Untitled

Philippine Environmental Governance Project
Guided Self-Assessment on the State of

Local Environmental Governance
Practices (GSA) For the EcoGov
Extension Period (2009-2011):
Final Assessment Results
Prepared by:
Maria Zita Butardo-Toribio

Senior Policy Specialist
Philippine Environmental Governance Project Phase 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures................................................................................................................... iv
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... v
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
Features of the GSA Tool ............................................................................................ 2
Participants and Method .............................................................................................. 3
Calculating and Interpreting the Survey Results ......................................................... 4
Feedback and Action Planning Session....................................................................... 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS from the base year (2005-2009) through the

EXTENSION YEARS (2009-2011) .......................................................................... 6
Coverage of the Assessment........................................................................................ 6
Over-All Findings........................................................................................................ 7
REVISITING THE BASE PERIOD ASSESSMENT RESULTS (2005, 2007,

2009) .......................................................................................................................... 13
Trend in Performance by Sector ................................................................................ 13
Trend in the adoption of governance functions ......................................................... 14
Trend in the adoption of governance principles ........................................................ 15
Trend in Over-All and Sectoral Performance by EcoGov regional office ................ 18
Over-all trend by Key Biodiversity Area................................................................... 25
RESULTS OF THE GSA FOR THE EXTENSION PERIOD (2009-2011) .............. 28

Profile of the 24 LGUs .............................................................................................. 28
FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 31
Final Over-All Indices ............................................................................................... 31
Change in Sectoral and Over-All Performance ......................................................... 31
Forest and Forestland Management - specific indices............................................... 37
Coastal Resource Management- specific indices ...................................................... 40
Urban Environmental Management-specific indices................................................. 44
LGU Internal Management- Specific Indices............................................................ 48
Performance by KBA ................................................................................................ 52
LGU-LEVEL FACTORS THAT MAY HAVE INFLUENCED

IMPROVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE ........................... 54
Common Attributes of Good Performers .................................................................. 55
END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT i

ECOGOV STRATEGIES THAT SUPPORTED IMPROVEMENT IN LGU
ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE ................................................................. 57
RESULTS AND OUTCOMES OF IMPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL

GOVERNANCE ...................................................................................................... 60
Benefits to KBAs....................................................................................................... 63
Perceived Benefits from Governance Improvement.................................................. 63
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 65

FFM Index and Biophysical Improvements ............................................................. 66
CRM Index and Biophysical Improvements............................................................. 70
UEM Index and Physical Improvements .................................................................. 73
ii THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of LGUs and FGD respondents covered by the 2009 Final GSA
for the Base Period of EcoGov ........................................................................ 6
Table 2. Number of LGUs and FGD respondents covered by the Final 2010/2011
GSA ................................................................................................................. 7
Table 3. Summary of EcoGov 2 Accomplishments: Government Institutions
Meeting Good Environmental Governance Benchmark.................................. 8
Table 3. Shift in the range of over-all environmental governance indices of LGUs
in both the base and extension period assessments ......................................... 9
Table 4. List of LGUs that met the ‘good environmental governance benchmark ..... 10
Table 5. Trend in LGU adoption of key functions in environmental governance,
by region and by province for the base period .............................................. 16
Table 6. Trend in LGU adoption of good practices in functionality, transparency,
accountability and public participation, by Region and by Province, for
the base period ............................................................................................... 17
Table 7. Change in sectoral and over-all environment governance indices and
category among LGUs assisted By EcoGov in Northern Luzon, Base
Period Assessment ......................................................................................... 21
Table 8. Change in sectoral and over-all environment governance indices among
LGUs assisted By EcoGov in Central Visayas, Base Period Assessment.... 22
category among LGUs assisted By EcoGov in South and Central
Mindanao, Base Period Assessment .............................................................. 23
category among LGUs assisted by EcoGov in Western Mindanao, Base
Table 11. Profile of the 24 LGUs Covered by the Extension Period GSA.................... 28
Table 12. Summary of Environmental Governance Indices of LGUs Covered by
the Extension Period Final GSA.................................................................... 33
Table 13. Comparison of the baseline (2009) and final sectoral and overall indices
of LGUs covered by the GSA for the extension period............................... 36
Table 14. Growth in FFM indices among the Visayas and Mindanao LGUs,
Extension Period Assessment ........................................................................ 37
Table 15. Growth in CRM indices among the Visayas and Mindanao LGUs,
Table 16. Growth in UEM indices among the Visayas and Mindanao LGUs,
Table 17. Growth LIM indices among the Visayas and Mindanao LGUs, Extension
Table 18. Growth in Average environmental governance indices of the 24
Additional LGUs, by KBA ............................................................................ 53
Table 19. Results/outcomes of improved environmental governance perceived by
GSA participants in 2007............................................................................... 64
END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Trend in LGU Category, 2005, 2007, 2009..................................................... 9

Figure 2. Trend in sectoral indices, 2005, 2007, 2009.................................................. 13
Figure 3. Progress in LGU adoption of environmental governance functions, by
EcoGov Region (2005, 2007, and 2009) ....................................................... 15
Figure 4. Trend in adoption of governance principles from baseline to end of base
year ................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 5. Trend in Average Regional Cross-Sector Indices ......................................... 18
Figure 6. Trend in Average Sectoral Index By Regional Office................................... 19
Figure 7. 2009 Average Indices, by Sector and by Regional Office............................. 20
Figure 8. Growth in Environmental Governance Among LGUs Situated in Key
Biodiversity Areas in Northern Luzon .......................................................... 26
Figure 9. Progress in Environmental Governance among LGUs Situated in Key
Biodiversity areas in Central Visayas............................................................ 26
Figure 10. Progress in Environmental Governance Among LGUs Situation with
Key Biodiversity Areas in South and Central Mindanao. ............................. 27
Figure 11. Progress in Environmental Governance of LGUs Situated in Key
Biodiversity Areas in Western Mindanao...................................................... 27
Figure 12. Change in the average sectoral and over-all index of the 8 Visayas LGUs .. 35
Figure 13. Change in the average sectoral and over-all index of the 16 Mindanao
LGUs.............................................................................................................. 35
Figure 14. Growth in Average FFM-related indices of LGUs in the Visayas ................ 39
Figure 15. Growth in Average FFM-related indices of LGUs in Mindanao .................. 39
Figure 16. Growth in Average CRM-specific indices of LGUs in the Visayas.............. 43
Figure 17. Growth in Average CRM-specific indices of LGUs in Mindanao ............... 43
Figure 18. Growth in Average UEM-Specific Indices of LGUs in the Visayas............. 47
Figure 19. Growth in Average UEM Specific- Indices of LGUs in Mindanao ........... 47
Figure 20. Growth in Average LIM- Specific Indices Among LGUs in the Visayas..... 51
Figure 21. Growth in Average LIM-Specific Indices of LGUs in Mindanao................. 51
iv THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

ACRONYMS
AZE - Alliance for Zero Extinction

BAC - Bids and Awards Committee
CRM - Coastal Resources Management
EcoGov - The Philippine Environmental Governance Project
FFM - Forests and Forestlands Management
FGD - Focus Group Discussion
GSA - Guided Self-Assessment on Local Environmental Governance
IRA - Internal Revenue Allotment
KBA - Key Biodiversity Area
LGU - Local Government Unit
LIM - LGU Internal Management
LOP - Life of Project
MENRO - Municipal/City Environment and Natural Resources Officer
UEM - Urban Environmental Management
END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT v

SUMMARY
The Guided Self-Assessment on Local Environmental Governance (GSA) is a simple,

quick, management tool developed by the Philippine Environmental Governance Project
Phase 2 (EcoGov) that enables a local government unit (LGU) in an inclusive process
with representatives of its constituents assess the status of its adoption of good practices
in environmental governance. This tool was first used by EcoGov to monitor the
performance of assisted LGUs in relation to its original target of improving the capacity
of 80 LGUs to meet over-all good environmental governance index benchmark at the end
of five years of its implementation in September 2009. Under its two-year extension
period through September 2011, EcoGov aimed 20 more good performing LGUs, raising
the cumulative life of project (LOP) target to 100 LGUs. Both targets have been met
with 81 LGUs out of 86 that self-assessed in the final year of the base period and all 24
LGUs covered during the extension period able to achieve the benchmark over-all
environmental governance index of 0.75.
vi THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

INTRODUCTION
The Guided Self-Assessment on the State of Environmental Governance Practices or

GSA is a simple management tool designed to help quickly but objectively track, guide
and assess the process by which Local Government Units (LGUs) together with their
constituents adopt relevant good practices in environmental governance over time. This
tool has been developed by the Philippine Environmental Governance Project (EcoGov)
Phase 2 to measure the performance of its assisted LGUs in relation to the following
project deliverable for the base period of project implementation which ran from 2005-
2009:
“80 government institutions meeting environmental good governance index

benchmarks. These indicators cover five environmental governance functions:
1) resource management and utilization planning; 2) budgeting; 3)
contracting, bidding and procurement; 4) licensing, permitting, and issuance
of tenure and allocation instruments; and 5) enforcement of laws and
regulations.”
This tool was again used in relation to EcoGov’s target for the two-year extension period
of improving the capacity of an additional 20 LGUs to deliver good environmental
governance.
This report summarizes the results of the application of this tool in more than 100 LGUs
from the Project’s base year of implementation through the end of its two-year extension
in September 2011. It begins with a discussion of the GSA background, objectives and
procedure to enable the readers understand the rationale and context of the application of
this tool.
The report focuses on the results of the baseline and final assessments for the extension
period. The previous assessments conducted in 2005, 2007 and 2009 and the important
findings from these base year assessments are briefly revisited. To know the details of the
findings for the base period, the readers should read the 2009 report “Guided LGU Self-
Assessment on the State of Environmental Governance Practices: End of Base Year State
and Trends”.
The assessment results are presented by region, sector, governance function, and
governance principles. They are analyzed in the light of certain socio-economic,
environmental and technical assistance variables and contexts of the LGUs. Results are
also presented by Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) in order to gain insights on the
improvement in environmental governance performance of LGUs hosting or bordering
these biologically-important areas.
END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT 1

FEATURES OF THE GSA TOOL
The tool poses a series of up to 57 ‘core’ questions contained in up to four standard
questionnaires depending on the number of applicable sectors in an LGU. The four
sectors are: forest and forestland management (FFM), urban environmental management
(UEM), coastal resources management (CRM), and LGU internal management practices
(LIM). The GSA, thus, promotes the ridge to reef integrated approach to resource
management through the coverage of these sectors that spans important ecosystems in the
whole LGU landscape from the uplands to the downstream coastal and marine areas.
The composition of the GSA questions is as follows:
By Sector By Function By Principle

FFM 15 Planning and 28 Functionality 32
implementation
UEM 16 Law Enforcement 12 Transparency 10
CRM 17 Permitting, licensing, 3 Accountability 5
tenure issuance
LIM 9 Budgeting 2 Public 10
Participation
Contracting, bidding, 3
procurement
Cross-cutting 9
Total 57 57 57
All questions are answered by either “yes’ or ‘no’. Each of the questions was carefully
framed to represent selected “good practices” in the management of the four sectors
included in the assessment. Each ‘good practice’ tracks the adoption of a key informed
action under five main types of governance functions (see above matrix) as well as the
application of the core governance principles of functionality, transparency, account-
ability, and public participation (see the definitions in the matrix below) which are made
the standards in the implementation of these decisions and actions. Thus, the GSA not
only determines whether an LGU does what it needs to do in relation to its various
environment and natural resources mandates, but also, whether it does rightly what needs
to be done, i.e., in accordance with the four core governance principles.
• Functionality: Are basic management systems (plans, offices/staff/

bodies, systems, rules) in place and producing desired results?
• Transparency: Does the public have easy and reasonable access to
government information?
• Accountability: Are the responsibilities, reporting and working
relationships of LGU officials, staff, designated bodies clearly defined
and are they held responsible for their decisions and actions?
• Public Participation: Can the public effectively get involved in LGU
decisions and actions?
2 THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

To separate it from an ‘ordinary practice’, a ‘good practice’, in addition, contains
minimum requirements or characteristics which the participants need to consider in order
to satisfy the requirements for a ‘yes’ answer. For instance, the first question in the FFM,
CRM and UEM questionnaires requires not only that a resource management plan be
approved by the Sanggunian, but also that said plan had gone through community
consultations, and that it includes a minimum range of required sections (e.g., for the 10-
year ISWM Plan, those required under RA 9003).
The tool has four features to ensure the ‘accuracy’, objectivity, and comparability of the
assessment results:
• Multi-sectoral representation in the ‘core informants’. The informants include

both LGU and non-LGU representatives in face-to-face interaction, allowing
crosschecking of each other’s answers in one forum. The informants are assured
up front that the guided self-assessment is not intended to “grade” LGU
performance or the effectiveness of EcoGov technical assistance; a standard
introductory “script” is used to ensure that the participants understand the
purpose and procedure of the assessment.
• Careful explanation by facilitator of questions, indicators, and standards of

performance using a standard explanation guide
• Use of reference documents, photos and other hard evidences of performance to

support the ‘yes’ answers.
• Consistent use of the same set of GSA questions and basic procedure, and if
possible, core informants to make data comparable over time and to provide a
strong basis for trend analysis.
In analyzing the GSA results for internal use by the project, EcoGov asked the regional
coordinators and staff and sector leaders who are familiar with the sites to check the filled
out questionnaires and comment on the reliability of survey results
PARTICIPANTS AND METHOD

All surveys were administered by an external facilitator (hence, the term “guided self-
assessment”) among “core informants” in a focus group discussion setting. The ‘core
informants’ composed of pertinent LGU staff (e.g., Municipal Environment and Natural
Resources Officer, Budget Officer, Coastal Resource Management Officer),
representatives from local multisectoral environment management bodies (e.g., Technical
Working Group, Municipal Solid Waste Management Board, Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources Management Council, Marine Protected Area Management Board, Co-
Management Steering Committee), barangay officials, and key non-LGU representatives.
At least a third of the participants comprised of the latter, e.g., business, religious,

academe, people’s organization, permitees, tenure holders, indigenous peoples, women,
and youth. The LGUs themselves invited the participants.
The presence of key LGU officers with crosscutting functions such as the Municipal/
City Planning and Development Coordinator and Municipal/City Environment and
Natural Resources Officer (MENRO) was required in all sector assessments.
Representatives from the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), budget office, and
Personnel Management/Human Resource Development Office were ‘must participants’
in the LGU internal management (LIM) assessment.
The questionnaires were administered sector-by-sector, following a strict protocol. The

GSA tried to capture the “quality of response” from the supporting notes that the
documentor took as the “context” for each answer.
CALCULATING AND INTERPRETING THE SURVEY RESULTS

The number of ‘yes’ answers was divided by the total number of questions asked,
resulting in the computation of an index that ranged from “0.00” (if all answers are “no”),
to “1.00” (if all answers are “yes”). “Good environmental governance” is indicated by
indices moving close to “1.00”, with 0.75 as the minimum benchmark. Four types of
indices were computed from the results: principle-specific, function-specific, sector-
specific and cross-sector or over-all index.
• Governance principle-specific index – indicates the extent to which the LGU

practices the principles of transparency, accountability, functionality and public
participation in the conduct of the functions. This index can be computed by
sector (i.e., transparency in FFM) and across all sectors (i.e., Over-all-
Transparency Index).
• Governance function-specific index – indicates the extent to which the LGU

performs a certain function. This index can be computed by sector (i.e., Law
enforcement index in UEM) and across all sectors (i.e., Over-all Law
Enforcement Index)
• Sector-specific index – refers to the index obtained for a particular sector (i.e.,
FFM Index, CRM Index, UEM Index, and LIM Index). This index is a composite
of all functions and principles within a particular sector.
• Overall index – the over-all rating which is the composite of all indices- cuts
across all sectors (FFM, UEM, CRM, LIM), functions (planning and plan
implementation, law enforcement; permitting, licensing and tenure issuance;
contracting, bidding and procurement, and budgeting) and principles (FTAP).

