com/philippinecleanairact.htm41 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 8749 http://www.chanrobles.com/

philippinecleanairactrules.htm42 http://www.chanrobles.com/philippinecleanairact.htm43 http://www.emb.gov.ph/laws/air%20quality%20management/ra8749-clean%20air%20act.pdf44 http://www.chanrobles.com/philippinecleanairact.htm45 http://www.chanrobles.com/philippinecleanairact.htm46 http://www.chanrobles.com/philippinecleanairactrules.htm47 http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno9003.htm48 http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno9003.htm49 http://www.manilatimes.net/others/special/4004/aug/24/20040824spe1.html50 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080604-140672/Solid-Waste-Law-still-not-

funded-or-enforced51 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080604-140672/Solid-Waste-Law-still-not-

funded-or-enforced52 http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno9367.html53 http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno9367.html54 http://www.chanrobles.com/presidentialdecreeno2001.htm55 Alfiler, Ma. C, Philippine Administrative System, 1999, p5756 Laurente, J. Politics, Policies and Climate Change, Intersect, April-June 2007 Issue,p3157 Laurente, J. Politics, Policies and Climate Change, Intersect, April-June 2007 Issue,p3158 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080115-112396/Solons-urge-review-of-

Biofuels-Act59 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080115-112396/Solons-urge-review-of-


Biofuels-Act61 PNCO Alternative Fuels Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the state-owned Philippine National Oil

Company (PNOC). http://www.pnoc-afc.com.ph/faq.php62 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080115-112396/Solons-urge-review-of-



Biofuels-Act65 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/05/biofuels.food66 http://mwcnews.net/content/view/14507/235/ cited in http://www.oxfamsol.be/nl/IMG/pdf/

Biofuels_briefing_note_FINAL_301007.pdf67 Lasco, R., Philippines Policies in Response to a changing climate: A review of natural resource policies

www.searca.org/web/e_library/event_materials/Biodiversity2008_paper_Lasco.pdf

68 The Philippines’ Initial National Communication on Climate Change, 1999, p1469 Muller B., Philippine Policymaking and the UNFCCC, Disturbing Climate, 2001, p.10370 IACCC Secretariat, Environmental Management Bureau71 http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/measure_sdsip_philippines.pdf72 http://www.klima.ph/about-us.html73 EMB74 EMB75 http://www.unfccc-int76 Administrative Order 17177 http://nccca.org.ph/denr.pdf78 IACCC Secretariat, Environmental Management Bureau79 Ibid.80 Dalupan, M.C., Policy and Legal Responses to the Challenges of Climate Change Disturbing Climate ,

2001, p 8481 http://pcsd.neda.gov.ph/pcsd.htm82 http://pcsd.neda.gov.ph/pcsd.htm83 Alfiler, M.C., Philippine Administrative System, 1999, p 25184 http://www.chanrobles.com/executiveorders/1993/executiveorderno72-1993.html85 EO No. 72 was approved on March 25, 1993, http://www.chanrobles.com/executiveorders/1993/

executiveorderno72-1993.html86 Tibig, L. Climate Change in the Philippines, presented at the PTFCC Strategic Planning Conference

April 15-16 2008, SEAMEO Innotech, Quezon City87 Second Philippine Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals, 2005,p 112,

List of References1. Friends of the Earth Position Paper, 2000. Bali, Indonesia2. Social Watch (2007) Alternative Budget for 2007. Quezon City


Civil society is defined as the ‘politically active popular sector: non-governmentorganizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs) and other cause-oriented groups and politicalorganizations. Collectively, they form the organized base of citizen’s movements pushing a reformagenda into the mainstream of public policy or reorganizing society around a radical vision’.1

The role and rights of people’s organizations are being recognized in the Philippines underthe 1987 Constitution. As stated in Article XII,

‘Section 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people’s organizations toenable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, theirlegitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means’.

People’s organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstratedcapacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership,membership, and structure.

Section 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonableparticipation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall notbe abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultationmechanisms’.2

In the Philippines, NGOs first emerged as private foundations geared towards communitydevelopment and subsequently evolved into key players in the international and nationalarena to mainstream advocacy for policy reform. (Table 4.1)

Chapter 4Climate Change-Related Initiatives

of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)in the Philippines


4.1 Profile of Participants

This section presents the various initiatives/activities of CSOs directly or indirectly relatedto climate change. As discussed in the previous section, this study utilized surveyquestionnaires for the respondents to accomplish. Most of the questions in the surveyquestionnaires were provided with possible answers/options that respondents chose from.The respondents were also provided with blank spaces on which to write the appropriateanswers not included in the list of options that were generally categorized under ‘Others’.

Overall, a total of 118 survey forms were distributed to respondents representing PNCCmember-organizations, their partner NGOs and POs as well as academic/researchinstitutions from the three major regions of the country. The study retrieved a total of 74accomplished survey questionnaires, with Visayas representing the highest number with32 (43 percent), followed by Mindanao with 22 (30 percent) and then Luzon with 20 (27percent).

Table 4.1 Seven phases in the evolution of Philippine NGOsPeriod Theme Developments

Pre-1965 Antecedents of NGOs Relief, rehabilitation and welfare; private foundationsemerged; beginnings of cooperativism and communitydevelopment

1965-1972 Social Activism “First quarter storm” as indicator of social crisis, triggeredemergence of radical movements among peasants and urbanpoor; Church shifted approach to total human liberation

1972-1978 Political Repression underMartial Rule

NGOs became alternative means for delivering social servicesto disadvantaged sectors

1978-1983 Expansion Phase Repression continues, international support comes in and allowsNGOs to go into indigenous people’s rights, ecological andwomen’s causes

1983-1986 NGO and Mass Movement Aquino assassination ushered parliaments of the street, POsand NGO work expanded with support and strategicpartnership with foreign partner, NGOs participated in EDSArevolt

1986-1992 Painful Transition NGOs recognized as key players with more funding support,NGOs proliferated, upscaling through networks, advocacy forpolicy reform

1992-1996 Maturation and Renewal Changes in international and national scenes, NGOs more opento “mainstreaming” advocacy shifts, electoral related reforms

Source: (Alfiler:1999)


Figure 4.1 illustrates the regionaldistribution of respondents whoreturned the survey questionnaires on‘Mapping of CSO’s Climate ChangeInitiatives in the Philippines’.

Majority of the respondents thatreturned the survey questionnaires arefrom Visayas representing 43 percent ofthe study sample, followed byMindanao and Luzon with 30 percentand 27 percent, respectively.

20

32

22

LuzonVisayasMindanao

Figure 4.1 Regional distribution of participants

Table 4.2 Breakdown of study samples

Sectors Luzon Visayas Mindanao Total

Non-Government Organization 14 25 19 58

People’s Organization 2 6 1 9

Academe 3 1 2 6

Church 1 0 0 1

Total 20 32 22 74


Table 4.3 Designation of respondents in their organizations

Designation/Position Luzon Visayas Mindanao Total

Administrative Officer 1 1

Administrator 1 1

Advocacy Head 1 1

Advocacy Officer 1 1

Assistant Director 1 1

Asst. to the President on

Environmental Concerns 1 1

Board of Directors 2 2

Board of Director-Chairperson 2 2

Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 1 1

Board of Trustees (BOT) -Chair 1 1

BOT- Member 1 1

Chairman 7 4 11

Community Organizer 1 1

Consultant 1 1

Convenor 1 1

Coordinator 1 1 2

Director 2 2

Executive Director 2 5 7 14

Faculty 2 2

General Manager 1 1

Head of Operations 1 1

Managing Director 1 1

Officer in Charge 1 1

Planning Officer 1 1

President 1 2 1 4

Program Coordinator 1 2 3

Provincial Chairperson 1 1

Program Officer/Project Coordinator 1 1

Secretariat 1 1 2

Secretary 1 1

Secretary General 1 1

Social Senior Development Officer 1 1

Spokesperson 1 1

Staff 1 1

Team leader 1 1

Volunteer 1 1

No answer 4 1 5


4.2 Brief Description of Key Research Parameters Used on ClimateChange-Related Initiatives of CSOs

This survey questionnaire was structured to cover ten (10) key parameters of the researchas follows:

