S 57585 ignposts Evaluation Office G LOBAL E NVIRONMENT F ACILITY March 2008 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) From December 2006 to April Findings 2007, the Global Environment Relevance of the Portfolio Facility (GEF) Evaluation Of- GEF support has been relevant to Philippine national Photo: Anna Viggh, GEF Evaluation Office fice carried out an evaluation of development plans and environmental priorities. The GEF support to the Philippines. This was the second in an GEF focus on biodiversity conservation, energy efficiency ongoing series of evaluations using a country as the unit and renewable energy in this country has been in line with of analysis. The Philippines was selected because it has been one of the largest country recipients of GEF support, the development and national priorities established in the it will receive country Resource Allocation Framework al- country's medium-term development plans; however, GEF locations in both climate change and biodiversity, its GEF project documents have often failed to establish links to Small Grants Programme is one of the longest running these plans and how projects would support them. The rel- such country programs in existence, and the environment evance of GEF support to national action plans developed sector is an essential part of its national sustainable devel- within GEF focal areas has also been very high. opment agenda. GEF support to the Philippines has been relevant to the Conducted by Evaluation Office staff and a team of inter- objectives and mandate of the GEF. GEF support has tar- national and local consultants, the evaluation combined geted conservation and sustainable use of species, focus- qualitative and quantitative methods and tools, including ing on 8 of 16 terrestrial biogeographic regions, although review of existing information, extensive interviews with mostly on the country's large islands. In climate change, key GEF stakeholders, one major consultation workshop, GEF activities have mainly supported reduction of carbon and site visits to selected projects. The evaluation focused emissions and increased energy efficiency. With GEF sup- on 30 GEF national projects, the GEF Small Grants Pro- port, the Philippines has developed a national action plan to gramme, and a few selected regional projects in which the reduce and eliminate releases of persistent organic pollut- Philippines participates. These activities represent an in- ants and participates in the GEF-supported Partnerships in vestment of $145 million. Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia. The evaluation explored three key questions: Results of the Portfolio GEF support to the Philippines has produced a range Is GEF support relevant to the Philippine national devel- of global environmental benefits. GEF-supported activi- opment agenda and environmental priorities and to the ties probably slowed a downward trend in conservation sta- GEF mandate? tus of several threatened species, and several Philippine protected areas demonstrate best practices in biodiversity Is GEF support efficient as indicated by the time, effort, and money needed to develop and implement GEF proj- conservation. GEF-supported renewable technologies ects and to develop synergies and partnerships among have significantly offset greenhouse gas emissions, and GEF projects and between the GEF and government the Philippines is now an important global power in geo- agencies as well as other GEF stakeholders? thermal energy. Approaches and experiences produced through GEF support in the Philippines have or could be What are the results of GEF support? replicated, increasing GEF impact. S ignposts Evaluation Office G LOBAL E NVIRONMENT F ACILITY GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) Declining environmental trends and lack of compliance ronment and natural resource management, are welcome. in the Philippines endanger these achievements. The The Department of Environment and Natural Resources amount of land protected still falls below Asia's average. Loss should further strengthen and institutionalize collaboration of forest cover in 1990­2005 reduced GEF achievements to with other departments to increase environmental gover- negative 1 million hectares of protection, and GEF efforts to nance, linking with broader government efforts to fight cor- protect vulnerable ecosystems on small islands have been ruption and improve public sector effectiveness. limited. Predicted increases in carbon dioxide emissions in- The Philippines should consider including in future dicate that the GEF should focus more on primary emission GEF support globally unique small island regions, sources, specifically, land degradation and forest conversion land degradation, and improvement of climate to agriculture. The GEF has only recently supported adapta- change resilience. It should balance GEF assistance tion to climate change impacts and has not supported gov- more equally among the 16 unique land-based biogeo- ernment efforts on electrified mass transportation. graphic zones and increasingly include projects that take The GEF portfolio in the Philippines exhibits several into account adaptive actions related to land degradation, inefficiencies. Time-consuming project preparation and biodiversity, and integrated ecosystem management. approval may have led to setbacks and loss of stakeholder The country should improve the efficiency of GEF commitment. Lack of transparency and poor quality data mechanisms in the Philippines. This can be effected on the GEF Activity Cycle have produced stakeholder by strengthening and institutionalizing operational focal confusion and frustration. Absence of a clear, publicly ac- point functions, developing and implementing a national cessible proposal-tracking mechanism has been a critical GEF country framework, transferring monitoring of the shortcoming. Unclear information on Resource Allocation GEF portfolio to the National Economic and Develop- Framework implementation has left room for interpretation ment Authority to improve accountability and transparen- by various stakeholders, who have not always understood cy, and improving coordination among GEF Agencies. the criteria for decision making and perceive inconsisten- cies and arbitrariness in the process. Furthermore, the Follow-Up position of the GEF operational focal point has not been institutionalized, posing a range of challenges for the Phil- The GEF Council reviewed this evaluation at its June 2007 ippines in its interactions with the GEF. meeting and asked the Secretariat to prepare a proposal on developing country assistance strategies that lead to bet- Recommendations ter coordination and programming at the country level. The To the GEF Council Council also asked the Secretariat to ensure the transpar- ency of and better access to information on GEF procedures The GEF should develop country strategies for large and the status of projects in the GEF Activity Cycle. recipients of GEF support. Lack of a GEF strategy in the Philippines has reduced potential results and led to inefficiencies. A coherent, publicly debated, transparent The GEF Evaluation Office is an independent entity reporting directly to the GEF Council, mandated to eval- GEF strategy with clear targets and objectives, and a uate the focal area programs and priorities of the GEF. long- and short-run vision and program, would address some weaknesses identified in the evaluation. The full version of the GEF Country Portfolio Evalua- tion: Philippines (1992­2007) (Evaluation Report No. To the Government of the Philippines 36, 2008) is available in the Publications section of Compliance with environmental policies and regula- the GEF Evaluation Office Web site, www.gefeo.org. For more information, please contact the GEF Evalu- tions requires urgent attention. Government steps in ation Office at gefevaluation@thegef.org. this direction, especially a programmatic approach to envi-