The straightforward interpretation of the index is that the higher the numerical value, the
more a particular LGU is practicing good environmental governance at the time the self-
assessment is conducted.
LGUs were categorized into four based on the cross-sector indices that they obtained
from the assessment:
LGU GSA Index Categories
1- Good Performing - cross-sector or over-all index is between 0.

75-1.00
2- Median (Average) Performing – cross-sector index is between
0.39-0.74, but not overspecializing
3- Consistently Low Performing - the cross-sector index is 0.38
and below, the LGU performs poorly in all sectors
4- Overspecializing - the index in one or more sector sector is
>0.75, while that in another sector is less or equal to 0.38.
The categorization of LGUs served two purposes for EcoGov. First, the Project used the
highest category (well-performing) as the final ‘benchmark’ indicating LGU good
environmental governance. Thus, the ‘100 institutions’ cumulative target (80 for the base
year and 20 for the extension period) by the final year of project implementation in 2011
meant ‘100 LGUs’ achieving Category 1 status.
Second, the categorization was also used by EcoGov after each assessment as a
“framework” to design and deliver more responsive and effective technical assistance and
training to target LGUs. The aim was to help them move to higher level performance and,
ultimately, to achieve the ‘benchmark’.
FEEDBACK AND ACTION PLANNING SESSION

The GSA process ends with the conduct of the feedback and action planning session.
Primarily targeted for poorly performing, average performing and overspecializing
LGUs, this provided an important venue for assessing improvements needed in existing
LGU strategies, plans and programs and in identifying additional resources, linkages and
assistance from other pertinent agencies and organizations that can help the LGU
improve its environmental governance. It also inputted into the refinement of EcoGov
strategic technical assistance to LGUs. This activity was usually held in the form of a
formal action planning workshop using a template matrix or as an informal session with
local chief executives and other key officials to brief them about the results of the
assessment and to discuss together strategies for moving forward. The individual LGU
GSA report served as reference during this session.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM THE
BASE YEAR (2005-2009) THROUGH THE
EXTENSION YEARS (2009-2011)
COVERAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT

As already mentioned, the GSA for the base year covered three assessment periods:
baseline in 2005, mid-term in 2007, and final in 2009. The final assessment involved 86
LGUs covered by EcoGov technical assistance in all four project regional offices in
Northern Luzon, Central Visayas, Southern and Central Mindanao and Western
Mindanao (Table 1).
Table 1. Number of LGUs and FGD respondents covered by the 2009 Final GSA for the
Base Period of EcoGov
Gender of
Regions & No. of LGUs No. of FGD Participants Period of
Participants
Provinces Assessment
Mun. Cities Total LGU Others Total Male Female
Northern Luzon
Nueva Vizcaya 8 0 8 79 22 101 63 38 (36%) Feb 17-20
Aurora 5 0 5 51 23 74 52 22 (34%) Feb. 24-26
Quirino 5 0 5 61 30 91 63 28 (43%) March 3-5
Isabela 0 1 1 8 3 11 8 3 (42%) March 3
TOTAL 18 1 19 199 78 277 186 91
(63%) (28%) (67%) (33%)
Central Visayas
Cebu 10 2 12 84 60 144 95 49 (34%) Mar 12-May 14
Bohol 10 0 10 58 39 94 72 25 (27%) Feb 25- Apr 28
Siquijor 2 0 2 13 20 33 25 8 (24%) Mar 23-24
Negros Oriental 7 2 9 104 67 171 102 69 (40%) Feb 9-Mar 26
TOTAL 29 4 33 259 186 442 294 151
(58%) (42%) (66% (34%)
Southern Mindanao
Sultan Kudarat 5 0 6 52 14 66 39 27 Apr 20-Jun 29
Lanao del Sur 1 0 1 7 4 11 8 3 April 1
Sarangani 4 0 1 49 10 59 36 23 Mar 23-May 5
South Cotabato 5 3 8 95 31 126 79 47 May 19-June 30
North Cotabato 1 1 2 21 11 32 22 10 June 18- 24
Davao City 0 1 1 6 0 6 5 1 April 3
TOTAL 16 5 21 230 70 300 189 111
Western Mindanao
Basilan 0 2 2 26 64 90 64 26 Mar 31-April 1
Zambo Sibugay 2 0 2 37 43 80 65 15 Apr 14-15
Zambo del Sur 7 1 8 129 74 213 143 70 Mar 18-Apr 23
Zambo City 0 1 1 26 1 27 17 10 April 2
TOTAL 9 4 13 218 182 410 289 121
906 516 958

GRAND TOTAL 72 14 86 1,429 474 (33%)
(63%) (36%) (67%)

The extension period assessment covered only 24 selected LGUs from 11 provinces in
Central and Western Visayas and South and Central Mindanao (Table 2). The baseline
assessment was conducted from November 2009 to March 2010. The final assessment
was conducted one year after from December 2010 to April 2011.
Table 2. Number of LGUs and FGD respondents covered by the Final 2010/2011 GSA
Gender of
Regions & No. of LGUs No. of FGD Participants Period of
Participants
Provinces Non- Assessment
Mun. Cities Total LGU Total Male Female
LGU
Central & Western
Visayas Dec. 2010
Cebu 2 2 11 15 26 17 9 Dec. 2010
Bohol 2 2 13 12 25 11 14 Jan. 2011
Negros 1 1 6 10 16 12 4
Occidental Nov. 2010
Negros Oriental 2 1 3 29 19 48 31 17
TOTAL 6 2 8 59 56 115 71 44
(51%) (49%) (62%) (38%)
Southern Mindanao
Sarangani 3 3 38 18 56 38 18 Feb-March, 2011
Davao del 1 2 3 27 9 36 23 13 Feb.-April, 2011
Norte
Davao del Sur 2 1 3 40 13 53 38 15 March-April, 2011
Davao Oriental 1 1 2 28 14 42 19 23 March 2011
North Cotabato 2 2 26 6 32 18 14 March 2011
South Cotabato 2 2 24 6 30 20 10 March 2011
Maguindanao 1 1 16 1 17 13 4 March 2011
199 67 169 97
TOTAL 12 4 16 266
(75%) (25%) (63%) (37%)
258 123 240 141
GRAND TOTAL 18 6 24 381
(62%) (38%) (63%) (37%)
OVER-ALL FINDINGS
A total of 105 LGUs, 81 from the base period and 24 from the extension period,
representing 105% of the life of project target have achieved the performance benchmark
(Table 2). The growth over the years in environmental governance indices of the LGUs
as measured by average index, range of indices, and performance category of LGUs in
both the base period and the extension period assessments is summarized in Table 2.
It can be observed that quite a number of LGUs have already achieved good marks as
early as the baseline assessment. This can be attributed to the technical assistance that
EcoGov had provided to many of these LGUs at least a year prior to the conduct of the
assessment. It should be clarified that many of the LGUs covered by the base year
assessment were carry-over from EcoGov Phase 1 (2002-2004) while majority of the
LGUs covered by the extension period assessment have already been assisted by the
project for about two years prior to the assessment.

Figure 1 illustrates the shift in level of environmental governance categories of the LGUs
over the three assessment periods for the base year. It can be noted that most of the LGUs
that were able to raise their category to good performing came from the average
performing and over-specializing categories. Moreover, five years after the baseline
assessment, there were no more LGUs under the low performing category. For the
extension period, the eight LGUs that were able to achieve the benchmark at the final
assessment came also from the average and overspecializing categories, as there was no
low performing LGU at the baseline assessment (Table 2).
The baseline average over-all environmental governance index of 0.63 improved to 0.90
in the final assessment for the base period. This 43% improvement over the baseline
condition is roughly equivalent to adoption of 15 more good practices. For the extension
period, the average over-all index rose from 0.82 to 0.92, which represents the adoption
of six additional good practices within the span of about two years.
Table 3. Summary of EcoGov 2 Accomplishments: Government Institutions Meeting

Good Environmental Governance Benchmark
Number, Percentage and Mean Indices of LGUs Under
Each Category
Extension Years
Base Year (2005-2009) Grand
Index Category (2009-2011)
Total
Midterm Baseline Final
Baseline Final
91 24 LGUs 24 LGUs
79 LGUs 86 LGUs
LGUs
1- Good-performing (cross-sector 19 (23%) 53 (58%) 81 (94%) 16 (67%) 24 (100%) 105
governance index >0.75-1.00) 0.84 0.85 0.91 0.81 0.92
2- Average performing (cross- 28 (34%) 18 (20%) 2 (2%) 2 (8%)
sector of 0.39-0.74 but not 0.60 0.66 0.68 0.72
overspecializing)
3- Low Performing (cross-sector 8 (10%) 2 (2%) 0 0 0
index = 0.38 or lower) 0.34 0.32
4-Overspecializing (sector/s with 27 (33%) 18 (20%) 3 (3%) 6 (25%) 0
index of >0.75; another 0.59 0.61 0.59 0.74
sector/s index is = 0.38 or
lower
Over-All Index Range 0.28-0.96 0.47-1.00 0.56-1.00 0.62- 1.00 0.79-1.00
Average Cross-Sector/Over-all 0.63 0.75 0.90 0.82 0.92
Index
% Achievement of Project Target 24% 66% 101% 80% 100% 105%

Figure 1. Trend in LGU Category, 2005, 2007, 2009
The shift toward the higher range of indices clearly illustrates the improvement in
environmental governance performance of assisted LGUs in all four regional offices of
EcoGov in both the base and extension period assessments (Table 3):
Table 3. Shift in the range of over-all environmental governance indices of LGUs in both
the base and extension period assessments
Regional
Base Period GSA Extension Period GSA
Office
2005 2007 2009 Baseline Final
Northern 0.28-0.80 0.60-1.00 0.65-0.95
Luzon
Central 0.42-0.93 0.60-1.00 0.81-1.00
Visayas
South and 0.43-0.96 0.53-0.96 0.80-1.00
Central
Mindanao
Western 0.37-0.96 0.47-0.98 0.56-1.00
Mindanao
Central and 0.70-0.91 0.86-1.00
Western
Visayas
South and 0.62-0.96 0.79-1.00
Central
Mindanao
The names of the 105 LGUs that were able to reach the benchmark and the scores that
they obtained through the different assessment periods are listed in Table 4. It should be
noted that 15 LGUs in all (11 in the base period and 4 in the extension period) have
attained the highest index of 1.00, indicating the adoption of all the required minimum
number of good practices in all sectors assessed. The low percentage (13% of 113) of
LGUs that obtained the perfect index reiterates the earlier observation that improving
local environmental governance takes time. Based on EcoGov experience, the process

requires willingness and sustained commitment to change on the part of the LGUs and
patient and close and strategic partnership with them on the part of the technical
assistance team.
Table 4. List of LGUs that met the ‘good environmental governance benchmark
Over-All Environmental Governance Index
LGU 2010/
2005 2007 2009
2011
Base Period GSA
1. Bayawan City, Negros Oriental 0.89 1.00 1.00
2. Dalaguete, Cebu 0.93 0.95 1.00
3. Davao City - 0.93 1.00
4. General Santos City, South Cotabato - 0.96 1.00
5. Dauin, Negros Oriental 0.89 0.84 1.00
6. Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat 0.63 0.84 1.00
7. Talibon, Bohol 0.70 0.98 1.00
8. Zamboanga City, Zamboanga Del Sur 0.96 0.98 1.00
9. Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat 0.48 0.76 1.00
10. Tampakan, South Cotabato - 0.88 1.00
11. T'boli, South Cotabato - 0.68 1.00
12. Alabel, Sarangani - 0.77 0.98
13. Tupi, South Cotabato - 0.85 0.98
14. Sta Catalina, Negros Oriental 0.67 0.82 0.98
15. Bais City, Negros Oriental 0.63 0.84 0.98
16. Maribojoc, Bohol 0.82 0.96 0.98
17. Toledo City, Cebu 0.74 0.88 0.98
18. Kidapawan City, North Cotabato 0.73 0.80 0.98
19. Wao, Lanao Del Sur 0.60 0.88 0.98
20. Polomolok, South Cotabato - 0.90 0.98
21. Koronadal City, South Cotabato 0.73 0.85 0.98
22. Jagna, Bohol 0.81 0.84 0.96
23. San Jose, Negros Oriental 0.79 0.86 0.96
24. La Libertad, Negros Oriental 0.67 0.78 0.96
25. Cauayan City, Isabela 0.81 1.00 0.96
26. Kiamba, Sarangani 0.81 0.88 0.96
27. Danao City, Moalboal 0.58 0.93 0.96
28. Nagtipunan, Quirino 0.33 0.80 0.95
29. Maddela, Quirino 0.28 0.88 0.95
30. Amlan, Negros Oriental 0.65 0.82 0.95
31. Bindoy, Negros Oriental - 0.61 0.95
32. San Miguel, Bohol 0.60 0.82 0.95
33. Lebak, Sultan Kudarat 0.74 0.88 0.95
34. Sen. Ninoy Aquino, Sultan Kudarat - 0.70 0.95
35. Maitum, Sarangani 0.81 0.91 0.95
36. Diffun, Quirino - 0.88 0.95
37. Duero, Bohol 0.61 0.77 0.93
38. Lazi, Siquijor - 0.72 0.93
39. San Francisco, Cebu 0.77 0.75 0.93
40. Maasim, Sarangani 0.67 0.88 0.93
41. Cabarroguis, Quirino 0.38 0.88 0.93
42. Surallah, Sultan Kudarat - 0.53 0.93
43. Lamitan City, Basilan 0.37 0.46 0.92
44. Alcoy, Cebu 0.67 0.88 0.91