• Identified CC-related initiatives (Activities, Thematic/Sectoral Areas of Work, and PartnerGroups)

In this study, CC-related initiatives of CSOs were categorized in the following key thematicareas or sectors:

Sustainable Agriculture–refers to agricultural systems and practices that make use oflow-external to full organic inputs. An example is the system of rice intensification(SRI), a rice farming cultural practice that involves early transplanting, wide spacingand single plant a hill, intermittent irrigation and therefore less water use, three orfour times weeding in a cropping cycle and use of organic compost (Serrano, 2008);Forest Resource and Biodiversity Conservation–refers to the protection, rehabilitation,conservation of forest and biological diversity resources;Ecological Waste Management–involves the promotion of the 3Rs, namely, reduction,recycling, and re-use of municipal wastes;Costal Resource Management–is a participatory process of planning, implementingand monitoring sustainable uses of coastal resources through collective action andsound decision-making (DENR/DA/DILG/CRMP, 2001);Other Crosscutting Measures–these include disaster risk reduction, integration ofadaptation strategies into local development plans, vulnerability and adaptation(V&A) assessment, gender and development, among others. Disaster risk reductionis defined as the broad development and application of policies, strategies andpractices to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout society, throughprevention, mitigation and preparedness (Twig 2004). V&A assessment involves anassessment of current and future climate risks and the coping measures andmechanisms adopted by local communities. Gender and development represents aperspective that seeks to link gender analysis of vulnerability to policies, programs,measures and actions and the need to ensure participation of women in decision-making processes and actively securing their access to power and resources(‘empowerment’);Sustainable Energy Development–activities related to energy development, energyconservation and energy efficiency; andSustainable Transportation–involves the promotion of environment-friendly modesof transportation covering land, water and air.

• Geographic coverage of CC-related initiatives. Respondents were asked to describe theirrespective geographic coverage based on the following: local, national or both local andnational.

• Accounting gender sensitivity of CC-related initiatives. Respondents were asked to accountgender sensitivity of their CC-related initiatives by checking Yes or No and to identifyinto which areas of work the gender dimension is incorporated;


• Level of priority accorded to different ‘Functional Areas of Work’. Respondents wereasked to rate their organization’s level of priority given to different areas of work using ascale of 1-5, with 1 being the lowest and 5, being the highest. These areas are the following:awareness building and education, community-based projects, community organizing,advocacy and networking, resource mobilization, technology development, lobbying andpolicy research.

• Sector which usually initiates the CC-related activities. Respondents were asked to identifyspecific sectors which usually initiate CC-related initiatives. These sectors are thefollowing: NGOs, POs, LGU, academe, church, donor agencies, corporate sector and thevoluntary market.

• Stage of the project cycle at which the project partners are involved. Respondents wereasked to identify at what specific stage of the project cycle the partner organizations havebeen involved. These stages are planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.

• Organization’s performance in the different functional areas of work. Respondents wereasked to rate their organization’s overall performance in the above-mentioned functionalareas of work using a scale of 1-5, as follows: 1=Poor, 2=Satisfactory, 3=Good, 4=VeryGood, and 5 =Excellent.

• Results/effects/outcomes of CC-related initiatives. Respondents were asked to identifytheir perceived results/effects/outcomes of their CC-related initiatives, which are asfollows: Ensuring environmental protection, Improvement of social/community cohesion,Improvement of gender relations, Policy and program formulation, Increasing productivityand income and institutional reform.

• Ability of the existing organizational mechanisms to ensure long-term sustainability ofCC-related initiatives. Respondents were asked to rate the ability of their existingorganizational mechanisms to ensure long-term sustainability of CC-related initiatives.

Box 4.1 Meaning of some statisticalterms used in the study interpretation

Frequency refers to the number of timesrespondents that identified/mentioned aparticular answer/item.

Mean refers to the ‘average’ of overallanswers given by the respondents in allregions in rating particular item.

Standard deviation, is a measure thattells how spread/distributed answers of therespondents are resulting to the conclusion ofeither respondents answers are varied/mixed/diverse or somewhat the same/close.The nearer to zero the standard deviation is,the more homogenous the answers/responsesare given in a particular item.

These are as follows: Project development,planning, monitoring and evaluation; Resourcemobilization, Organizational management (i.e.,human and financial resources and institutionalsustainability), Stakeholders relations withdifferent sectors, namely, the government, otherCSOs, the academe and the corporate sector.

• Ability of the organization to ensure equitablesharing/distribution of benefits amongstakeholders. Respondents were asked to ratethe ability of their organization to ensureequitable sharing/distribution of benefitsamong stakeholders, including the following:local government, non-governmentorganization, people’s organization, academe,church and donor agency.


Most responses in the survey questionnaire were tabulated by region (Luzon, Visayasand Mindanao) for purposes of comparative analysis. Statistical analysis was employedon certain items, where applicable. Computation of the mean and standard deviation andanalysis of variance (ANOVA) were applied to items with rating instructions.

4.3 Analysis of Climate Change Initiatives of CSOs

This section presents the results of the survey focusing on the different research parametersas defined in the previous section.

Figure 4.2 Distribution/number of CSOs engaged in each thematic area or sector

MindanaoVisayasLuzon

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Sustainable Transportation

Sustainable Energy Development

Other Crosscutting M easure

Coastal Resource M anagement

Ecological Waste M anagement

Sustainable Agriculture

Forest Resource & B iodiversity Conservation

Figure 4.2 shows that climate change initiatives of CSOs from Mindanao, Visayas andLuzon cut across all themes or sectors. In general, 95 percent of the CSOs from the threeregions are engaged in forest resource and biodiversity conservation, 78 percent insustainable agriculture and 68 percent in ecological waste management. These are the top3 themes/sectors in which CSOs are mostly involved. This trend is also consistent foreach region’s top 3 most identified themes/sectors. Similarly, from the three regions, theleast number of CSOs are engaged in sustainable energy development (46 percent), Othercrosscutting measures (38 percent) and sustainable transportation (16 percent).


Box 4.2 CSOs’ top 10 climate change initiatives1. Reforestation (45)2. Promotion of organic/diversified farming and new

least-cost technologies (43)3. Composting of organic waste (39)4. Improvement of rice cultivation techniques (e.g.

reduction in inorganic fertilizer in chemicalapplication; conversion of rice stalks straw intoorganic fertilizer using enzymes to speed updecomposition) and livestock and manuremanagement to reduce methane emissions (38)

5. Conservation of biodiversity (e.g., establishment ofmarine protected areas) (32)

5. Recycling and waste minimization (32)6. Restoration of natural forest using indigenous

species (31)

7. Change in agricultural management practices(e.g. water impounding dams and improvedwater management, etc.) (30)

8. Development and use of new and existing riceseed varieties in agriculture that are drought,flood, saline/salt water and pest resistant (28)

9. Adjustment of cropping patterns on land use toweather changes (27)

9. Choice of crop variety and grazing technique(e.g. to increase soil carbon storage) (27)

9. Restoration of cultivated peaty soils anddegraded lands (27)

9. Restoration of natural forest (27)10. Improved forest management (26)10. Species conservation (26)


Figure 4.3 Initiatives of CSOs on sustainable agriculture

Legend:A Promotion of organic/diversified farming and new least-cost technologies (43)B Improvement of rice cultivation techniques (e.g., reduction in inorganic fertilizer in chemical application;

conversion of rice stalks straw into organic fertilizer using enzymes to speed up decomposition) andlivestock and manure management to reduce methane emissions (38)

C Change in agricultural management practices (e.g., water impounding dams and improved watermanagement, etc.) (30)

D Development and use of new and existing rice seed varieties in agriculture that are drought, flood,saline/salt water and pest resistant (28)

E Adjustment of cropping patterns on land use to weather changes (27)F Choice of crop variety and grazing technique (e.g., to increase soil carbon storage) (27)G Restoration of cultivated peaty soils and degraded lands (27)H Improvement of nitrogen fertilizer application techniques to reduce nitrous oxide emissions (17)I Planting of fire breaks (9)J Improvement of energy efficiency (8)K Others (diversified crop-animal integrated farming system; improved cook stove, high quality charcoal

and tree lot farming and energy plantation, improved kiln of high quality charcoal and vinegar qualitycontrol system (organic rice); use of renewable energy for irrigation system; testing of GE rice; promotionof DIFS using natural farming technology system)

0

10

20

30

40

50

A B C D E F G H I J K


The succeeding figures show the regional distribution of initiatives/activities in thedifferent sectors listed in the survey.

Figure 4.3 shows that for sustainable agriculture, CSOs from the tree regions are mostlyengaged in the promotion of organic/diversified farming and new least-cost farmingtechnologies, reduction in inorganic chemical fertilizer application, improvement of watermanagement and the development and use of new rice seed varieties particularly thosethat are resistant to pest, drought, flood and salt water. Surprisingly, diversified cropanimal-plant integrated farming systems and the use of renewable energy for irrigationsystems are the least identified initiatives to achieve sustainable agriculture.


Box 4.3 Promoting sustainable agriculture: SRI-Pilipinas projectPilipinas also provides capacity building training on howto produce organic and botanical foliar fertilizers andbotanical insect repellants. Aside from increasingfarmer’s yield, Sipag Palay, as a type of organicfarming, also ‘heals’ the soil from extensive chemicalinputs through effective pacing to recondition and allowthe soil to recover its natural productivity to attain high-level of productivity and long-term soil and environmentprotection. By using organic inputs it also promotesenvironmental recovery from pollution and protection.Likewise, organically produced food is proven to behealthier and safer.

PRRM’s partner people’s organizations (POs) - theKalikasan Nueva Ecija and Save the Ifugao Rice TerracesMovement (SITMO) - are among the pioneers whichadopted the SRI/Sipag Palay technology in their farmswith success stories to share. Inspired by the successstories of small groups of farmers engaged in SRI, moreand more POs are now rethinking their old farmingways and beginning the appreciate the benefits of theSRI/Sipag Palay technology.

The project has already reached 49 provinces (70municipalities and 75 barangays). Some of the majorareas covered by the project are the rice-producingprovinces where PRRM is currently operating, namely:Nueva Vizcaya, Nueva Ecija, Bataan, Quezon, Cavite,Camarines Sur, Camarines Norte, Albay, NegrosOccidental, North Cotabato and Camiguin.

In 2001, the Philippine Rural ReconstructionMovement (PRRM), in partnership with the Departmentof Agriculture, explored the possibility of adopting theSystem of Rice Intensification (SRI) with the aim ofincreasing agricultural productivity and income amongsmall farmers in the country through the promotion ofsustainable agriculture. This joint project called SRI-Pilipinas was subsequently launched in the same year.

The SRI or Sipag Palay, which is now called the SRI-Pilipinas project, is a method of increasing the yield ofrice produced in farming while decreasing farm cost orinputs by using organic fertilizers and pesticides. SRI isa farming technology invented in 1983 by the FrenchJesuit Father Henri de Laulanie in Madagascar. Basically,SRI has the following central principles:

1. Rice field soils should be kept moist rather thancontinuously saturated, minimizing anaerobicconditions, as this improves root growth andsupports the growth and diversity of aerobic soilorganisms;

2. Rice plants should be spaced optimally widely topermit more growth of roots and canopy and tokeep all leaves photosynthetically active; and

3. Rice seedlings should be transplanted whenyoung, less than 15 days old with just two leaves,quickly, shallow and carefully, to avoid trauma toroots and to minimize transplant shock.

4. Use of organic fertilizers and pesticides to revivethe soil’s natural productivity and prevent it fromgetting arid and acidic, thereby also ensuring thesoil productivity in the long run.

Although, some farmers are hesitant to take therisk of leaving their chemical-based and conventionalfarming ways, SRI-Pilipinas continues to attract morefarmers nationwide as its results not only lowers thecost of production but also increases rice yield up to50 percent.

The SRI-Pilipinas project is an education campaignfor rice farmers about the SRI technology. PRRM SRItainors/experts are being sent to farming communitiesto conduct training and mass education campaigns. SRI-


Figure 4.4 Initiatives of CSOs on forest resource and biodiversity conservation

LegendA Reforestation (45)B Conservation of biodiversity (e.g., establishment of marine protected areas) (32)C Restoration of natural forest using indigenous species (31)D Restoration of natural forest (27)E Improved forest management (26)F Species conservation (26)G Planting of prospective trees against rockfalls in mountain environment (planting of fast growing trees to

prevent soil erosion and rockfalls) (25)H Avoided deforestation (20)I Afforestation (8)J Use of forestry products for bioenergy to replace fossil fuel use (e.g., wood chips from fast growing trees) (7)K Harvested wood product management (e.g., carbon storing) (4)L Others (environmental care advocacy; habitat restoration rescue and captive breeding on endangered

species; responsible mining; SWC/SALT)

On Forest Resource and Biodiversity Conservation, reforestation, establishment of marineprotected areas, and restoration of natural forest using indigenous species are the mostpopular activities. However, to ensure the sustainability of these projects, initiatives onenvironmental care advocacy and related issues have yet to be developed.

0

10

20

30

40

50

A B C D E F G H I J K L

Mindanao

VisayasLuzon


Box 4.4 Paralegal training video modules on forest protectionBatangas, Legaspi and further in Baguio. Ownreplication of videos is free for non-profit purposesonly. The success of this project has been primarilyattributed to ULAN’s collaboration with key NGOs suchas FPE and PRRM and partner POs organized in thoseorganized communities. These modules currently run onlyin Tagalog will be translated and replicated to alsocarry the Ilocano and Bisaya dialects in the near future.Furthermore, the project will be carried out to educatethe people on several other important laws such as theFisheries Code and the Violence Against Women andChildren Act.

ULAN, which was established by environmental legalpractitioners in 2003, believes that environmental issuesmust be discussed in the context of human rights and itsbroader implications on poverty and injustice. ULAN’sactivities are comprised of pro-bono legal services,policy advocacy, research and capacity-enhancementamong chosen communities.

In carrying out its projects, ULAN aims to harnessthe people’s participation towards communityempowerment that is based on law, development andpolicy reform. By promoting community stewardship,local communities turn into stewards of balance in theirown natural surroundings.

As early as 1930, the Philippine government hasalready been implementing forestry laws with the aimof restoring, protecting, conserving the country’sdwindling forest resources. However, the country’sreforestation efforts at 80,000 hectares a year areoutperformed by the deforestation rate. Being aperennial problem, deforestation has lost one third ofthe country’s entire forest cover from 1990 to 2005. Itis predicted that by 2010, “less than seven percent ofvirgin and second growth forests will be left. And by2025, there may be no more Philippine forests to speakof at all.”

To enhance awareness and imbue properconservation values among upland dwellers, theUpholding Life and Nature, Inc., more commonly knownas ULAN, a non-government organization, producedtwo video modules about “Paralegal Training on ForestProtection.” The project aimed to support community-based law enforcement through capacity-buildingefforts. This kind of popular education throughproduction of video modules was chosen by ULAN as itis easily replicable and efficient in terms of time, costand human resources.

Two thirty-minute videos on the enforcement of lawsfor the protection of tropical forests show administrativeprocedures on illegal logging cases and specialenvironmental laws related to forest protection. The firstvideo illustrates simple and easy-to-learn tips on howto spot and document for evidence the violationscommitted even by valid permittees who engage inillegal logging (e.g., cutting beyond allowable limits).On the other hand, the second video focuses on specialforestry laws and is complementary to the first one. Not only did both videos serve as a guide in prosecutingviolators of forestry laws but they also enhanced theknowledge of local communities on these laws.

In 2007, these educational videos were distributed ina span of six months to 2,000 households in Manila,Cebu, Cagayan de Oro and Baguio. Likewise, theFoundation for the Philippine Environment (FPE), an NGOwith a similar thrust with ULAN, invited the latter to alsodistribute these videos in the cities of Dagupan,


Figure 4.5 Initiatives of CSOs on coastal resource management

LegendA Establishment of mangrove reforestation project (22)B Establishment of marine protected areas (17)C Establishment of shoreline protection measures (e.g., sea walls, rock walls, breakwaters, etc.) (7)D Relocation of affected communities to better settlement areas (7)E Raising of levees on rivers (2)F Others (actual planting; litigation; monitoring and evaluation protocols on ICU and CRM; monitoring

research)

Figure 4.5 shows that the top two initiatives on coastal resource management beingundertaken by CSOs from the three regions are the establishment of mangrove reforestationprojects and the setting up of marine protected areas. However the raising of levees onrivers is the least prioritized initiative of CSOs from Visayas and Mindanao, and notidentified at all by CSOs from Luzon.