LGU 2010/
2005 2007 2009
2011
45. Balamban, Cebu 0.61 0.81 0.91
46. Pilar, Cebu 0.60 0.58 0.91
47. Cortes, Bohol 0.54 0.81 0.91
48. Maria Aurora, Aurora 0.55 0.70 0.90
49. Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya - 0.78 0.90
50. Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya 0.38 0.60 0.90
51. Makilala, North Cotabato 0.63 0.70 0.90
52. Dauis, Bohol 0.52 0.76 0.90
53. Siquijor, Siquijor 0.79 0.89
54. Poro, Cebu 0.53 0.60 0.89
55. Quezon, Nueva Vizcaya 0.33 0.67 0.88
56. San Pablo, Zamboanga Del Sur 0.46 0.53 0.88
57. Carmen, Cebu - 0.61 0.88
58. San Luis, Aurora 0.61 0.70 0.88
59. Ayungon, Negros Oriental - 0.53 0.88
60. Tanjay, Negros Oriental 0.77 0.74 0.88
61. Dinalungan, Aurora 0.79 0.86 0.88
62. Corella, Bohol 0.53 0.58 0.88
63. Dupax del Sur, Nueva Vizcaya 0.33 0.75 0.85
64. Aglipay, Quirino 0.40 0.65 0.85
65. Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya 0.60 0.75 0.85
66. Isulan, Sultan Kudarat 0.43 0.55 0.85
67. Solano, Nueva Vizcaya 0.53 0.65 0.85
68. Compostela, Cebu 0.74 0.74 0.84
69. Baler, Aurora 0.67 0.75 0.84
70. Tungawan, Zamboanga Sibugay 0.74 0.79 0.84
71. Isabela City, Basilan 0.54 0.75 0.82
72. Dinas, Zamboanga Del Sur 0.53 0.74 0.82
73. Tudela, Cebu 0.42 0.65 0.81
74. Moalboal, Cebu - 0.74 0.81
75. Panglao, Bohol 0.57 0.69 0.81
76. Bagumbayan, Sultan Kudarat - 0.55 0.80
77. Dupax del Norte, Nueva Vizcaya 0.58 0.75 0.80
78. Tukuran, Zamboanga Del Sur 0.56 0.67 0.79
79. Dimataling, Zamboanga Del Sur 0.65 0.60 0.79
80. Dumalinao, Zamboanga Del Sur 0.67 0.75 0.77
81. Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya 0.58 0.73 0.75
Extension Period GSA
82. Baclayon, Bohol 0.83 1.00
83. Panabo City, Davao Del Norte 0.94 1.00
84. Digos City, Davao del Sur 0.76 1.00
85. Magpet, North Cotabato 0.88 1.00
86. Malalag, Davao del Sur 0.96 0.98
87. Upi, Maguindanao 0.82 0.98
88. San Carlos City, Negros Oriental 0.91 0.96
89. Loboc, Bohol 0.93 0.95
90. Glan, Sarangani 0.83 0.95
91. Manjuyod, Negros Oriental 0.88 0.93
92. Canlaon City, Negros Oriental 0.70 0.93
93. Barili, Cebu 0.81 0.93

LGU 2010/
2005 2007 2009
2011
94. Kabacan, North Cotabato 0.62 0.93
95. Lake Sebu, South Cotabato 0.88 0.91
96. Malungon, Sarangani 0.82 0.90
97. Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur 0.74 0.91
98. Mati City, Davao del Norte 0.70 0.89
99. Carmen, Davao del Norte 0.75 0.88
100. Siaton, Negros Oriental 0.84 0.86
101. Lupon, Davao del Norte 0.72 0.86
102. Badian, Cebu 0.79 0.86
103. Tantangan, South Cotabato 0.79 0.85
104. Island Garden City of Samal,
Davao del Norte 0.80 0.81
105. Malapatan, Sarangani 0.93 0.79

REVISITING THE BASE PERIOD
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
(2005, 2007, 2009)
The following are the summary of findings for the base period GSA.
TREND IN PERFORMANCE BY SECTOR

LGU adoption of good practices showed an increasing trend in all sectors from the
baseline assessment in 2005 through the final assessment in 2009 (Figure 2). The final
assessment average sectoral indices have also all exceeded the benchmark index of 0.75.
Figure 2. Trend in sectoral indices, 2005, 2007, 2009
With average index of 0.97 and almost 80% of the LGUs that self-assessed achieving
perfect (1.00) index by the final assessment, CRM was consistently the top performing
sector. Coming from a low average baseline index of 0.59 and with midterm average of
0.73 and final assessment average of 0.90, UEM, however, was the most improved
sector. The progress was also recognizable in FFM, although this sector recorded the
lowest average index during the baseline GSA. Helped by EcoGov’s technical assistance,
the LGUs have increasingly realized the value of improved governance of forests and
forestlands and their role in the process, thus, the increasing adoption of good practices in
this sector and the final assssment average index of 0.83. Across the board improvement

also occurred in LIM. LIM, as mentioned already, is an important sector since the various
good practices in this sector not only crosscut but also provide important support (e.g.,
budget, transparent database, accountable procurement) for sustaining good practices in
the UEM, FFM, and CRM sectors.
TREND IN THE ADOPTION OF GOVERNANCE FUNCTIONS

LGU progress in the adoption of governance functions is illustrated in Figure 3 and Table
5. The single function adopted by the most number of LGUs was budgeting. Except for
one LGU (Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya), all of the 86 LGUs have adopted all two
indicators of good practices in this sector by the final assessment. These two indicators
are providing budget for the environment from own sources of funds and, leveraging
outside funding sources and assistance. The LGUs also registered marked improvement
in the adoption of permitting, licensing and tenure issuance; planning and plan
implementation, and conduct of cross-cutting functions (e.g., database establishment and
maintenance, personnel management, etc.). The adoption of planning and plan
implementation function was widespread across all regions and provinces. This
observation can be linked to EcoGov strategy of making resource management planning
as a key entry point for providing various technical assistance to LGUs in improving
local environmental governance.
With the exception of LGUs in Sultan Kudarat province, the LGUs in South and Central
Mindanao were the over-all top performers in terms of the percentage of LGUs that
adopted good practices in permitting, licensing, and tenure issuance functions across the
different sectors.
LGUs in certain provinces registered comparatively slower progress in law enforcement

and contracting, bidding and procurement functions. Law enforcement across sectors was
relatively weaker among LGUs in the provinces of Aurora (average = 0.63) and Nueva
Vizcaya (average = 0.71) in Northern Luzon and in the provinces of Zamboanga Del Sur
(average = 0.74) and Zamboanga Sibugay (average = 0.54) in Western Mindanao.
Northern Luzon was the top performing region in terms of conduct of transparent,
accountable, and participatory bidding, contracting, and procurement with an average
index of 0.91.

Figure 3. Progress in LGU adoption of environmental governance functions,
by EcoGov Region (2005, 2007, and 2009)
TREND IN THE ADOPTION OF GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES

The final GSA revealed greatly improved adoption of functionality (F), transparency (T),
accountability (A), and public participation (P) principles among the LGUs (Table 6 and
Figure 4). Transparency was the single most widely adopted principle with a high over-
all average index of 0.96. It was followed by functionality with over-all average index of
0.92. Accountability and public participation came last with both garnering slightly lower
over-all average index of 0.89.
Figure 4. Trend in adoption of governance principles from baseline to end of base year

Table 5. Trend in LGU adoption of key functions in environmental governance, by region and by province for the base period
Permitting, Bidding,
Planning &
Region/ Law Enforcement Licensing, Tenure Budgeting Contracting, Cross-cutting
Implementation
Province Issuance Procurement
2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
N. Luzon
Aurora 0.59 0.74 0.89 0.62 0.53 0.63 0.67 1.00 0.93 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.93 0.68 0.72 0.80
Nueva Vizcaya 0.49 0.72 0.89 0.19 0.50 0.71 0.63 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.75 0.84 0.84 0.46 0.75 0.86
Quirino 0.42 0.92 0.97 0.25 0.55 0.85 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.93 1.00 0.53 0.93 0.93 0.37 0.71 0.86
Isabela 0.90 1.00 0.97 0.75 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.93 0.60 1.00 0.86
Mean 0.60 0.85 0.93 0.45 0.65 0.76 0.68 0.99 0.98 0.85 0.97 0.99 0.69 0.89 0.91 0.53 0.80 0.85
C. Visayas
Cebu 0.65 0.76 0.91 0.57 0.67 0.88 0.67 0.78 0.83 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.81 0.83 0.66 0.80 0.94
Bohol 0.66 0.81 0.92 0.60 0.77 0.98 0.52 0.81 0.84 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.52 0.63 0.93 0.62 0.86 0.91
Negros Oriental 0.74 0.83 0.97 0.68 0.63 0.93 0.73 0.77 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.87 0.93 0.73 0.82 0.94
Siquijor NA 0.75 0.89 NA 0.67 1.00 NA 1.00 1.00 NA 1.00 1.00 NA 0.67 0.67 NA 0.78 0.89
Mean 0.68 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.69 0.95 0.64 0.84 0.89 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.75 0.84 0.67 0.82 0.92
S.& Central
Mindanao
Sarangani 0.80 0.90 0.98 0.75 0.81 0.95 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.80 0.92 0.81 0.98
South Cotabato 0.70 0.83 0.97 0.63 0.74 0.94 0.80 0.88 1.00 0.90 0.81 1.00 0.87 0.79 1.00 0.86 0.80 1.00
Sultan Kudarat 0.53 0.70 0.93 0.45 0.52 0.85 0.50 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.75 0.93 0.89 0.61 0.76 0.96
North Cotabato 0.79 0.87 1.00 0.44 0.56 0.94 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.67 0.83 0.67 0.57 0.64 1.00
Lanao del Sur (Wao) 0.63 0.95 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.43 0.57 1.00
Davao del Sur (Davao 0.82 0.86 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
City)
Mean 0.71 0.85 0.98 0.62 0.77 0.95 0.54 0.98 0.95 0.98 0.87 1.00 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.73 0.76 0.99
W. Mindanao
Z. del Sur 0.53 0.65 0.74 0.51 0.54 0.74 0.70 0.81 0.93 0.89 0.89 1.00 0.56 0.81 0.85 0.69 0.68 0.79
Z. Sibugay 0.66 0.75 0.79 0.50 0.46 0.54 0.67 0.67 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.67 0.67 0.56 0.72 0.89
Basilan 0.54 0.77 0.86 0.21 0.33 0.88 0.33 0.50 0.83 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.50 0.33 1.00 0.50 0.61 0.94
Mean 0.58 0.72 0.80 0.41 0.44 0.72 0.57 0.66 0.86 0.80 0.88 1.00 0.63 0.60 0.84 0.58 0.67 0.87
Overall Mean 0.65 0.81 0.92 0.54 0.66 0.86 0.60 0.89 0.93 0.91 0.92 1.00 0.71 0.79 0.86 0.64 0.77 0.92

Table 6. Trend in LGU adoption of good practices in functionality, transparency, accountability and public participation, by Region
and by Province, for the base period
Region/ Functionality Transparency Accountability Public Participation
Province 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
N. Luzon
Aurora 0.62 0.72 0.87 0.78 0.89 0.90 0.45 0.58 0.71 0.61 0.62 0.78
Nueva Vizcaya 0.53 0.71 0.83 0.55 0.78 0.90 0.36 0.74 0.88 0.27 0.62 0.70
Quirino 0.44 0.84 0.92 0.49 0.83 1.00 0.20 0.51 0.80 0.23 0.86 0.94
Isabela (Cauayan City) 0.62 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00
Mean 0.53 0.76 0.87 0.62 0.83 0.93 0.38 0.65 0.82 0.35 0.71 0.80
C. Visayas
Cebu 0.67 0.76 0.90 0.67 0.83 0.96 0.53 0.60 0.85 0.68 0.76 0.91
Bohol 0.67 0.81 0.93 0.71 0.85 0.96 0.45 0.67 0.78 0.54 0.79 0.97
Negros Oriental 0.73 0.78 0.95 0.82 0.87 0.99 0.56 0.70 0.94 0.76 0.78 0.96
Siquijor NA 0.77 0.94 NA 0.95 1.00 NA 0.40 0.60 NA 0.70 0.90
Mean 0.72 0.78 0.92 0.76 0.85 0.97 0.53 0.64 0.84 0.68 0.77 0.94
S.& CMindanao
Sarangani 0.81 0.91 0.97 0.88 0.88 1.00 0.90 0.72 0.96 0.73 0.86 0.92
South Cotabato 0.70 0.80 0.96 0.83 0.79 0.98 0.65 0.63 1.00 0.77 0.69 1.00
Sultan Kudarat 0.58 0.74 0.93 0.72 0.79 0.98 0.49 0.59 0.93 0.41 0.57 0.95
North Cotabato 0.73 0.77 1.00 0.71 0.79 0.86 0.50 0.63 1.00 0.57 0.71 0.86
Lanao del Sur (Wao) 0.64 0.91 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.43 0.86 0.86
Davao del Sur (Davao 0.81 0.88 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
City)
Mean 0.68 0.81 0.96 0.76 0.83 0.97 0.63 0.65 0.97 0.61 0.72 0.95
W. Mindanao
Z. del Sur 0.66 0.73 0.76 0.71 0.75 0.78 0.73 0.63 0.70 0.54 0.60 0.68
Z. Sibugay 0.63 0.70 0.73 0.75 0.56 0.85 0.60 0.50 0.80 0.55 0.60 0.70
Basilan 0.44 0.64 0.87 0.60 0.65 0.85 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.35 0.55 0.85
Zambo City 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Mean 0.67 0.73 0.77 0.72 0.73 0.82 0.69 0.62 0.78 0.55 0.62 0.73
Over-All Mean 0.66 0.80 0.92 0.75 0.85 0.95 0.61 0.66 0.89 0.58 0.75 0.89