0

5

10

15

20

25

A B C D E F

Mindanao

Visayas

Luzon


Box 4.5 GOLDEN (Governance and Local Development) landscapes and seascapesSurigao del Sur is a haven for a significant number

of species of plants and animals. In fact, the province iscovered with forests and watersheds, comprising 76%of its entire land area. Among the most importantseascapes and landscapes here are Lanuza and Cortes.These two municipalities were chosen to benefit fromthe Haribon Foundation’s GOLDEN Landscapes andSeascapes, wherein the acronym stands for Governanceand Local Development.

The Golden Landscapes and Seascapes is a Haribonprogram that originated from a need to adopt a localintegrated approach on the management of forests andcoastal areas. The program aims to enhance themanagement of resources and sustainable developmentin the aforementioned municipalities. The program isthe first of its kind in the country being implementedfrom Oct 2007 to Oct 2009.

The program is essentially an IEC campaign,educating the natives of these communities on theirsignificant role as direct guardians of their own naturalresources. GOLDEN Landscapes and Seascapes taughtthe beneficiaries on how to handle external pressures(i.e. from government leaders and businessmen, amongothers), what possible responses and feedbacks theyare capable of giving as well as in monitoring theidentified forest and seascapes resources they have.The participants were taught basic research proceduresand given intensive training on Biodiversity AreaMonitoring System (IBAMS).

The implementation of the project was not withouthurdles to overcome. Among these were some resistancefrom commercial loggers; the slow and bureaucraticinstitutionalization of funding from within the LGUdevelopment projects; as well as minor internalmisunderstandings between these LGUs and partnerpeople’s organizations in these communities. Despitethese constraints, the program has now scaled to greaterheights by instilling among the Lanuza and Cortescommunities a better understanding of the impacts ofthe project and facilitating capacity building for thesecommunities.

Moreover, the current success of this project can beattributed to the positive response of the Manabos andthe Mamanwas and the local experts on Forestry andFisheries. Also, the LGUs of these communities were alltogether participative as they have financial contributionfor the project. But the most important component ofthis success can be attributable to Haribon’s existingrelationship with the local communities. Haribon is knownfor advocating biodiversity and the conservation ofnatural resources through community empowerment andscientific excellence. It has implemented a marinepreservation project in the same communities in 2002.

Success of this project is manifested through activereforestation in the communities; a conscious effort topreserve indigenous species of trees and the marinelife; the institutionalization and full implementation ofevery integrated approach learned by the participantsof the program—until the locals become fully capableof guarding their own natural wealth and the beautyof these two communities are entirely restored of theirgolden landscapes and seascapes.


Figure 4.6 Iinitiatives of CSOs on ecological waste management

LegendA Composting of organic waste (39)B Recycling and waste minimization (32)C Controlled waste water treatment (6)D Landfill methane recovery (2)E Others (2) (biogas; ecological waste management training)

Figure 4.6 reveals that on ecological waste management, the composting of organic wasteand the minimization and recycling of waste are the top two initiatives undertaken byCSOs from the three regions, while landfill methane capture and biogas production arethe least identified initiatives.

05

1015202530354045

A B C D E

Mindanao

Visayas

Luzon


Box 4.6 War against waste: the Mother Earth Foundation wayMother Earth Foundation’s efforts have been

instrumental in the establishment of nearly 1,000 MRFsin different parts of the country. Many of thecommunities it has trained have gained recognition asmodels in ecological waste management and havewon national awards. However, with 42,000 targetbarangays, there is a long way to go. To advance itsadvocacy for zero waste and a healthy environment,the Foundation is also engaged in lobbying for soundenvironmental legislation and policies, and the properenforcement of environmental laws.

The Philippines is looming with garbage problemsdespite the passage of the Ecological Solid WasteManagement Act of 2000, otherwise known asRepublic Act (RA) 9003. Although the law mandatesthe closure of all open dumps in February 2004 andall controlled dumps in February 2006, data from theNational Solid Waste Management Commission showthat there are still 677 open dumpsites, 343 controlleddumps, and 21 landfills in the country. An additional307 dump sites are subject to closure andrehabilitation but without definite schedules forenforcement. About 215 more landfills are proposedto be setup nationwide.

Waste materials dumped into these sites generategreenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methanethat greatly contribute to global warming, introducetoxic pollutants into the environment, and eventuallyalter the natural order of life.

Since 1998, Mother Earth Foundation has waged anationwide campaign to help local government units toimplement the RA 9003. The Foundation seeks tofacilitate a paradigm shift towards a “zero waste”lifestyle, empower barangays to become self-reliantthrough holistic environmental education and communityparticipation, and take a position consistent withsustainable ecological laws, policies and issues, whilemaintaining smooth and harmonious relationships withall project stakeholders.

The Foundation trains communities, schools, villages,towns and cities all over the Philippines on how toreduce and manage waste so that it brings no harm topublic health and the environment, and does notexacerbate climate change. These trainings result in theestablishment of Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) orEcological Centers consisting of a composting area forbiodegradable waste, and a storage facility for cleanand segregated non-biodegradable discards which aresold to junk shops or recyclers. Resource recovery anddiversion of waste from dumpsites are maximizedthrough the Foundation’s livelihood training, whichteaches communities how to make marketable productsout of discards that junk shops do not buy.


Figure 4.7 Initiatives of CSOs on sustainable energy development

LegendA Solar energy (13)B Small hydropower (11)C Wind energy (9)D Improved supply and distribution efficiency (8)E Improved cook stoves (8)F Geothermal (4)G Large hydro (3) (policy advocacy)H Nuclear power (2) (policy advocacy against nuclear power)I Natural gas (2)J Early applications of carbon capture and storage (CCS, e.g., storage of removed CO2 from natural gas) (1)K Fuel switching from coal to gas (1)L Combined heat and power (1)M Waste to energy (6)N Others (biogas from priggery wastes; energy conservation (2); bi-annual “shut-down”; energy efficient

kitchen; green charcoal livelihood; versus nuclear power; hydraulic ram pump

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N

M indanaoVisayasLuzon


Box 4.7 Improving livelihood and the quality of life in Mindanao through community-basedrenewable energy systems

sustainability is ensured by training the locals to becomecapable of running the facilities themselves as well asfinancially contributing to the operations andmaintenance of the system to sustain the project.

While it is the UNDP Global Environment Facility (GEF)Small Grants Programme and the Global Village EnergyPartnership (GVEP) International GAP Fund which provided70% of total funding, the LGUs matched it with a 10%counterpart funding, the community, with another 10%,and individual households, 5-10% in order to realize theproject. Nevertheless, sustainability is ensured as the micro-hydropower facilities can be considered an income-generating project. All the identified beneficiarycommunities increase their capacity, not only to better lifeconditions, but also in generating income through theopportunities brought about by the project.

Meanwhile, the solar-powered water pump hasbenefited the B’laan households of Sitio Amgu-o in Brgy.Landan, Polomolok, South Cotabato of potable waterthat has relieved everyone from the daily fetching ofwater from the spring. Households now have a moreconvenient access to water for drinking, cooking, washingclothes and bathing from the installed pumping systemright at the heart of the community through a networkof eight tap stands. And more importantly, sanitationand reduction of water borne-diseases especiallyaffecting the children can now be expected to lessen.

“I am very happy that the water is here. “Manythanks to God that he sends Yamog as an instrument sothat our long time dream of having water climb up herefrom the source became a reality. Thanks to the GreenEmpowerment, and the GVEP International for their kindassistance.” expressed an elderly Mrs. Sandag, an activemember of the local organization.

“You are not only bringing water to this village– whichis an essential improvement in our living conditions; youare restoring our pride by showing that people fromfar away care about their condition – even though ourgovernment doesn’t,” expressed Pastor Nonobert Malit,the Project coordinator and a respected tribal leader inSitio Amguo.

The communities played a key role in building theplant and the agricultural processing facilities, investing

The Philippine Power Development Plan (PDP) for theperiod 2005 to 2014 foresees power shortfall in thecountry if the government cannot put up more powergenerating plants within the next few years. The PDPemphasizes the problem of insufficient allocationparticularly for Mindanao, which is expected to increaseits demand in the coming years, to boost the region’seconomic performance.

Many people living in villages especially in the Southerngrid of Mindanao still await the electrification in their far-flung communities. Initiatives on the ground by YamogRenewable Energy Development Group, Inc. (Yamog), anon-government organization, in partnership with the localcommunities, and other people’s organizations (POs) havefocused on the implementation of a micro-hydro powerproject and a solar-powered water pump in the villagesin Bukidnon and South Cotabato.

In Brgy. Dumalaguing in Impasug-ong, Bukidnon; SitioTablo in Brgy. Lemdalag, Lake Sebu, South Cotabato,communities shifted from petrol-based kerosene lightingto electricity generated from the micro-hydropowerproject wherein children can now extend their study hoursuntil nighttime. Furthermore, the milling facility for corn,rice and coffee, which consumes 25KW of micro-hydropower, has made work easier for farmers.

“The multipurpose milling allows our communitymembers to have our products milled in the community.Before, we used to mill our corn and rice in the commercialmill, about eight kilometers away and we spend for thetransportation and the milling cost. So we are verythankful…” says Datu Mimi, a Higaonon and Chairmanof the Dumalaguing Tribal Association.

Moreover, the T’boli women loom weavers can nowincrease their outputs because of extended productivity.Hilda Ugay, a T’boli expert on traditional loom weavingsays that before electricity came to them, she could onlyweave during daytime. But now, she can weave and bemore productive during nighttime.

The micro-hydro power project runs March 2006-August 2008. It has helped 375 households or 1,875indigenous people in the aforementioned villages toenhance their own livelihood opportunities and incomegeneration. Yamog, the KAANIB Foundation, Inc. and theLAYAG Health and Women Development believe that continued on page 108... Yamog


Figure 4.8 Initiatives of CSOs on sustainable energy development (sub-sector: industry)

LegendA Efficient lighting and day lighting (19)B More efficient electrical appliances and heating and cooling devices (9)C Improved insulation (6)D Passive and active solar design for heating and cooling (6)E Alternative refrigeration fluids, recovery and recycle of fluorinated gases (2)F Solar water heater for street food vendors to disinfect eating utensilsG Others (solar water heater for street food vendors to disinfect eating utensils)

LegendA Material recycling and substitution (10)B More efficient end-use of electrical equipment (8)C Heat and power recovery (3)D Wide array of process-specific technologies. (3)E Control of non-CO2 gas emissions (2)F Against mining (2)

Figure 4.9 Initiatives of CSOs on sustainable energy development (sub-sector: buildings)

0246

81012

A B C D E F

Mindanao

Visayas

Luzon

0

5

10

15

20

A B C D E F


Figure 4.7 shows that the development of solar energy, small hydropower and wind energyare the top 3 initiatives in Mindanao, Visayas and Luzon with the Visayas taking the lead.The development of newer technologies such as carbon capture and storage, fuel switchingand combined heat and power are least or not identified at all.


Figure 4.10 CSOs’ initiatives on sustainable transportation

LegendA Land-use and transport planning (8)B Biofuels (7)C Non-motorized transport (cycling, walking) (7)D More fuel efficient vehicles (e.g., hybrid vehicles, cleaner diesel vehicles) (6)E Modal shifts from road transport to rail and public transport systems (3)

Figure 4.10 shows that initiatives of CSOs on sustainable transportation cuts across thedifferent kinds of energy-efficient modes of transportation. Specifically, the CSOs fromthe Visayas and Mindanao identify the development and use of bio-fuels as its top initiativefollowed by improved planning of transport system. From Luzon, there was low or noturn out of responses for bio-fuels, fuel efficient vehicles and transport shifts from roadto rail public transport system.

0

2

4

6

8

10

A B C D E

Mindanao

Visayas

Luzon

Still on a regional level, CSOs from the Industry specifically identified top two priorityinitiatives for sustainable energy development: the recycling and substitution of materialsand the more efficient end-use of electrical equipment, (Figure 4.8). Similar trend wasobtained from the sub-sector Buildings with focus on efficient lighting and day lighting(Figure 4.9).


Box 4.8 Air Care – improving the quality of air we breatheSocial Marketing, and forging partnerships betweenand among community stakeholders.

Some of the major Air Care project activities arebaseline study and regular air quality monitoring(AQM) on the project areas. As feedback mechanism,AQM enables the program to be adaptive in itsimplementation. Awareness raising through IEC andtraining activities through conventional and non-conventional means of communication is also aneffective way to cut across the air pollution concernto the members of the community. Through IEC andtraining stakeholders are able to learn alternativeand more environment-friendly technologies andinnovative clean air ordinance/policyimplementation, and preventive maintenance ofmotor vehicles. With partner academic institutions,Miriam-PEACE build coalitions and conduct training toequip them with necessary tools, such as manuals andrelated trainings, to effectively undertake acommunity-based air quality management program.

This academe-led Air Care project is acommunity-based approach to air qualitymanagement. It is participatory and consensus-basedbecause all stakeholders belong to the community andthe community is a powerful instrument of change.

Human beings can survive a few days withoutfood and water, but will not last longer than a fewminutes without air or more specifically oxygen.Oxygen is only about 21% of the Earth’satmosphere.

With all the daily pollution hazards in ourpresent environment, we can’t help but notice thesmog clouding the metropolis, this is a sign of anunhealthy environment, this has also contributed tothe increasing number of respiratory diseases.Therefore, it is only right to raise consciousness on thequality of air around us.

Improving air quality is everybody’s business thatis why the Public Education and AwarenessCampaign for the Environment (PEACE) of MiriamCollege, with support from the Energy and Clean AirAct Project of the United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID), launched the AirCare project.

Air Care aims to establish benchmark and seekto improve the air quality in the Katipunan- Balara-Tandang Sora corridors in Quezon City; raiseawareness of community members, partners andstakeholders on air quality issues; promotepreventive maintenance towards reduction of vehicleemissions, and promote adoption of air qualityimprovement strategies in the community.

Miriam PEACE Air Care project is in partnershipwith other academic institutions such as the Ateneode Manila, University of the Philippines, NISMED andLa Consolacion Novaliches and Holy Family School.The project also involves the local government likethe Barangay Councils and Land TransportationOffice and community stakeholders such as La VistaHome Owner Associations and Transport Groups(Loyola TODAS), and Suzuki-Kawasaki, Yamaha SkyGroups, among others.

The core strategies of this tripartite partnershipare Capability building and training, awarenessraising though Information Education Campaign,


0

5

10

15

20

A B C D E F


LegendA Integration of adaptation strategies into local development plans (19)B Climate/disaster risk assessment (15)C Formulation of local disaster management plans (15)D Formation of local disaster teams (15)E Enhancement of land use plan and building code to incorporate climate change considerations (9)F Others (mapping water quality surveillance; membership/lead agency to the local development council;

technology packages in disaster and climate change mitigation)

It is evident from Figure 4.11 that CSOs from the three regions are most concerned andengaged with the integration of adaptation strategies into local development plans.Interestingly, CSOs from these regions have the same level of involvement in climate/disaster risk assessment, local disaster management plans and in the formulation of localdisaster management teams.

Figure 4.11 Initiatives of CSOs on other crosscutting measures

considerable amount of materials, time and effort.Communities and local government units (LGUs) havedemonstrated a broader sense of community ownershipthrough their active participation — from projectconceptualization to project implementation andevaluation.

This project serves as a model for developing otherpotential community-based micro-hydro power projects,and for strengthening the Mindanao Renewable EnergyNetwork as a coalition of renewable energy partnersin the areas of policy advocacy and enhancing projectsustainability. Hopefully, these initiatives will create awider impact on sustainable power supply generationall throughout the poverty-stricken villages of Mindanao.