TREND IN OVER-ALL AND SECTORAL PERFORMANCE BY ECOGOV
REGIONAL OFFICE
Figure 5 and Tables 7-10 present the trend in the adoption of good governance practices
across all EcoGov regions from the baseline through the final assessment. Posting a
regional over-all index average of 0.86 and with only one LGU missing the benchmark,
Northern Luzon registered ninety five percent (95%) benchmark achievement rate
(Table 7). Both Central Visayas and South and Central Mindanao LGUs recorded one
hundred percent achievement of the benchmark (Tables 8-9) with high respective
regional averages of 0.92 and 0.96 by the final assessment. The over-all performance of
Western Mindanao LGUs has also improved over time, except for Tabina and Pagadian
City (Table 10). However, the LGUs in this region registered the lowest average over-all
regional index of 0.78 and the lowest percentage (69% or 9 out of 13 LGUs) achievement
of the benchmark. Of the four LGUs that missed the benchmark, three (Pagadian City,
Labangan, and Tabina) are from Zamboanga del Sur province. While the other LGU that
missed the target (RT Lim) consistently improved over the years, these three Zamboanga
Del Sur LGUs showed inconsistent performance. Although Labangan’s final over-all
index has improved, its midterm assessment index was lower compared to the baseline.
Both Pagadian City and Tabina have weakened in the final assessment to over-
specializing category after achieving good performance in the midterm. These findings
suggest that as compared with the LGUs in the other regional offices, Western Mindanao
LGUs generally faced greater challenge in achieving sustained high level of
environmental governance. The risk of backsliding performance (as demonstrated by
Tabina and Pagadian City) due to certain factors (e.g., political leadership issues) was
still great in this region at the time of the final assessment. This pointed to the need to put
more emphasis on sustaining and strengthening already adopted practices in this region as
well as continuing support for weaker LGUs.
Figure 5. Trend in Average Regional Cross-Sector Indices

The trend in the adoption of good governance practices by sector and by region from the
baseline assessment through the final assessment is presented in Figure 6. Based on the
regional averages for the final assessment, South and Central Mindanao LGUs were
generally the top performers in FFM, CRM and LIM. Central Visayas LGUs were the top
performers in UEM. The low FFM indices of some LGUs in Aurora and Nueva Vizcaya
provinces brought down the Northern Luzon regional average FFM index to below 0.80.
Western Mindanao LGUs generally performed the least in all sectors, except for CRM,
which continued to be a traditional area of excellence for most LGUs in this region. But,
while Western Mindanao LGUs, particularly those situated in Zamboanga Del Sur,
generally continued to register low indices in the FFM sector, their management of
mangrove coastal forests (as part of their over-all CRM strategy) has improved. These
LGUs need to sustain this effort as well as give more emphasis to the governance of their
terrestrial forests and forestlands. It should be noted further that the LGUs that
underperformed in FFM in the different regions have generally not received technical
assistance in this sector from EcoGov. This indicates the important role of external
assistance in this sector.
Figure 6. Trend in Average Sectoral Index By Regional Office

Figure 7. 2009 Average Indices, by Sector and by Regional Office

Table 7. Change in sectoral and over-all environment governance indices and category among LGUs assisted By EcoGov in Northern
Luzon, Base Period Assessment
Forest and Forestland Coastal Resource Urban Environmental LGU Internal Management
Over-all /Cross-Sector Index Change in LGU
Province Management (FFM) Index Management (CRM) Index Management (UEM) Index Practices (LIM) Index
Category
2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
N. Vizcaya
Bayombong 0.13 0.27 0.40 NA NA NA 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.89 0.58 0.73 0.75 C4 to C4 to C1
Solano 0.27 0.27 0.60 NA NA NA 0.69 0.88 1.00 0.67 0.89 1.00 0.53 0.65 0.85 C2 to C4 to C1
Bagabag 0.20 0.07 0.93 NA NA NA 0.38 0.94 0.94 0.67 0.89 0.78 0.38 0.60 0.90 C3 to C4 to C1
Dupax Sur 0.20 0.87 0.93 NA NA NA 0.25 0.81 0.88 0.67 0.44 0.67 0.33 0.75 0.85 C3 to C1 to C1
Dupax del Norte 0.47 0.53 0.67 NA NA NA 0.56 0.81 0.81 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.75 0.80 C2 to C1 to C1
Quezon 0.27 0.87 1.00 NA NA NA 0.31 0.56 0.69 0.44 0.56 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.88 C3 to C2 to C1
Bambang 0.20 0.40 0.73 NA NA NA 0.88 0.94 0.94 0.78 1.00 0.89 0.60 0.75 0.85 C4 to C1 to C1
Aritao 0.33 0.73 0.87 NA NA NA 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.67 0.89 0.78 0.48 0.78 0.90 C2 to C1 to C1
Mean 0.26 0.50 0.77 NA NA NA 0.56 0.84 0.91 0.68 0.83 0.88 0.48 0.71 0.85
Aurora
Baler 0.67 0.60 0.53 0.82 0.82 0.94 0.50 0.81 1.00 0.67 0.78 0.89 0.67 0.75 0.84 C2 to C1 to C1
Dipaculao 0.40 0.07 0.20 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.63 0.63 0.67 0.67 0.78 0.53 0.60 0.65 C2 to C4 to C4
Dinalungan 0.71 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.81 0.56 0.67 0.67 0.79 0.86 0.88 C1 to C1 to C1
San Luis 0.33 0.33 0.67 0.82 0.94 1.00 0.50 0.56 0.88 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.68 0.88 C4 to C4 to C1
Maria Aurora 0.47 0.53 0.87 NA NA NA 0.63 0.81 1.00 0.56 0.78 0.78 0.55 0.70 0.90 C2 to C2 to C1
Mean 0.52 0.49 0.64 0.82 0.94 0.99 0.56 0.71 0.86 0.67 0.78 0.82 0.63 0.72 0.84
Quirino
Diffun 0.47 0.93 1.00 NA NA NA 0.75 0.94 0.94 0.56 0.78 0.89 0.60 0.88 0.95 C2 to C1 to C1
Nagtipunan 0.33 0.80 1.00 NA NA NA 0.38 0.81 0.88 0.22 0.78 1.00 0.33 0.80 0.95 C3 to C1 to C1
Maddela 0.07 0.80 0.93 NA NA NA 0.25 0.94 1.00 0.67 0.89 0.89 0.28 0.88 0.95 C3 to C1 to C1
Aglipay 0.60 0.80 0.93 NA NA NA 0.25 0.50 0.88 0.22 0.67 0.67 0.38 0.65 0.85 C3 to C2 to C1
Cabarroguis 0.60 0.93 1.00 NA NA NA 0.44 0.88 0.88 0.44 0.78 0.89 0.50 0.88 0.93 C2 to C1 to C1
Mean 0.41 0.85 0.97 NA NA NA 0.41 0.81 0.92 0.42 0.78 0.86 0.42 0.82 0.93
Isabela
Cauayan City NA NA NA NA NA 0.81 1.00 0.94 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.96 C1 to C1 to C1
NA
Regional Average 0.37 0.60 0.79 0.82 0.94 0.99 0.53 0.81 0.90 0.62 0.81 0.87 0.52 0.76 0.87

Table 8. Change in sectoral and over-all environment governance indices among LGUs assisted By EcoGov in Central Visayas, Base
Period Assessment
Over-all /Cross-Sector
FFM Index CRM Index UEM Index LIM Index Change in LGU
Province Index
Category
2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
Cebu
Pilar N/A 0.27 0.93 0.82 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.38 0.75 0.56 0.67 1.00 0.60 0.58 0.91 C4 to C4 to C1
Poro 0.20 0.53 1.00 0.88 0.88 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.63 0.89 0.78 1.00 0.53 0.60 0.89 C4 to C4 to C1
Toledo City 0.47 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.75 1.00 0.78 0.89 0.89 0.74 0.88 0.98 C2 to C1 to C1
Alcoy 0.93 0.93 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.94 0.69 0.63 0.88 0.44 1.00 0.78 0.77 0.88 0.91 C1 to C1 to C1
Compostela 0.60 0.20 0.60 0.65 0.88 0.82 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.89 1.00 0.72 0.74 0.84 C2 to C4 to C1
Balamban 0.47 0.67 0.80 0.71 0.88 1.00 0.75 0.94 1.00 0.44 0.67 0.78 0.61 0.81 0.91 C2 to C1 to C1
San Francisco 0.53 0.53 0.80 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.75 1.00 0.78 0.67 0.89 0.77 0.75 0.93 C1 to C1 to C1
Dalaguete 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.81 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.95 1.00 C1 to C1 to C1
Tudela 0.20 0.27 0.60 0.82 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.56 0.81 0.56 0.78 0.78 0.42 0.65 0.81 C4 to C4 to C1
Moalboal N/A 0.53 0.53 N/A 0.88 0.88 N/A 0.81 1.00 N/A 0.67 0.78 N/A 0.74 0.81 C2 to C1
Carmen 0.67 0.47 0.73 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.19 0.81 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.68 0.61 0.88 C4 to C4 to C1
Danao City 0.13 0.87 0.87 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.78 1.00 0.65 0.93 0.96 C4 to C1 to C1
Mean 0.52 0.60 0.82 0.86 0.96 0.97 0.60 0.67 0.91 0.64 0.81 0.90 0.68 0.76 0.90
Bohol
Talibon 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.31 0.94 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.98 1.00 C2 to C1 to C1
Panglao NA NA NA 0.59 0.71 0.82 0.75 0.69 0.88 0.22 0.67 0.67 0.57 0.69 0.81 C4 to C2 to C1
San Miguel 0.87 1.00 1.00 NA NA NA 0.31 0.63 0.88 0.67 0.89 1.00 0.60 0.80 0.95 C4 to C1 to C1
Maribojoc 0.80 0.87 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.96 0.98 C1 to C1 to C1
Cortes 0.53 0.80 0.80 0.47 0.71 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.67 0.78 0.54 0.81 0.91 C2 to C1 to C1
Jagna 0.67 0.80 0.87 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 1.00 0.81 0.84 0.96 C1 to C1 to C1
Corella 0.40 0.33 0.93 NA NA NA 0.56 0.81 0.88 0.67 0.56 0.78 0.53 0.58 0.88 C2 to C4
Duero 0.47 0.60 0.73 0.88 0.94 1.00 0.50 0.81 1.00 0.56 0.67 1.00 0.61 0.77 0.93 C2 to C1 to C1
Dauis NA NA NA 0.53 0.82 0.88 0.50 0.81 1.00 0.56 0.56 0.78 0.52 0.76 0.90 C2 to C1 to C1
Mean 0.68 0.77 0.89 0.72 0.84 0.96 0.59 0.85 0.96 0.59 0.77 0.89 0.63 0.80 0.92
Siquijor
Lazi N/A 0.40 0.87 N/A 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.75 1.00 N/A 0.67 0.78 N/A 0.72 0.93 C2 to C1
Siquijor N/A 0.67 0.80 N/A 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.75 0.94 N/A 0.67 0.78 N/A 0.79 0.89 C1 to C1
Dauin 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.81 1.00 0.67 0.89 1.00 0.89 0.84 1.00 C1 to C1 to C1
Bais City 0.93 0.80 1.00 0.29 0.94 0.94 0.69 0.88 1.00 0.67 0.67 1.00 0.63 0.84 0.98 C4 to C1 to C1
Bayawan City 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 C1 to C1 to C1
San Jose 0.33 0.67 0.87 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 0.88 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.86 0.96 C1 to C1 to C1
La Libertad 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.56 0.88 0.67 0.78 1.00 0.67 0.84 0.96 C4 to C1 to C1
Amlan 0.33 0.73 0.93 0.88 0.94 1.00 0.63 0.81 0.88 0.78 0.78 1.00 0.65 0.82 0.95 C4 to C1 to C1
Sta. Catalina 0.47 0.93 1.00 0.88 0.94 0.94 0.63 0.50 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.82 0.98 C2 to C1 to C1
Tanjay 1.00 0.73 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.44 0.50 0.88 0.56 0.67 0.78 0.77 0.74 0.88 C1 to C2 to C1
Bindoy N/A 0.67 1.00 N/A 0.76 0.94 N/A 0.44 0.94 N/A 0.56 0.89 N/A 0.61 0.95 C2 to C1
Ayungon N/A 0.53 1.00 N/A 0.65 1.00 N/A 0.27 0.75 N/A 0.78 0.67 N/A 0.53 0.88 C4 to C1
Mean 0.74 0.77 0.97 0.85 0.92 0.98 0.67 0.67 0.93 0.70 0.81 0.93 0.75 0.79 0.95
Regional Mean 0.63 0.68 0.86 0.79 0.89 0.94 0.53 0.71 0.91 0.64 0.77 0.87 0.66 0.76 0.90