Yamog has implemented about ten (10) communitybased micro-hydropower systems with majority of them

providing are engaged in productive end uses asidefrom household electrification. It has also implementeda photovoltaic battery charging systems in Mindanao inpartnership with the PO’s and NGO’s and private groupsin the off grid areas of Mindanao.

Yamog... continued from page 104


Box 4.9 Supporting communities’ resistance against extractive industries and exploring the linkon climate change

The Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Kasama sa Kalikasan (LRC-KsK/Friends of the Earth-Philippines) is recognized for its numerous programsrelative to policy research, legal services andcampaigns that highly support the assertion of therights of the marginalized upland and indigenouspeople. They are also being persistent to the causeof environmental conservation and protection whileaddressing the issues and concerns of the localcommunities which are vastly dependent on naturalresources.

In 2006, the Center officially commenced its projecton “Supporting Communities’ Resistance AgainstExtractive Industries and Exploring the Link on ClimateChange.” By 2010, it is expected that the project wouldhave addressed the issues against adverse impacts ofresource extractive industries in different localcommunities in Luzon and Mindanao.

The project specifically aims to: (a) strengthenthe legal and campaigns support of LRC-KsK/FoE-Phils. in defending communities against extractiveindustries such as mining; (b) deepen the capacity ofLRC-KsK/FoE-Phils. and its partner communities inputting forward policy analyses on climate changeand its direct impact on the land rights assertion ofindigenous and upland rural communities; (c)strengthen the documentation and research in theareas of extractives and climate change; and (d)deepen the Center’s engagements with internationaland regional institutions and networks on extractivesand climate change. These will be realized by usingpractical strategies and approaches which mainlyfocus on researches, policy advocacy, legal andcampaigns support and networking.

I t enjoins 1000 direct benefic iaries fromindigenous or upland communities from undertakingresource valuation case studies and discussingadaptation strategies and policy alternatives indifferent communities in Luzon and Mindanao.Specific sites of the project in Luzon include Kasibu,Nueva Vizcaya; and for Mindanano region: Mati,Davao Oriental; Midsalip, Zamboanga del Sur;Placer, Surigao del Norte; Siocon, Zamboanga delNorte; Manobo Pulangihon, Bukidnon; Barangay

Sibulan, Sta Cruz, Davao del Sur; Talaingod, Davaodel Norte; Maasim, Saranggani; and Barangay Ned,Lake Sebu, South Cotabato.

The ensuing policy recommendations and adaptationstrategies are targeted to help indigenous and uplandrural communities nationwide that are displaced fromtheir lands.

Significant results/outputs of the project in thepast policy advocacy initiatives of the Center withits partner communities have resulted to the follow-ing: challenging of the Philippine National PolicyFramework on extractive industries; surfacing of al-ternative policy recommendations that put premiumon community rights; exposes on the human rightsviolations caused by the encroachment of naturalresource extractive companies into the lands of in-digenous and upland rural poor communities; andengagements with international legal instruments inseeking justice for communities whose rights to landshave been violated by natural resource extractivecompanies and governments. These gains were in-stalled through sustained partnerships with indigenousand upland rural communities and also a product ofcoordination with advocacy networks some of whichcome from local government units, colleagues fromthe civil society and the determined stance of com-munity leaders and their members against naturalresource exploitation.

Even with the existence of unified efforts both of theproponent and beneficiaries, one major gap that hindersin carrying out the program is the lack of alternativesource for community livelihood while pursuing advocacywork with the Center, as these people are mainlydependent on natural resources. The proliferation ofnatural resource extractive industries and thegovernment’s push for an integrated free market systemhave not only eroded the traditional self-sufficiencyamong indigenous and upland rural communities but havealso destroyed and continued to threaten food crop landsand water systems which are very fundamental to them.

Furthermore, with the inevitable destructive impactsof climate change, it is necessary to take initiatives indeveloping adaptation strategies and continued policyadvocacy.


29%

27%9%

17%

6%

3%

9%


Forest Resource & Biodiversity Conservation

Ecological Waste Management


Coastal Resource Management


Other Crosscutting Measures

Figure 4.12 Sectoral distribution of identified climate change-related initiatives

Figure 4.12 shows that among the key sectors/thematic areas, sustainable agricultureaccounts for the most number of climate change-related activities undertaken by CSOs, at29 percent, followed by forest resource and biodiversity conservation, 27 percent. Thethird highest number of these initiatives is sustainable energy development, whichregistered 17 percent. The sectors on ecological waste management and other crosscuttingmeasures rank next, both garnering 9 percent, and then coastal resource managementwith 6 percent. Sustainable transportation with 3 percent represents being the thematicarea/sector CSOs are least involved with.

Figure 4.13 Climate change initiatives of CSOs by sector, by region

2

12

25

20

10

38

19

17

47

22

90

43

156

171

12

29

12

48

27

62

88

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Sustainable Transportat ion

Other Crosscut t ing M easure




Forest Resource & Biodiversity Conservat ion

Sustainable Agiculture



Figure 4.13 illustrates the consistency of the Visayas region in having the most number ofinitiatives that promote climate change in each thematic area/sector except in coastalresource management. The highest number of initiatives undertaken are in sustainableagriculture with 31 percent, forest resource and biodiversity conservation with 29 percent,sustainable energy development with 17 percent, crosscutting measures with 9 percentand ecological waste management at 8 percent. The least number of initiatives undertakenare in coastal resource management and sustainable transportation with 4 and 3 percent,respectively.

This trend is also consistent for the Mindanao region. The highest number of CC-relatedinitiatives are undertaken in sustainable agriculture, forest resource and biodiversityconservation and sustainable energy development with 32, 22, and 17 percent respectively.The least number of initiatives are categorized under other crosscutting measures,ecological waste management, coastal resource management and sustainabletransportation.

From Luzon, climate change initiatives undertaken by CSOs are mostly in forest resourceand biodiversity conservation representing 30 percent, followed by coastal resourcemanagement, sustainable energy development and sustainable agriculture with 20, 16and 15 percent respectively. At the bottom with the least number of initiatives are ecologicalwaste management at 9 percent and sustainable transportation at 2 percent.

Figure 4.14 Geographic coverage of CSOs’ work

0

10

20

30

40

50

Local National bo th Local &National


Figure 4.14 shows that 66 (or 87 percent) of the total 74 respondents indicated theirrespective organization’s geographic coverage of CC-related initiatives. Majority of theCSOs have local coverage, accounting for 61 percent, while those that have “both nationaland local” coverage, at 24 percent, and those that are solely “national” in scope, 3 percent.12 percent of the respondents did not provide answers.

Table 4.4 Accounting gender sensitivity

Accounting gender sensitivity Luzon Visayas Mindanao Total

Yes 13 27 18 58

No 1 3 2 6

No Answer 8 2 10

Total 22 32 20 74


Table 4.4 shows that majority (78 percent) of the respondents take into account gendersensitivity in their activities. Only 8 percent said the opposite and 14 percent did notprovide answers. The specific areas in which gender sensitivity is incorporated intoexisting CSOs’ activities are as follows:

• Advocacy/promotion of sustainable agriculture/natural farming technologies• Ecological waste management• Community-based coastal resource management• Lobbying, socio-economic projects, advocacy and micro-finance• Awareness building and education, networking and community organizing• Capacity building, gender integration in programs and projects• Disaster response and preparedness planning• Forest resource and biodiversity conservation• Community-based livelihood programs• Community-based resource management (CBRM)• Community-based renewable energy projects from planning to monitoring to

evaluation.

Box 4.10 Women’s role in development in thePhilippines

The active role of women in development in the countryis highly expressed under the law under the Republic Act

7192 also known as ‘Women in Development and Nation

Building Act.” This legislation recognizes the role of womenin nation building and shall ensure the fundamental equalitybefore the law of women and men. It protects womenrights and opportunities equal to that of men.To attain the foregoing policy:(1) A substantial portion of official development

assistance funds received from foreign governmentsand multilateral agencies and organizations shallbe set aside and utilized by the agencies concernedto support programs and activities for women;

(2) All government departments shall ensure thatwomen benefit equally and participate directly inthe development programs and projects of saiddepartment, specifically those funded under officialforeign development assistance, to ensure the fullparticipation and involvement of women in thedevelopment process; and

(3) All government departments and agencies shallreview and revise all their regulations, circulars,issuances and procedures to remove gender biastherein.

www.chanrobles.com


0 1 2 3 4 5

Voluntary Market

Corporate Sector

Donor Agency

Church

Academe

Local Government

People's Organization

Non-Government Organization


Table 4.5 Sector that initiates CC-related projects/activitiesInitiating Sector Frequency Mean Standard

Deviation

Non-Government Organization 51 3.76 1.27Peoples’ Organization 46 3.83 1.14Local Government 40 3.22 1.38Academe 34 3.18 1.24Church 31 3.52 .99Donor Agency 31 2.94 .99Corporate Sector 22 2.91 1.92Voluntary Market 18 2.56 1.19

Figure 4.15 Regional idetified partner group in the overall climate change initiatives

Table 4.5 and Figure 4.15 present the CSOs’ perceptions on the sector that most likelyinitiates CC-related projects/activities.

Among the various sectors identified, NGOs received the highest frequency (51) and mean(3.76). This connotes that 70 percent of the respondents highly perceive that NGOscompared to other sectors are taking the lead in initiating CC-related projects or activities.

Overall, people’s organization accounts for the highest mean of 3.83. This suggests thatthe 62 percent of respondents rate POs highly in terms of taking the lead in identifyingand developing potential CC-related projects/initiatives in partnership with NGOs, LGUsand donor agencies.

Voluntary carbon market acquired the lowest frequency (18) and computed mean (2.56).This suggests that 24 percent of the CSOs least likely perceive this sector as the mainvehicle for initiating CC-related initiatives. The concept of voluntary market is relativelynew worldwide and has been at the center of debate among CSOs in terms of its socialacceptability and effectiveness in mitigating climate change.


0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Urban poor

Fisherfolks

Upland dwellers

Indigenous people

Youth

Women

Farmers


Figure 4.16 Number and distribution of CSOs’ partner groups, by region

In facilitating their climate change efforts, the CSOs from the three regions identified thefarmers (22 percent) and women (21 percent) as their two most frequent partner groups,and urban poor as the least partner group (9 percent). However, there are differencesamong regions with regard to the less identified partner groups; for Luzon 25 percentwith urban poor, for Visayas 31 percent with fisherfolks, and for Mindanao 14 percentwith upland dwellers (Figure 4.16).

Figure 4.17 CSOs’ identified partner groups by sector/thematic area

9

15

23

28

20

51

35

7

9

30

28

24

36

36

7

19

9

4

13

15

9

9

11

23

9

29

10

10

7

13

26

25

25

3

3

2

4

6

6

5

7

6

8

5

11

13

13

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Urban Poor

Fisherfolks

Indigenous People

Upland Dw ellers

Youth

Farmers

Women

Sustainable Agriculture Forest and Biodiversity ConservationCoastal Resource Management Ecological Waste ManagementEnergy Efficiency and Conservation Sustainable TransportationOther Crosscutting Measures Other Modes of Carbon/non-CDM-related

Figure 4.17 shows the partner groups by sector identified by the respondents accordingto the different sectors/thematic areas presented above. Overall, women with 22 percentis the most identified partner group of the respondents, particularly in forest resourceand biodiversity conservation. This indicates the active involvement of women in the CC-initiatives of CSOs. The second and third highest identified partner groups are the farmersand the youth, representing 20 and 17 percent respectively. Specifically, the youth aremost involved in initiatives in forest resource and biodiversity conservation.


The least partner group that CSOs are engaged with is the urban poor, representing 8percent of the overall. It is in ecological waste management that the urban poor is mostactively involved in. Expectedly, waste-related issues and problems are a major concernand points of discussions and an integral part of the daily activities in urban areas.

Figure 4.18 Major partner groups of CSOs, by region

169

1725

816

117

103 85

49 82

49

45

35

43

26

38 9

9

8

7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Women

Farmers

Youth

Indige

nous

People

Upland

Dwell

ers

Fisherf

olks

Urban P

oor


As shown in Figure 4.18, from the three regions, Women, Farmers and Youth are the mostidentified partner groups involved in CSOs’ different sectoral initiatives, registering 21percent, 19 percent and 16 percent, respectively. Consistently, Urban poor is the leastidentified partner group of CSOs, among all initiatives across sectors.

The CSOs from Visayas region have the most number of identified partner groups,accounting for 67 percent, followed by Mindanao and Luzon, with 21 percent and 12percent, respectively. The figure also illustrates that CSOs from the different regions havedifferent sectoral focus which explains the type of their partner groups. CSOs from Luzonand Visayas have identified Indigenous people and Women as their major partner groupsrespectively. The CSOs from Mindanao are more engaged with farmers, a trend which isconsistent with the previous result showing sustainable agriculture, being the mostdominant initiative of CSOs from this region.


Figure 4.19 Stage of the project the partner sectors are involved in

In general, as shown in Figure 4.19 and Table 4.6, the most identified partners/sectorsinvolved in all stages of the climate change project cycle are the NGOs followed by POs,LGUs and Donor agencies, respectively. However, the level/focus of involvement in theproject cycle by the sectors differ by stages. The Local government sector is most involvedin planning, the Peoples organization in implementation and evaluation, while the NGOsin monitoring, and the Donor Agency in the evaluation of the project.

The LGU’s involvement in the planning stage of a project is more directly related to theformulation of local development and sectoral plans including physical framework andland use plans and investment plans. On the other hand, CSOs are more often involved inthe implementation, monitoring and evaluation of government and non-governmentprograms/projects on CC-related initiatives.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Local Government



Academe

Church

Private Corporation

Donor Agency

Planning

Implementation

Monitoring

Evaluation


Civil society is defined as the ‘politically active popular sector: non-governmentorganizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs) and other cause-oriented groups and politicalorganizations. Collectively, they form the organized base of citizen’s movements pushing a reformagenda into the mainstream of public policy or reorganizing society around a radical vision’.1

The role and rights of people’s organizations are being recognized in the Philippines underthe 1987 Constitution. As stated in Article XII,

‘Section 15. The State shall respect the role of independent people’s organizations toenable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, theirlegitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means’.

People’s organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstratedcapacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable leadership,membership, and structure.

Section 16. The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonableparticipation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall notbe abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultationmechanisms’.2

In the Philippines, NGOs first emerged as private foundations geared towards communitydevelopment and subsequently evolved into key players in the international and nationalarena to mainstream advocacy for policy reform. (Table 4.1)

Chapter 4Climate Change-Related Initiatives

of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)in the Philippines


4.1 Profile of Participants

This section presents the various initiatives/activities of CSOs directly or indirectly relatedto climate change. As discussed in the previous section, this study utilized surveyquestionnaires for the respondents to accomplish. Most of the questions in the surveyquestionnaires were provided with possible answers/options that respondents chose from.The respondents were also provided with blank spaces on which to write the appropriateanswers not included in the list of options that were generally categorized under ‘Others’.

Overall, a total of 118 survey forms were distributed to respondents representing PNCCmember-organizations, their partner NGOs and POs as well as academic/researchinstitutions from the three major regions of the country. The study retrieved a total of 74accomplished survey questionnaires, with Visayas representing the highest number with32 (43 percent), followed by Mindanao with 22 (30 percent) and then Luzon with 20 (27percent).

Table 4.1 Seven phases in the evolution of Philippine NGOsPeriod Theme Developments

Pre-1965 Antecedents of NGOs Relief, rehabilitation and welfare; private foundationsemerged; beginnings of cooperativism and communitydevelopment

1965-1972 Social Activism “First quarter storm” as indicator of social crisis, triggeredemergence of radical movements among peasants and urbanpoor; Church shifted approach to total human liberation

1972-1978 Political Repression underMartial Rule

NGOs became alternative means for delivering social servicesto disadvantaged sectors

1978-1983 Expansion Phase Repression continues, international support comes in and allowsNGOs to go into indigenous people’s rights, ecological andwomen’s causes

1983-1986 NGO and Mass Movement Aquino assassination ushered parliaments of the street, POsand NGO work expanded with support and strategicpartnership with foreign partner, NGOs participated in EDSArevolt

1986-1992 Painful Transition NGOs recognized as key players with more funding support,NGOs proliferated, upscaling through networks, advocacy forpolicy reform

1992-1996 Maturation and Renewal Changes in international and national scenes, NGOs more opento “mainstreaming” advocacy shifts, electoral related reforms

Source: (Alfiler:1999)


Figure 4.1 illustrates the regionaldistribution of respondents whoreturned the survey questionnaires on‘Mapping of CSO’s Climate ChangeInitiatives in the Philippines’.