Table 9. Change in sectoral and over-all environment governance indices and category among LGUs assisted By EcoGov in South and
Central Mindanao, Base Period Assessment
LGU Internal
Forest and Forestland Coastal Resource Management Practices
Management (FFM) Management (CRM) Urban Environmental (LIM) Over-all Change in LGU
Index Index Management (UEM) Index Index Index Category
Province 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
S. Kudarat
Isulan 0.00 0.13 0.80 NA NA NA 0.63 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.67 0.89 0.43 0.55 0.85 C2 to C4 to C1
Lebak 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.94 1.00 0.50 0.75 0.94 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.74 0.88 0.95 C2 to C1
Sen. N.Aquino N/A 0.80 1.00 N/A NA NA NA 0.44 0.88 N/A 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.70 0.95 C2 to C1
Kalamansig 0.80 0.87 1.00 0.88 0.94 1.00 0.19 0.75 1.00 0.67 0.78 1.00 0.63 0.84 1.00 C4 to C1 to C1
Bagumbayan N/A 0.47 1.00 NA NA NA N/A 0.44 0.56 N/A 0.89 0.89 N/A 0.55 0.80 C2 to C1
Tacurong City 0.07 N/A NA NA NA NA 0.75 0.81 1.00 0.67 0.67 1.00 0.48 0.76 1.00 C2 to C1 to C1
Mean 0.44 0.65 0.96 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.52 0.68 0.88 0.75 0.80 0.93 0.57 0.71 0.93
S. Cotabato
Koronadal City 0.53 0.73 0.93 NA NA NA 0.75 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.78 0.85 0.98 C1 to C1 to C1
Polomolok 0.73 0.93 0.93 NA NA NA 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.89 0.78 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.98 C1 to C1 to C1
Tampakan N/A 0.80 1.00 NA NA NA N/A 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.78 1.00 N/A 0.88 1.00 C1 to C1
Surallah 0.27 0.27 0.80 NA NA NA 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.67 0.56 1.00 0.55 0.53 0.93 C2 to C2 to C1
Tupi 0.47 0.80 1.00 NA NA NA 0.94 0.88 0.94 0.89 0.89 1.00 0.75 0.85 0.98 C2 to C1 to C1
Tboli 0.80 0.67 1.00 NA NA NA 0.81 0.63 1.00 0.67 0.78 1.00 0.78 0.68 1.00 C1 to C2 to C1
Gen. Santos C. 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.96 0.96 1.00 C1 to C1 to C1
Mean 0.62 0.74 0.95 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.87 0.88 0.99 0.85 0.80 1.00 0.78 0.81 0.98
N. Cotabato
Kidapawan C. 0.93 0.87 1.00 NA NA NA 0.56 0.88 1.00 0.67 0.56 0.89 0.73 0.80 0.98 C2 to C1 to C1
Makilala 0.93 1.00 1.00 NA NA NA 0.38 0.44 0.81 0.56 0.67 0.89 0.63 0.70 0.90 C4 to C2 to C1
Mean 0.93 0.94 1.00 NA NA NA 0.47 0.66 0.91 0.62 0.62 0.89 0.68 0.75 0.94
Sarangani
Alabel N/A 0.80 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00 N/A 0.56 0.94 N/A 0.67 1.00 N/A 0.77 0.98 C1 to C1
Maitum 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.88 1.00 0.69 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.91 0.95 C1 to C1 to C1
Maasim 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.94 1.00 0.38 0.69 0.81 0.78 0.89 0.89 0.67 0.88 0.93 C4 to C1 to C1
Kiamba 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.94 1.00 0.81 0.88 1.00 0.89 0.56 0.78 0.81 0.88 0.96 C1 to C1 to C1
Mean 0.73 0.95 1.00 0.86 0.94 1.00 0.63 0.75 0.91 0.85 0.75 0.89 0.76 0.86 0.96
Lanao Del S.
Wao 0.93 1.00 1.00 NA NA NA 0.25 0.88 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.89 0.60 0.88 0.98 C4 to C1 to C1
Davao City 0.93 0.93 1.00 0.71 0.88 1.00 0.81 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.93 1.00 C1 to C1 to C1
Over-all 0.67 0.80 0.97 0.74 0.93 1.00 0.66 0.78 0.94 0.80 0.77 0.94 0.71 0.79 0.96

Table 10. Change in sectoral and over-all environment governance indices and category among LGUs assisted by EcoGov in Western
Mindanao, Base Period Assessment
FFM CRM UEM LIM Over-all Change in LGU
Category
2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009
Zambo del Sur
Tukuran 0.20 0.47 0.33 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.50 0.94 0.56 0.67 0..89 0.56 0.67 0.79 C4 to C2 to C1
Dumalinao 0.60 0.73 0.27 0.71 0.88 1.00 0.55 0.50 0.94 0.89 1.00 0.89 0.67 0.75 0.77 C2 to C1 to C1
San Pablo 0.13 0.33 0.60 0.71 0.94 1.00 0.25 0.13 0.94 0.88 0.78 1.00 0.46 0.53 0.88 C2 to C4 to C1
Labangan 1.00 0.60 0.47 0.82 0.94 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.56 0.89 0.67 0.67 0.78 0.61 0.68 C1 to C2 to C2
Zamboanga City 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.98 1.00 C1 to C1 to C1
Tabina 0.47 0.80 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.81 0.38 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.89 0.56 C1 to C1 to C4
Pagadian City 0.67 0.80 0.47 0.82 0.94 0.82 0.63 0.56 0.38 0.89 1.00 0.56 0.74 0.81 0.56 C2 to C1 to C4
Dimataling 0.27 0.20 0.40 0.94 0.63 1.00 0.63 0.38 0.81 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.60 0.79 C4 to C4 to C1
Dinas 0.13 0.47 0.67 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.19 0.69 0.75 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.53 0.74 0.82 C4 to C2 to C1
Mean 0.49 0.59 0.50 0.88 0.92 0.98 0.57 0.54 0.74 0.85 0.89 0.78 0.68 0.73 0.76
Zambo Sibugay
Tungawan 0.67 0.86 0.60 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.38 0.56 0.81 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.74 0.79 0.84 C4 to C1 to C1
RT Lim 0.27 0.60 0.40 0.94 0.88 0.94 0.25 0.25 0.56 0.67 0.67 0.78 0.53 0.60 0.67 C4 to C4 to C2
Mean 0.47 0.73 0.50 0.94 0.91 0.97 0.32 0.41 0.69 0.84 0.73 0.89 0.64 0.70 0.69
Basilan
Isabela City 0.53 0.60 0.93 0.24 0.82 0.71 0.81 0.94 0.88 0.67 0.56 0.71 0.54 0.75 0.82 C4 to C1 to C1
Lamitan 0.60 0.47 0.87 0.00 0.59 0.94 0.56 0.44 0.94 0.33 0.33 NA 0.37 0.47 0.92 C3 to C2 to C1
Mean 0.57 0.54 0.90 0.12 0.71 0.83 0.69 0.69 0.91 0.50 0.45 0.71 0.46 0.61 0.87
Over-All Mean 0.50 0.60 0.56 0.77 0.88 0.95 0.55 0.54 0.76 0.80 0.80 0.87 0.64 0.71 0.78

OVER-ALL TREND BY KEY BIODIVERSITY AREA
A Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) based on the definition of Conservation International
(2006) is a site of global biodiversity conservation significance that is actually or
potentially manageable for conservation. The identification process uses standard
vulnerability and irreplaceability criteria or importance in maintaining populations of
target species. KBA sites can be of any size, associated with the presence of species
requiring urgent conservation action at the site scale.
The 2009 GSA covered LGUs situated in 12 marine, 24 strictly terrestrial and 1
encompassing both terrestrial and marine (e.g., protected landscape/seascape) Key
Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) in Northern Luzon, Central Visayas, and South and Central
and Western Mindanao. Eleven of the 19 LGUs covered by the GSA in Northern Luzon
are either bordering or situated within five terrestrial KBAs. In Central Visayas, the
LGUs that underwent the GSA are either situated in or bordering 8 terrestrial, 9 marine
and one both terrestrial/marine (Talibon Protected Landscape/Seascape) KBAs. In this
region, five LGUs that self-assessed are bordering the Cuernos de Negros, one of the ten
Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites in the Philippines. AZE sites, considered the last
remaining strongholds for one or more critically endangered or endangered species, are
highly and globally significant areas for biodiversity conservation. In South and Central
Mindanao, 17 of the LGUs that underwent the GSA are situated within or bordering
seven terrestrial and two marine KBAs (Sarangani and Davao Gulf). The 13 Western
Mindanao LGUs belong to either terrestrial, freshwater (Lake Lanao), or marine KBAs
(Moro Gulf and Zamboanga Sibuguey).
The indicators covered by the GSA consist of good practices that target the reduction and
mitigation of threats to biodiversity arising from illegal forest cutting, conversion of
natural forests, illegal and over-fishing, and pollution from unmanaged solid and liquid
wastes. The use of the GSA, therefore, promotes good practices that help address threats
to biodiversity. By improving the process of undertaking LGU decisions and actions-
making them responsive, timely, efficient, open, accountable and inclusive, good
environmental governance is helping protect, conserve, and manage important biological
resources in the KBAs.
Of the estimated 67 LGUs located in KBAs that underwent the GSA, 63 or 94% were
good performers. Moreover, there was an evident upward trend observed in the adoption
of good practices in all sectors- from the upland/ridge, to the urban and the downstream
coastal and marine/reef ecosystems by these LGUs (Figures 8-11). This point should be
highlighted, since most of the LGUs received technical assistance from EcoGov in only
one or two sectors. Only a few LGUs were technically assisted in all sectors. However, it
has helped that EcoGov took a ridge-to-reef perspective in providing various sectoral and
cross-sectoral assistance. As a result of this and the various targeted IEC campaign
capability-building activities conducted by the project, there was concomitant rise in
LGU and stakeholders’ awareness of the value of good environmental governance that

has instilled in them the need to take a holistic and integrative approach to environmental
governance.
Figure 8. Growth in Environmental Governance Among LGUs Situated in Key

Biodiversity Areas in Northern Luzon
Figure 9. Progress in Environmental Governance among LGUs Situated in

Key Biodiversity areas in Central Visayas

Figure 10. Progress in Environmental Governance Among LGUs Situation with Key
Biodiversity Areas in South and Central Mindanao.
Figure 11. Progress in Environmental Governance of LGUs Situated in Key Biodiversity

Areas in Western Mindanao

RESULTS OF THE GSA FOR THE
EXTENSION PERIOD
(2009-2011)
PROFILE OF THE 24 LGUS

The LGUs covered by the GSA for the extension period — eight from Central and
Western Visayas and 16 from South and Central Mindanao — are situated within a total
of 17 marine and terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) (Table 11). Mati, in the
province of Davao Oriental, hosts the most KBAs- four of them. Most (17) of the LGUs
are coastal and therefore underwent assessment in all four sectors covered by the GSA.
Population densities were generally low, except for the six cities. Land areas highly
varied, with the largest LGU - Lake Sebu (106,401 ha) having 22 times larger size than
the smallest LGU - Baclayon (4,818 ha). Majority of the municipalities belonged to the
upper first and second income classes. The LGUs’ 2010 Internal Revenue Allotments
(IRA), 20% of which can be allotted for development-oriented work including
environment undertakings, also highly varied, with the largest (posted by San Carlos
City- PhP456.5 million) amounting to more than 14x that of the most IRA-deficient LGU
(Baclayon- PhP 32.5 million). EcoGov technical assistance to these LGUs was mostly in
the management of solid wastes (16%). Only two LGUs, Digos City and Sta. Cruz- both
situated or bordering the Davao Gulf and Mt. Apo Natural Park, have received EcoGov
technical assistance in all three sectors: forest, coastal and urban (ISWM and/or WWM).
Not one of the Visayas LGUs has received technical assistance in FFM. This may explain
why this sector has once again relatively underperformed compared with both CRM and
UEM in terms of growth in performance.
Table 11. Profile of the 24 LGUs Covered by the Extension Period GSA
Pop’n Internal Type of
Key
Geographic Population Land Area Density No. of Income Revenue EcoGov
LGU Biodiversity
Attribute (2007) (ha) (persons Barangays Class Allotment Technical
Area
/ha) (2010) Assistance
CENTRAL &
WESTERN
VISAYAS
Cebu
CRM,
ISWM,
Badian Tañon Strait Coastal 35,876 11,664 2.9 29 3rd 52,593,330 WWM
Barili Tañon Strait Coastal 60,430 9,942 6.1 42 3rd 73,187,213 ISWM
Bohol
ISWM,
Loboc Bohol Sea Landlocked 16,299 5,178 3.1 28 4th 33,168,158 WWM
Baclayon Bohol Sea Coastal 18,015 4,818 3.7 17 4th 32,519,983 ISWM

Key
LGU Biodiversity
Area
Negros
Oriental
Sulu Sea, CRM,
Siaton Mindanao Sea Coastal 67,943 32,137 2.1 26 1st 95,055,401 ISWM
CRM,
Manjuyod Tañon Strait Coastal 39,722 10,503 3.8 27 2nd 66,913,732 ISWM
Tañon Strait,
Mt. Canlaon
Canlaon City Natural Park Coastal 50,208 16,620 3.0 15 4th 250,524,590 WWM
Negros
Occidental
Tañon Strait,
Mt. Canlaon
San Carlos City Natural Park Coastal 829,809 42,900 19.3 18 2nd 456,529,898 WWM
SOUTH AND
CENTRAL
MINDANAO
Davao del
Norte
Carmen* Davao Gulf Landlocked 61,656 27,089 2.3 20 2nd 77,266,623 ISWM
CRM,
SWM,
Panabo City Davao Gulf Coastal 154,329 24,024 6.4 40 3rd 386,320,008 WWM
Island CRM,
Garden City ISWM,
of Samal Davao Gulf Coastal 90,291 28,051 3.2 46 4th 351,602,090 WWM
Davao del Sur
Davao Gulf, ISWM,
Mt. Apo WWM,
Digos City Natural Park Coastal 145,514 23,705 6.1 26 2nd 396,436,265 FFM
Malalag Bay, WWM,
Malalag Davao Gulf Coastal 35,241 49,576 0.7 15 3rd 58,361,502 ISWM
Davao Gulf, CRM,
Mt. Apo WWM,
Sta. Cruz Natural Park Coastal 76,113 30,468 2.5 18 1st 101,002,471 FFM
Davao Oriental
Mt. Kampalili
Puting Bato,
Davao Gulf,
Mt.
Hamiguitan
Range Wildlife
Sanctuary,
Pujada Bay
Protected
Landscape and ISWM,
Mati City Seascape Coastal 122,046 79,115 1.5 26 No data 162,701,571 WWM
Mt. Kampalili WWM,
Lupon Puting Bato Coastal 60,133 26,579 2.3 21 1st 128,747,207 ISWM
North
Cotabato
Ligawasan
Kabacan Landlocked 73,991 21,844 3.4 24 1st 108,562,993 ISWM
Marsh
Ligawasan ISWM,
Magpet Marsh Landlocked 44,114 45,084 1.0 32 1st 106,487,343 FFM

Key
LGU Biodiversity
Area
South Cotabato
Mt. Busa
Kiamba, Lake
Lake Sebu Sebu Landlocked 60,401 106,173 0.6 19 1st 114,361,556 ISWM
Tantangan Landlocked 35,825 17,445 2.0 13 3rd 53,543,756 ISWM

Maguindanao
Ligawasan
Upi Marsh Coastal 41,757 78,584 0.5 23 2nd 101,182,459 FFM
Sarangani
Sarangani Bay,
Mt. Latian
Glan Complex Coastal 102,676 59,820 31 1st 141,675,070 FFM
Mt. Latian
Malapatan Complex Coastal 65,605 55,283 1.2 12 2nd 113,355,379 FFM
Mt. Matutum
Protected
Landscape, Mt.
Latian
Malungon Complex Coastal 95,993 45,246 2.1 31 1st 147,437,813 FFM

FINDINGS
FINAL OVER-ALL INDICES

Table 12 summarizes the results of the final assessment in terms of sector, over-all
governance functions, and over-all governance principles. All 24 LGUs have achieved
the benchmark with high over-all environmental governance indices that ranged from
0.86 to 1.00 among the Visayas LGUs and from 0.79 to 1.00 among the Mindanao LGUs.
While the LGUs performed well in over-all environmental governance, a few LGUs have
not reached the good governance benchmark for a particular sector in the final
assessment. In FFM, the five LGUs that were able to register average mark only were
Siaton (0.73) in Central Visayas, and Samal (0.40), Lupon (0.73), Tantangan (0.40) and
Malapatan (0.73) in Mindanao. As with the base period GSA, CRM was again the best
performing environment sector with indices ranging from 0.88-1.00 and average index
for all LGUs of 0.96. UEM also performed very well with all 24 LGUs posting indices
that were within the benchmark. The 16 Mindanao LGUs performed exceptionally well
in LIM, with only two LGUs not reaching the highest possible index of 1.00.
The LGUs in Central Visayas and Mindanao generally did very well in all governance
principles across all sectors. However, Siaton, Manjuyod and Badian will have to
improve further their over-all indices in accountability. In Mindanao, three LGUs: Samal,
Sta. Cruz and Malapatan still need to strengthen their over-all public participation
indices.
The final assessment also showed progress in the adoption of governance functions
across the various sectors. Based on the regional average indices, Central Visayas LGUs
excelled in permitting, licensing and tenure issuance as well as in budgeting but relatively
performed less in contracting, bidding procurement, with Siaton, Manjuyod and Badian
pulling down the regional average for this function. All Mindanao LGUs scored perfect
in budgeting. However, they generally did not do as well in law enforcement. Seven
LGUs (44%) from this region did not achieve the benchmark for this function. Progress
in permitting, licensing and tenure issuance was also not across the board as four LGUs:
Sta. Cruz, Lupon, Tantangan and Malungon were unable to achieve the benchmark for
this function.
CHANGE IN SECTORAL AND OVER-ALL PERFORMANCE

Figures 12 and 13, respectively, show how the average sectoral and over-all index
obtained by the Visayas and Mindanao LGUs have improved from the baseline to the
final assessment. As mentioned, the over-all indices for all LGUs CRM consistently
obtained the highest average for both the baseline and final assessments in both regions,

although there was a slightly declined average for this sector in Mindanao. As with the
baseline assessment, UEM was the most improved sector for both regions.
Based on the individual data recorded for each of the LGUs in Table 13, all 8 LGUs in
Central Visayas have improved their indices in the environment sectors (FFM, UEM, and
CRM). Three LGUs- Siaton, Manjuyod and Loboc , however, failed to sustain one good
practice each, resulting in their slightly declined index in LIM.
The Mindanao LGUs also showed improvement in all sectors, except for a few whose
performance in certain sectors was relatively weaker. Lupon has deteriorated by one good
practice in FFM but Malapatan’s decline in FFM was quite abrupt- from 0.87 (good
performer) to 0.40 (average performer). While all the other LGUs have improved their
indices in CRM, Malapatan has also deteriorated in this sector by failing to sustain two
good practices.
We can understand better in the succeeding discussion how the individual LGUs have
performed in each sector by presenting the details of the results by governance function
and principle.

Table 12. Summary of Environmental Governance Indices of LGUs Covered by the Extension Period Final GSA
By Governance Principle,
By Specific Sector By Governance Function, Across Sectors Overall
Across Sectors
LGU Bidding, LGU
Planning/ Law Permitting/ Contracting Cross- Index
FFM CRM UEM LIM F T A P Implementation. Enforcement licensing Budgeting Procurement cutting
CENTRAL &
WESTERN
VISAYAS
Negros Oriental
1.00
Siaton 0.73 0.94 0.67 0.88 0.90 0.60 0.90 0.86 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.78 0.86
0.93 1.00 1.00 0.67
Manjuyod 0.97 1.00 0.60 0.90 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.78 0.93
1.00 NA 0.81 1.00
Canlaon City 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.89 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93
Negros
Occidental
0.93 1.00 0.94 1.00
San Carlos City 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Bohol
0.93 NA 1.00 0.89
Loboc 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.95
NA 1.00 1.00 1.00
Baclayon 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cebu
0.87 0.88 0.94 0.67
Badian 0.84 1.00 0.40 0.90 0.96 0.83 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.56 0.86
NA 1.00 0.81 1.00
Barili 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.95 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93
Regional Office
0.90 0.98 0.93 0.86 0.93 0.99 0.80 0.92
Average 0.95 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.87 0.93
SOUTH AND
CENTRAL
MINDANAO
Davao del Norte
Carmen* NA 0.94 0.75 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.95 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88
Panabo City NA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Island Garden
City of Samal 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.88 0.80 1.00 0.50 0.82 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.89 0.81
Davao del Sur
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Digos City 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00
Malalag 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
0.87 0.94 0.94 0.89
Sta. Cruz 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.75 0.67 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.91

By Governance Principle,
By Specific Sector By Governance Function, Across Sectors Overall
Across Sectors
LGU Bidding, LGU
Planning/ Law Permitting/ Contracting Cross- Index
FFM CRM UEM LIM F T A P Implementation. Enforcement licensing Budgeting Procurement cutting
Davao Oriental
0.87 1.00 0.75 1.00
Mati City 0.91 0.90 1.00 0.80 0.96 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89
0.73 1.00 0.75 1.00
Lupon 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.96 0.58 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.86
North Cotabato
Kabacan 0.80 NA 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.86 1.00 0.86 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93
Magpet 1.00 NA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
South Cotabato
Lake Sebu 1.00 0.94 0.75 1.00 0.91 0.90 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91
Tantangan 0.73 NA 0.81 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.89 0.63 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.85
Maguindanao
Upi 1.00 NA 0.94 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Sarangani
Glan 1.00 0.94 0.88 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.96 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
Malapatan 0.40 0.88 0.94 1.00 0.78 0.90 1.00 0.60 0.86 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.79
Malungon 1.00 NA 0.75 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.89 0.88 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90
Regional Office
Average 0.84 0.96 0.89 0.99 0.90 0.96 1.00 0.86 0.94 0.77 0.83 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96

Figure 12. Change in the average sectoral and over-all index of the 8 Visayas LGUs
Figure 13. Change in the average sectoral and over-all index of the 16 Mindanao LGUs

Table 13. Comparison of the baseline (2009) and final sectoral and overall indices of LGUs
covered by the GSA for the extension period
FFM UEM CRM LIM Over-All Change
LGUs in
2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 2009 2011 Category
C. W. Visayas
Negros Oriental
Siaton 0.60 0.73 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.67 0.84 0.86 C1 to C1
Manjuyod 0.87 0.93 0.88 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.78 0.67 0.88 0.93 C1 to C1
Canlaon City 0.60 1.00 0.75 0.81 NA NA 0.78 1.00 0.70 0.93 C2 to C1
Negros
Occidental
San Carlos City 0.87 0.93 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.91 0.96 C1 to C1
Bohol
Loboc 0.80 0.93 1.00 1.00 NA NA 1.00 0.89 0.93 0.95 C1 to C1
Baclayon NA NA 0.94 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.83 1.00 C1 to C1
Cebu
Badian 0.80 0.87 0.88 0.94 0.76 0.88 0.67 0.67 0.79 0.86 C1 to C1
Barili NA NA 0.69 0.81 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.81 0.93 C1 to C1
Average 0.76 0.90 0.88 0.93 0.93 0.98 0.75 0.86 0.84 0.93
S. C. Mindanao
Davao del Norte
Carmen* NA NA 0.31 0.75 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.88 C4 to C1
Panabo City NA NA 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 C1 to C1
Island Garden
City of Samal 0.33 0.40 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.80 0.81 C4 to C1
Davao del Sur
Digos City 0.47 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.76 1.00 C1 to C1
Malalag 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.98 C1 to C1
Sta. Cruz 0.80 0.87 0.56 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.67 0.89 0.74 0.91 C2 to C1
Davao Oriental
Mati City 0.60 0.87 0.31 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.70 0.89 C4 to C1
Lupon 0.80 0.73 0.31 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.72 0.86 C4 to C1
North Cotabato
Kabacan 0.33 0.80 0.63 1.00 NA NA 0.89 1.00 0.62 0.93 C4 to C1
Magpet 0.87 1.00 0.88 1.00 NA NA 0.89 1.00 0.88 1.00 C1 to C1
South Cotabato
Lake Sebu 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.75 0.94 0.94 0.89 1.00 0.88 0.91 C1 to C1
Tantangan 0.73 0.73 0.63 0.81 NA NA 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.85 C1 to C1
Maguindanao
Upi 0.80 1.00 0.88 0.94 NA NA 0.78 1.00 0.82 0.98 C1 to C1
Sarangani
Glan 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.88 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.95 C4 to C1
Malapatan 0.87 0.40 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.88 0.89 1.00 0.93 0.79 C1 to C1
Malungon 0.87 1.00 0.69 0.75 NA NA 0.89 1.00 0.82 0.90 C1 to C1
Average 0.75 0.84 0.66 0.89 0.97 0.96 0.90 0.99 0.81 0.92 C1 to C1

FOREST AND FORESTLAND MANAGEMENT - SPECIFIC INDICES
Table 14 shows how each of the LGUs in the Visayas and Mindanao has progressed in
terms of their over-all index and governance-function and governance-principle specific
indices in FFM. Fifteen or 75% of the 20 LGUs that underwent assessment in this sector
have met the benchmark, slightly up from 13 or 65% in the baseline assessment. The
Central Visayas LGUs did very well and posted a high final average index of 0.90 from
the baseline 0.76. Although Siaton missed the benchmark, its final FFM index showed
some improvement.
The LGUs in Mindanao also generally posted higher final assessment indices, with seven
even achieving the perfect index of 1.00. However, four LGUs did not meet the good
performance benchmark. These LGUs were Samal, Malapatan, Tantangan, and Lupon .
The specific governance principles and functions where they underperformed are marked
in red in Table 14. Tantangan and Lupon sustained their average baseline performance
but Samal and Malapatan showed deterioration in the final assessment. Malapatan’s
abrupt decline is caused by its failure to sustain seven good practices. It was only in
forest law enforcement function where it slightly improved.
Table 14. Growth in FFM indices among the Visayas and Mindanao LGUs, Extension
Period Assessment
PRINCIPLES FUNCTIONS
Planning &
Law FFM Index
F T A P Imple- Crosscutting
Enforcement
LGU mentation
Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base
line Line line line Final line line line line
Final Final Final Final Final Final Final
CENTRAL &
WESTERN
VISAYAS
Negros
Oriental
Siaton 0.67 0.67 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.56 0.67 0.75 0.75 0.50 1.00 0.60 0.73
Manjuyod 0.78 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.93
Canlaon City 0.78 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.78 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.60 1.00
Negros
Occidental
San Carlos
City 0.78 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.93
Bohol
Loboc 0.78 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.93
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Baclayon
Cebu
Badian 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.50 0.80 0.87
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Barili
0.76 0.85 0.75 0.92 0.50 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.72 0.91 0.75 0.88 0.83 0.92 0.76 0.90
Average

Planning &
Law FFM Index
F T A P Imple- Crosscutting
Enforcement
LGU mentation
Base Base Base Base Base Base Base Base
line Line line line Final line line line line
Final Final Final Final Final Final Final
SOUTH AND
CENTRAL
MINDANAO
Davao del
Norte
Island 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.33
Garden City
of Samal 0.44 0.25 0.50 0.56 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.40
Davao del Sur

0.56 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.47
Digos City 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Malalag 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.50 1.00 0.80
Sta. Cruz 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.87
Davao Oriental
0.67 0.50 1.00 0.33 0.56 0.50 1.00 1.00
Mati City 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.87
0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.72
Lupon 0.89 0.50 0.50 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
North
Cotabato
0.33 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.33
Kabacan 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.50 1.00 0.67 0.80
0.89 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.87
Magpet 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
South
Cotabato
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lake Sebu 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.67 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 1.00 0.50 0.73
Tantangan 0.89 0.50 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
Maguindanao
0.78 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.80
Upi 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sarangani
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Glan 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.75 1.00 0.87
Malapatan 0.56 0.00 0.50 0.33 0.50 1.00 0.33 0.40
0.89 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.89 0.75 1.00 0.87
Malungon 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.73 0.79 1.00 0.69 0.80 0.61 0.78 0.77
Average 0.89 0.73 0.89 0.84 0.86 1.00 0.81 0.84
The regional averages for governance principles (Figure 14) have increased in the final
assessment in the Visayas. The biggest improvement was in terms of accountability.
There was also consistent progress in the adoption of governance functions (planning and
plan implementation, etc.).
In Mindanao, the average indices in functionality and public participation have both
significantly improved, however, there was slight decline in transparency and
accountability average indices (Figure 15). Adoption of governance functions,
nonetheless, showed consistent improvement across this region.