Majority of the respondents thatreturned the survey questionnaires arefrom Visayas representing 43 percent ofthe study sample, followed byMindanao and Luzon with 30 percentand 27 percent, respectively.

20

32

22

LuzonVisayasMindanao

Figure 4.1 Regional distribution of participants

Table 4.2 Breakdown of study samples

Sectors Luzon Visayas Mindanao Total

Non-Government Organization 14 25 19 58

People’s Organization 2 6 1 9

Academe 3 1 2 6

Church 1 0 0 1

Total 20 32 22 74


Table 4.3 Designation of respondents in their organizations

Designation/Position Luzon Visayas Mindanao Total

Administrative Officer 1 1

Administrator 1 1

Advocacy Head 1 1

Advocacy Officer 1 1

Assistant Director 1 1

Asst. to the President on

Environmental Concerns 1 1

Board of Directors 2 2

Board of Director-Chairperson 2 2

Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 1 1

Board of Trustees (BOT) -Chair 1 1

BOT- Member 1 1

Chairman 7 4 11

Community Organizer 1 1

Consultant 1 1

Convenor 1 1

Coordinator 1 1 2

Director 2 2

Executive Director 2 5 7 14

Faculty 2 2

General Manager 1 1

Head of Operations 1 1

Managing Director 1 1

Officer in Charge 1 1

Planning Officer 1 1

President 1 2 1 4

Program Coordinator 1 2 3

Provincial Chairperson 1 1

Program Officer/Project Coordinator 1 1

Secretariat 1 1 2

Secretary 1 1

Secretary General 1 1

Social Senior Development Officer 1 1

Spokesperson 1 1

Staff 1 1

Team leader 1 1

Volunteer 1 1

No answer 4 1 5


4.2 Brief Description of Key Research Parameters Used on ClimateChange-Related Initiatives of CSOs

This survey questionnaire was structured to cover ten (10) key parameters of the researchas follows:

• Identified CC-related initiatives (Activities, Thematic/Sectoral Areas of Work, and PartnerGroups)

In this study, CC-related initiatives of CSOs were categorized in the following key thematicareas or sectors:

Sustainable Agriculture–refers to agricultural systems and practices that make use oflow-external to full organic inputs. An example is the system of rice intensification(SRI), a rice farming cultural practice that involves early transplanting, wide spacingand single plant a hill, intermittent irrigation and therefore less water use, three orfour times weeding in a cropping cycle and use of organic compost (Serrano, 2008);Forest Resource and Biodiversity Conservation–refers to the protection, rehabilitation,conservation of forest and biological diversity resources;Ecological Waste Management–involves the promotion of the 3Rs, namely, reduction,recycling, and re-use of municipal wastes;Costal Resource Management–is a participatory process of planning, implementingand monitoring sustainable uses of coastal resources through collective action andsound decision-making (DENR/DA/DILG/CRMP, 2001);Other Crosscutting Measures–these include disaster risk reduction, integration ofadaptation strategies into local development plans, vulnerability and adaptation(V&A) assessment, gender and development, among others. Disaster risk reductionis defined as the broad development and application of policies, strategies andpractices to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout society, throughprevention, mitigation and preparedness (Twig 2004). V&A assessment involves anassessment of current and future climate risks and the coping measures andmechanisms adopted by local communities. Gender and development represents aperspective that seeks to link gender analysis of vulnerability to policies, programs,measures and actions and the need to ensure participation of women in decision-making processes and actively securing their access to power and resources(‘empowerment’);Sustainable Energy Development–activities related to energy development, energyconservation and energy efficiency; andSustainable Transportation–involves the promotion of environment-friendly modesof transportation covering land, water and air.

• Geographic coverage of CC-related initiatives. Respondents were asked to describe theirrespective geographic coverage based on the following: local, national or both local andnational.

• Accounting gender sensitivity of CC-related initiatives. Respondents were asked to accountgender sensitivity of their CC-related initiatives by checking Yes or No and to identifyinto which areas of work the gender dimension is incorporated;


• Level of priority accorded to different ‘Functional Areas of Work’. Respondents wereasked to rate their organization’s level of priority given to different areas of work using ascale of 1-5, with 1 being the lowest and 5, being the highest. These areas are the following:awareness building and education, community-based projects, community organizing,advocacy and networking, resource mobilization, technology development, lobbying andpolicy research.

• Sector which usually initiates the CC-related activities. Respondents were asked to identifyspecific sectors which usually initiate CC-related initiatives. These sectors are thefollowing: NGOs, POs, LGU, academe, church, donor agencies, corporate sector and thevoluntary market.

• Stage of the project cycle at which the project partners are involved. Respondents wereasked to identify at what specific stage of the project cycle the partner organizations havebeen involved. These stages are planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.

• Organization’s performance in the different functional areas of work. Respondents wereasked to rate their organization’s overall performance in the above-mentioned functionalareas of work using a scale of 1-5, as follows: 1=Poor, 2=Satisfactory, 3=Good, 4=VeryGood, and 5 =Excellent.

• Results/effects/outcomes of CC-related initiatives. Respondents were asked to identifytheir perceived results/effects/outcomes of their CC-related initiatives, which are asfollows: Ensuring environmental protection, Improvement of social/community cohesion,Improvement of gender relations, Policy and program formulation, Increasing productivityand income and institutional reform.

• Ability of the existing organizational mechanisms to ensure long-term sustainability ofCC-related initiatives. Respondents were asked to rate the ability of their existingorganizational mechanisms to ensure long-term sustainability of CC-related initiatives.

Box 4.1 Meaning of some statisticalterms used in the study interpretation

Frequency refers to the number of timesrespondents that identified/mentioned aparticular answer/item.

Mean refers to the ‘average’ of overallanswers given by the respondents in allregions in rating particular item.

Standard deviation, is a measure thattells how spread/distributed answers of therespondents are resulting to the conclusion ofeither respondents answers are varied/mixed/diverse or somewhat the same/close.The nearer to zero the standard deviation is,the more homogenous the answers/responsesare given in a particular item.

These are as follows: Project development,planning, monitoring and evaluation; Resourcemobilization, Organizational management (i.e.,human and financial resources and institutionalsustainability), Stakeholders relations withdifferent sectors, namely, the government, otherCSOs, the academe and the corporate sector.

• Ability of the organization to ensure equitablesharing/distribution of benefits amongstakeholders. Respondents were asked to ratethe ability of their organization to ensureequitable sharing/distribution of benefitsamong stakeholders, including the following:local government, non-governmentorganization, people’s organization, academe,church and donor agency.


Most responses in the survey questionnaire were tabulated by region (Luzon, Visayasand Mindanao) for purposes of comparative analysis. Statistical analysis was employedon certain items, where applicable. Computation of the mean and standard deviation andanalysis of variance (ANOVA) were applied to items with rating instructions.

4.3 Analysis of Climate Change Initiatives of CSOs

This section presents the results of the survey focusing on the different research parametersas defined in the previous section.

Figure 4.2 Distribution/number of CSOs engaged in each thematic area or sector


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35



Other Crosscutting M easure




Forest Resource & B iodiversity Conservation

Figure 4.2 shows that climate change initiatives of CSOs from Mindanao, Visayas andLuzon cut across all themes or sectors. In general, 95 percent of the CSOs from the threeregions are engaged in forest resource and biodiversity conservation, 78 percent insustainable agriculture and 68 percent in ecological waste management. These are the top3 themes/sectors in which CSOs are mostly involved. This trend is also consistent foreach region’s top 3 most identified themes/sectors. Similarly, from the three regions, theleast number of CSOs are engaged in sustainable energy development (46 percent), Othercrosscutting measures (38 percent) and sustainable transportation (16 percent).