Figure 14. Growth in Average FFM-related indices of LGUs in the Visayas
Figure 15. Growth in Average FFM-related indices of LGUs in Mindanao

COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT- SPECIFIC INDICES
All 17 coastal LGUs have reached the benchmark of good performance in CRM
(Table 15). All six coastal LGUs in the Visayas have impressively reached the perfect
index of 1.00. The 11 Mindanao LGUs did very well also by maintaining their very high
baseline indices that ranged from 0.94-1.00. The exception was Malapatan, whose index
deteriorated from 1.00 to 0.88 due to diminished performance in functionality and law
enforcement. This made the final regional over-all index average negligibly fell to 0.96
from baseline of 0.97.
The graphs in Figures 16 and 17 illustrate the above trend.

Table 15. Growth in CRM indices among the Visayas and Mindanao LGUs, Extension Period Assessment
CRM
Law Index
PROVINCE/LGU
F T A P Planning Enforcement Permitting Cross-cutting
Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final
line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011
CENTRAL &
WESTERN VISAYAS
Negros Oriental
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00
Siaton 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.94
1.00
Manjuyod 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Canlaon City NA
Negros Occidental
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
San Carlos City 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Bohol
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Loboc
0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88
Baclayon 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cebu
0.80 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.76
1.00
Badian 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Barili 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.93 0.83 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.92 0.75 1.00 0.93
Average
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
SOUTH AND CENTRAL
MINDANAO
Davao del Norte

0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.94
Carmen 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.94
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Panabo City 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.94
Island Garden City of Samal 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

CRM
Law Index
PROVINCE/LGU
Davao del Sur

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Digos City 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.94
Malalag 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.94
0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.94
Sta. Cruz 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.94
Davao Oriental
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Mati City 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lupon 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
South Cotabato
0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.94
Lake Sebu 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.94
Sarangani
0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.94
Glan 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.94
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Malapatan 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.88
0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.95 0.97
Average 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.95 1.00 0.96

Figure 16. Growth in Average CRM-specific indices of LGUs in the Visayas
Figure 17. Growth in Average CRM-specific indices of LGUs in Mindanao

URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT-SPECIFIC INDICES
The 24 LGUs’ consistent performance in UEM is apparent in Table 18, which shows that
they have either sustained their already high baseline over-all index or improved further
their final scores. Moreover, there is 100% achievement of the benchmark in this sector.
The over-all average indices in Mindanao markedly improved to 0.89 from the baseline
of 0.66. In this region, four LGUs (Glan, Lupon, Mati, and Carmen) with poor baseline
performance of between 0.31-0.38 became good performers in the final assessment.
While the performance was impressive over-all, some LGUs will still have to improve on
some governance functions and principles in order to achieve higher index. Three LGUs
in the Visayas need to further improve their public participation index: Canlaon City, San
Carlos City, and Barili. Barili also needs to improve further in law enforcement. In
Mindanao, four LGUs (Lake Sebu, Mati, Lupon, and Carmen) will have to pay more
attention to law enforcement, where their final indices ranged only from 0.00 to 0.25.
Figures 18 and 19 graph the growth in the average performance by function and by
principle in the Visayas and Mindanao areas, respectively.

Table 16. Growth in UEM indices among the Visayas and Mindanao LGUs, Extension Period Assessment
UEM
LGU Law INDEX
CENTRAL & WESTERN
VISAYAS
Negros Oriental
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94
Siaton 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.90 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.75 0.00 1.00 0.88 1.00
Manjuyod 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.70 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.90 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.81
Canlaon City 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.80 0.75 1.00 1.00
Negros Occidental
0.9 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94
San Carlos City 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00
Bohol
1.00 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Loboc 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00
Baclayon 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cebu
0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.94
Badian 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.60 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.70 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.81
Barili 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.90 0.50 1.00 1.00
0.85 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.92 0.75 0.75 1.00 0.88 0.93
Average 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.94 0.88 1.00 1.00
SOUTH AND CENTRAL
MINDANAO
Davao del Norte

0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.75
Carmen* 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.90 0.25 1.00 1.00
0.80 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.81 1.00
Panabo City 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00
Island Garden City of Samal 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00
Davao del Sur

0.70 0.50 1.00 0.67 0.80 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00
Digos City 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.88 1.00
Malalag 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

UEM
LGU Law INDEX
0.50 0.50 1.00 0.67 0.80 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.56 0.94
Sta. Cruz 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00
Davao Oriental
0.40 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.75
Mati City 0.80 0.50 1.00 0.67 0.90 0.25 1.00 1.00
0.40 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.75
Lupon 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.25 0.00 1.00
North Cotabato
0.70 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.70 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.68
Kabacan 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0.90 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.90 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.88
Magpet 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
South Cotabato
0.60 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.90 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.69
Lake Sebu 0.80 0.50 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.75
0.50 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.70 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.63
Tantangan 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.90 0.75 0.00 1.00 0.81
Maguindanao
0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88
Upi 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94
Sarangani
0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.38
Glan 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.90 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.88
0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.94
Malapatan 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.94
0.60 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.69
Malungon 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.80 0.75 0.00 1.00 0.75
0.66 0.56 0.85 1.00 0.81 0.95 0.70 0.81 1.00 0.89
Average 0.89 0.94 0.61 0.75 0.50 0.44 0.75 0.66

Figure 18. Growth in Average UEM-Specific Indices of LGUs in the Visayas
Figure 19. Growth in Average UEM Specific- Indices of LGUs in Mindanao

LGU INTERNAL MANAGEMENT- SPECIFIC INDICES
All Mindanao LGUs, except for Samal registered final index of 1.00 (Table 17). This
gave this region final average LIM index of 0.99. The Visayas LGUs also posted higher
final index in LIM. The exceptions were Siaton and Manjuyod, whose final indices
declined due to their inability to sustain one good practice each, and Badian, who merely
sustained its average performance.
Based on Figure 20, the Visayas LGUs practiced high level of functionality and
transparency in the conduct of their LIM functions. Their final indices also indicate
highly improved public participation practices but over-all underperformance in
accountability. Figure 21 depicts the good mark of Mindanao LGUs in all governance
principles and functions in LIM.
.

Table 17. Growth LIM indices among the Visayas and Mindanao LGUs, Extension Period Assessment
PRINCIPLES FUNCTIONS LIM

F T A P Budgeting Procurement Cross-cutting INDEX
LGU
Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final
line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011
CENTRAL & WESTERN
VISAYAS
Negros Oriental
1.00 0.67 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.75 0.78
Siaton 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.67
1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.78
Manjuyod 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.67
1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.75 0.78
Canlaon City 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Negros Occidental
1.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.75 0.78
San Carlos City 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Bohol
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Loboc 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.89
1.00 0.33 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.50 0.56
Baclayon 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cebu
1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.67
Badian 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.67
1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.67
Barili 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.88 0.44 0.12 1.00 0.71 0.65 0.75
Average 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.62 1.00 0.88 0.78 0.86
SOUTH AND CENTRAL
MINDANAO
Davao del Norte
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Carmen* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Panabo City 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Island Garden City of Samal 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.89
Davao del Sur
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.89
Digos City 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Malalag 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.67
Sta. Cruz 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.89

PRINCIPLES FUNCTIONS LIM
F T A P Budgeting Procurement Cross-cutting INDEX
LGU
Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final Base Final
line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011 line 2011
Davao Oriental
1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.89
Mati City 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.67 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.78
Lupon 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
North Cotabato
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.89
Kabacan 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.89
Magpet 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
South Cotabato
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.89
Lake Sebu 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Tantangan 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maguindanao
1.00 0.67 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 0.75 0.78
Upi 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sarangani
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Glan 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.89
Malapatan 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.89
Malungon 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.94 0.91 0.50 1.00 0.81 0.92 0.90
Average 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99

Figure 20. Growth in Average LIM- Specific Indices Among LGUs in the Visayas
Figure 21. Growth in Average LIM-Specific Indices of LGUs in Mindanao

PERFORMANCE BY KBA
The environmental governance indices of LGUs that belong to a particular KBA have
been averaged in Table 18. As with the base year assessment, the results indicate
improved environmental governance status from the baseline to the final assessment
(Table 18). Good environmental governance covering all sectors from the ridge to the
reef is expected to translate to better protection of the biological resources in these KBAs
due to improved process and of making decisions and actions.

Table 18. Growth in Average environmental governance indices of the 24 Additional LGUs, by KBA
Average Indices
KBA LGUS Covered FFM UEM CRM LIM Over-All
Baseline Final Baseline Final Baseline Final Baseline Final Baseline Final
Badian, Barili, Manjuyod, San
Tañon Strait 0.79 0.93 0.83 0.90 0.93 0.97 0.74 0.87 0.82 0.92
Carlos City, Canlaon City
Bohol Sea Loboc, Baclayon 0.80 0.93 0.97 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.95 0.88 0.98
Sulu Sea Siaton 0.60 0.73 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.67 0.84 0.86
Mindanao Sea Siaton 0.60 0.73 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.67 0.84 0.86
Mt. Canlaon Natural
Park
Canlaon City 0.60 1.00 0.75 0.81 NA NA 0.78 1.00 0.70 0.93
Carmen, Panabo City, Island
Davao Gulf Garden City of Samal, Digos, 0.68 0.80 0.64 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.81 0.92
Malalag, Sta. Cruz, Lupon
Mt. Apo Natural
Park
Digos 0.47 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.76 1.00
Malalag Bay Malalag 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.98
Mt. Kampalili Puting
Bato
Mati, Lupon 0.70 0.80 0.31 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.84 1.00 0.71 0.88
Mt. Hamiguitan
Range Wildlife Mati 0.60 0.87 0.31 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.70 0.89
Sanctuary
Pujada Bay Protected
Landscape and Mati 0.60 0.87 0.31 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.70 0.89
Seascape
Ligawasan Marsh Upi, Kabacan, Magpet 0.67 0.93 0.80 0.98 NA NA 0.85 1.00 0.77 0.97
Mt. Busa Kiamba Lake Sebu 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.75 0.94 0.94 0.89 1.00 0.88 0.91
Mt. Latian Complex Malungon, Glan, Malapatan 0.91 0.80 0.67 0.86 0.97 0.91 0.93 1.00 0.81 0.88
Lake Sebu Lake Sebu 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.75 0.94 0.94 0.89 1.00 0.88 0.91
Sarangani Bay Glan 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.88 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.95
Mt. Matutum
Protected Landscape
Malungon 0.87 1.00 0.69 0.75 NA NA 0.89 1.00 0.82 0.90

LGU-LEVEL FACTORS THAT MAY HAVE
INFLUENCED IMPROVEMENT IN
ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
While progress in environmental governance is apparent across all EcoGov regional

offices, the speed at which ‘good practices’ have been adopted somewhat occurred at
uneven paces among the LGUs.
The baseline level of governance and local context may be two factors that have
influenced LGU progress in environmental governance. For instance, the LGUs in
Western Mindanao were generally the most governance- and economically- challenged
among the LGUs that underwent the GSA. In addition, the threats to their resources are
very high and the peace and order conditions are poor. Thus, these LGUs had faced
greatest obstacles in improving their environmental governance. Unsurprisingly, among
the four regions, Western Mindanao LGUs had exhibited the slowest pace of progress in
adoption of good practices during the base year.
Resource context such as the magnitude and quality of the forest, coastal and urban
resources, the status of community dependency on these resources, the type and degree of
threats that these resources face, and even the anticipated political value of their
intervention, may also affect LGU prioritization of a sector as focus for management
improvement and investment. This is an important point since it has been observed that
LGUs, particularly those without adequate resources, tend to strategize which sector they
will first focus on for investing scarce government resources as they seek to enhance
local environmental governance.
The availability of technical assistance can also influence LGU performance. Technical
assistance helps LGUs overcome the difficulty in tackling the technical requirements of
environment and natural resources management. Majority of the LGUs that registered
low indices in a particular sector were not covered by EcoGov and scaling-up TA. The
UEM sector where most of the LGUs received direct technical assistance performed very
well. Outside logistical assistance is also necessary particularly for financially poor
LGUs. In addition to them mostly not being technically assisted, the LGUs in Western
Mindanao have generally not benefited from any outside logistical assistance in
improving their terrestrial/upland forestlands, thus, most of them registered weak indices
in this sector.
This is not to discount the observation, however, that there were many examples of LGUs
who also achieved the benchmark and performed highly in a particular sector on their
own. While LGU progress can be directly linked to EcoGov technical assistance, there
are improvements in the existing systems, processes, and standards that have resulted
from the initiatives of the LGUs themselves. This is particularly true for unassisted

sectors that nevertheless improved, because the experiences and skills learned have
diffused from the assisted to the unassisted sector/s. This observation has become more
glaring toward the latter years of project implementation as the LGUs have developed
their organizational capacity.
Very important also is the degree of LGU commitment (indicators include budget and
environment office) and political will to carry out the changes necessary in existing
systems, structures and procedures to achieve governance improvement. Strong
commitment and political will enable LGUs overcome limitation in their resources,
enabling them to accomplish so much in a very efficient and effective way. Thus, the
final GSA results both show that small, IRA-deficient municipalities can also achieve
good performance along with bigger, resource rich cities and large municipalities.
COMMON ATTRIBUTES OF GOOD PERFORMERS

Through contextual issues prevent direct comparison of performance between LGUs,
provinces and regional offices, the LGUs that performed well in the GSA seem to share
many of the attributes listed below. These attributes are not necessarily ranked in terms of
importance, and a more thorough investigation will be needed to establish the
relationship between these and good environmental governance, though.
• presence of LGU champion. This person/s (e.g., local chief executive, SB official,
etc.) or office (MENRO, MPDC, CRMO, etc.) has/have helped ensure active and
sustained partnership between the LGU and EcoGov. The LGU champion sees to it
that activities are carried out and good practices and learnings become part of the
LGU system, practices and standards.
• leadership quality and political will. The preparation and successful implementation
of good plans and ordinances, for instance, hinge on the ability of LGU leaders to
provide good leadership and muster cooperation and support from their
constituents.
• practice of allocating and sustaining budget allocation for environmental initiatives.

This is by itself an indication of the degree of priority the LGU places on the
environment.
• presence of a resource management plan that guides LGU actions and decisions
(although there are LGUs that implemented good practices in the absence of a plan)
• presence of functional, accountable and trained/capacitated local resource

management office/staff/body (e.g., MENRO, ISWMB, MPA Management Board,
Multisectoral Environment and Natural Resource Management Council, Technical
Working Group)

• presence of an active local stakeholders’ group(s) that partner(s) with the LGU (such
as schools, NGO, private sector), e.g., in conduct of IEC, implementation of plan,
law enforcement
• outside technical assistance (mainly by EcoGov but by the province, DENR, other
projects and government agencies as well). In addition to lending required technical
expertise and helping in capacity-building, the presence of technical assistance
encourages LGUs to commit counterpart funds for environmental governance
improvement.
• Practice of leveraging other external funding support such as from the private sector,
government, and other sources
• networking and collaboration with other LGUs in the same or higher level of
governance in the implementation of sector strategies such as clustering in the
establishment and operation of a sanitary landfill, inter-LGU fishery law
enforcement, and marine protected area networking.
• adequate and sustained provincial government support for component LGUs
The above suggests a need to look into the aspects of budgeting and financing,
partnership-building, leveraging, awareness, political will strengthening, capacity
building, and mainstreaming and institutionalization in order to sustain the gains in
governance of the LGUs covered by the GSA.

ECOGOV STRATEGIES THAT
SUPPORTED IMPROVEMENT IN LGU
ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
The improvement in LGU environmental governance is clearly linked to EcoGov

technical assistance over the last ten years. The strong focus on both behavioral change
and capacity building proved to be beneficiall. EcoGov invested in a lot of information,
education and communication (IEC) campaigns using tri-media which helped create
awareness on the value of good environmental governance. The project also worked with
assisted LGUs in preparing and implementing their IEC and even social marketing
strategies to influence attitudinal and behavioral change among their constituents. In
addition, EcoGov built the capacity of LGU and DENR personnel and technical working
groups and exposed them to good practices in other localities through cross-visits and
sharing-sessions. Capacity-building activities also included other potential local service
providers and other ENR professionals in the regions.
EcoGov also employed an organizational development approach that helped LGUs align
financial resources and strengthen local management bodies to support identified key
ENR functions. Another EcoGov strategy that helped in strengthening and sustaining
good practices is the introduction of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems. For
instance, in FFM, EcoGov has initiated a yearly DENR-LGU review of FLUP
implementation among all LGUs with DENR-LGU implementation Memorandum of
Agreements (MOAs). In CRM, EcoGov helped the LGUs institute participatory
mechanism for M&E of marine protected areas and a system for monitoring and
reporting the implementation of MPA, CRM and fisheries management plans. In UEM,
EcoGov promoted an annual assessment of solid waste management performance of
LGUs at the level of the province. Examples are in Quirino, Nueva Vizcaya, South
Cotabato, Bohol, and Negros Oriental.
EcoGov has also invested in strategies that help sustainably support the financial
requirements of LGU ENR plans, programs, and projects. In UEM, it provided
technical assistance to help LGUs conduct business planning and value chain analysis to
improve the cost recovery potentials of environmental enterprises, particularly solid
waste, and waste water/sanitation services. The project also promoted the use of special
account for ring fencing various sources of revenues to support forest, coastal and UEM
undertakings. As an example, special accounts have been established for the co-managed
forests in Talibon and San Miguel in Central Visayas to ensure sustained flow of funds.
In FFM, EcoGov conducted studies to serve as bases for operationalizing payments for
environmental services in pilot areas. It also facilitated public-private partnership in
forest management in Maasim and Kiamba, Sarangani Province.

The promotion of networking and forming of strategic inter-LGU alliances has helped
support and strengthen environmental governance initiatives in all regions. For instance,
the use of the baywide/ecosystem management framework in Baler Bay, Camotes Sea
and Illana Bay and Sibuguey Bay has not only made possible the achievement of
economies of scale but is improving synergies in biodiversity conservation and fisheries
production. The scaling-up strategy of EcoGov wherein staff from both the provincial
government and local DENR are trained as local service providers to provide technical
assistance to LGUs not covered by Project assistance also proved beneficial in reaching
out to more LGUs within the province. It also helped LGUs improve their performance in
the sector(s) that did not receive technical assistance from EcoGov, thus, resulting in
over-all environmental governance improvement. Mainstreaming of good practices in
DENR operations such as the determination of Major Final Outputs (MFO)s, workplans,
and policy processes means that the outcomes of good environmental governance are also
taking place outside the present geographic scope of EcoGov technical assistance.
Specific sectoral strategies and approaches directly feed into the adoption of good
practices in environmental governance by LGUs. In FFM, EcoGov technical assistance
includes the following:
• preparation of forest land use plans (FLUPs)

• signing of co-management and joint FLUP implementation agreements between the
LGU and the DENR as a tool allowing LGU access to co-manage forest and
forestlands
• setting up of the organizational units such as the MENRO and of forest protection
officers and allocation of budget to support forest governance.
• crafting resource management plans for co-managed areas
• assistance to the preparation of protected area management plan and Ancestral
Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP) and community-
based tenure holders’ resource management framework in certain areas
• facilitating recognition of individual property rights to strengthen individual tenure
rights and encourage investment in forestland rehabilitation
Apart from co-management of upland forests, EcoGov also promotes the co-management
of mangroves between the DENR and LGUs and the recognition of individual property
rights (IPR) in mangrove areas.
Coastal resource management (CRM) technical assistance of EcoGov focuses on the

improvement of the management of coastal and fisheries areas and the establishment and
strengthening of marine sanctuaries. Specific technical assistance activities include:
• CRM planning (a key feature of which is coastal zoning), whose implementation also
provide the opportunity to integrate waste management activities in CRM;
• MPA establishment and strengthening; MPA networking;

• Enforcement of coastal and fishery laws and MPA regulations; unified LGU
ordinance formulation and inter-LGU collaboration in network/baywide level
enforcement;
• Regulation of fishing effort.
The CRM sector uses an adaptive management approach using results of participatory
M&E, which proved effective in ensuring improvement in MPA management
performance. EcoGov improved the existing system of measuring individual MPA
management effectiveness performance by incorporating indicators of functionality,
transparency, public participation, and accountability into the MPA management
effectiveness rating originally developed by the Coastal Conservation Education
Foundation (CCEF). EcoGov also encouraged “State of the Coast” reporting by LGUs at
different levels (municipal, provincial, or baywide) to provide an effective feedback
mechanism for the coastal resource management process that also promotes transparency
and accountability.
Technical assistance in the sector of UEM include ISWM and WWM planning and
implementation. Training/capability-building is a crucial feature of assistance with
modules on planning, financing and cost-recovery, sanitary landfill design and operation,
business planning, ordinance formulation and enforcement, social marketing and
communications planning, among others. The governance dimension, including the
crosscutting theme of gender and development, is a built-in concern in all the strategies
employed by the different sectors.
The results of the GSA had been instrumental in pinpointing needed improvements in
LGU practices, systems, and standards, which made them achieve higher status of
environmental governance in the next assessment. The action planning and the feedback
session that followed the assessment have helped ensure that the identified gaps are
considered in the LGU planning and budgeting processes. Conducting feedback of the
GSA results, especially among the newly elected LGU officials and the revisiting of the
action plans prepared based on the previous assessment results have helped sustain LGU
focus on meeting the challenge of improving local environmental governance.

RESULTS AND OUTCOMES OF
IMPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL
GOVERNANCE
The improvement in environmental governance as measured by the GSA has been

accompanied by positive institutional, socio-economic, and biophysical results in the
various LGUs assisted by EcoGov. While there have been limited physical data collected,
substantial anecdotal evidences, narrative reports, and success stories exist that document
positive socio-economic and biophysical outcomes of improved environmental
governance in their localities.
For instance, a rise in LGU resourcefulness, innovativeness, political will, and service-
orientation have been increasingly observed over the years as LGUs continued to learn,
adopt good practices and benefit from improved governance. In addition, EcoGov-
assisted LGUs have developed more confidence and resolve in implementing devolved
ENR function. The number of LGUs that entered into forestland co-management
agreement with the DENR has incresed as a result of enhanced awareness on the value of
this decision. Co-management, with the LGU in the driver’s seat and the DENR taking a
steering and facilitative role, has helped enhanced the productivity of terrestrial and
coastal forestlands in such areas as Bayawan City, Maasim, Wao, Lebak, Talibon, and
Carmen.
The LGUs have also increased budget allocation and have maximized the use of
externally generated resources (funds, work force, technologies, etc.) to support local
environment initiatives. This indicates the increased level of importance that LGUs place
on the environment. For the base period GSA (2005-2009), for instance, the
appropriations of LGUs across the four regions of Northern Luzon, Central Visayas,
South and Central Mindanao, and Western Mindanao for all environment sectors—FFM,
CRM, UEM totaled Php832,619,998 (USD17,715,319). The LGUs in South and Central
Mindanao allocated total of Php291,552,651 (USD6,203,248) while Central Visayas
allocated Php258,479,981 (USD5,499,574) from 2005-2009. Western Mindanao LGUs
allocated Php88,317,600 or USD1,879,098 from 2005 to 2006. In all regions and all
sectors, an upward trend in total budget allocation by LGUs has occurred during this
period.
For the final assessment for the base period in 2009, the LGUs provided the highest total
allocation in the Urban Environment Management sector with Php198,684,468
(USD4,227,329). The growth in UEM budgets enabled the LGUs to adopt good practices
which made UEM the most improved sector in the final assessment. In addition, a total of
10 LGUs- five in South and Central Mindanao (Kidapawan City, Polomolok, Surallah,
Alabel, Tacurong City) and five in Central Visayas (Jagna, Loboc, Bais City, Dauin,

Bayawan City) have set up special accounts for solid waste management during the base
period, which allowed them to plow back revenues generated to SWM improvement.
There was also a rise in the number of LGUs that have created the municipal/city
environment and natural resource management office (MENRO), created the position of
or designated municipal/city environment and natural resources officer. Out of the 86
LGUs surveyed for the final assessment for the base period, 39 have established
MENRO. There was also proliferation of other positions/designations related to ENR
management such as Coastal Resource Management Officer, Solid Waste Management
Officer, etc. In addition, local management bodies have been created in various LGUs to
spearhead the management of forestlands, coastal resources and wastes. Examples are
Environment and Natural Resources Management Council (ENRC), Integrated Solid
Waste Management Board, Barangay Solid Waste Management Council, and Marine
Protected Area Management Board.
Good environmental governance has also resulted in the mainstreaming of the culture of
participatory planning, implementation, and monitoring between LGU leadership and
local stakeholders. Because the base of decision-making has widened and a more
inclusive process has developed, this paved the way for improved relationship among
stakeholders, which helped diffuse resource-based conflicts in Muslim areas in
Mindanao. For example, the participatory forestland use planning conducted in Maasim,
Sarangani and Wao, Lanao del Sur has helped identify existing and potential sources of
conflict in land allocation and tenure issuance. The governance-oriented process has led
to peaceful resolution of existing conflicts as well as prevention of future conflicts.
Exemplary governance in many LGUs such as Bayawan City, Dauin, Talibon, and
Dalaguete in Central Visayas has transformed them into “learning destinations” for good
environmental governance in their respective regions. Local Chief Executives and
technical staff of these LGUs and other well-performing LGUs have become resource
persons in national and local events, forums, and conferences on topics related to
environment and natural resource management. Improved governance earned awards and
recognition for EcoGov-assisted LGUs. In 2009, for instance, the LGUs of Jagna and
Talibon in Bohol; Bayawan, Dauin, La Libertad and Bais in Negros Oriental and San
Francisco, Alcoy, Dalaguete and Toledo in Cebu received awards and recognition from
their provincial governments. Moreover, in the 2009 MPA Support Network (MSN)
MPA awards, the Pilar Municipal Marine Park (PMMP) and Tambunan MPA garnered
first and second of the top three prizes. Four other finalists: Bibilik Marine Sanctuary and
Talisay MPA which are both found in Zamboanga del Sur, Bangaan Marine Sanctuary
located in Tungawan, Zamboanga Sibugay and the Daanlungsod-Guiwang marine
sanctuary situated in the Municipality of Alcoy in Cebu are situated in EcoGov-assisted
sites. With six out of 12 finalists, EcoGov-assisted sites dominated the awards.
The practice of good environmental governance has also resulted in increased

collaborations and partnerships at various levels. To illustrate, the number of LGUs that
have entered into collaborative arrangements with each other to advance coastal and
fishery law enforcement and marine biodiversity management. Examples are the Camotes

Seas Coastal Resource Management Council, Illana Bay Regional Alliance, and Baler
Bay and Sibuguey Bay councils. MPA networks such as the Camotes Sea, PaTulad,
SanTaDiDi, BATMan, and DugJan have been formed and LGUs have clustered to
optimize the use of solid waste management (SWM) facilities. Such institutional
arrangements elevate the social and organizational capital for the environment. For
instance, networking in both Camotes Sea and Illana Bay has helped strengthen the
technical, management, and financial capability of component MPAs and helped advance
the cause of bay-wide law enforcement. In addition, networking and collaboration
facilitatated dialogues, understanding and cooperation, which were instrumental in
preventing and resolving conflicts between LGUs during municipal water delineation
process in many EcoGov-assisted areas in Northern Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.
With the development of a nested governance approach, the public has become more
assured of timely, quality and more responsive public service. Many examples show how
the provinces supported by EcoGov have collaborated with component LGUs, the private
sector, and various government agencies on various environment undertakings. In Negros
Oriental, the provincial Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD)
collaborated with the DENR in the conduct of strategic planning sessions, action
planning and review workshops, and joint M&E field assessments in both FFM and
UEM. In Bohol, the Bohol Environment Management Office (BEMO) worked with the
DENR employ the ridge-to-reef approach with forestland use planning as entry point for
the development of the Carood Watershed.

A good example of improved functional relationship between the province and
component LGUs is provided by the Province of Cebu. This province supported by the
Ramon Aboitiz Foundation (RAFI) launched a 5-year program entitled, “Enhanced Green
and Wholesome Environment that Nurtures,” which uses as criteria for assessing and
rewarding performance of 52 component LGUs of the province the standards promoted
by EcoGov through the GSA.
Improved environmental governance has also resulted in noticeable biophysical and

socio-economic improvements. In Pilar Municipal Marine Park in the Camotes Sea,
consistent improvement in the abundance of fish within the marine sanctuary core zone:
372 per 500 square meter of reef in May 2005, 540 in April 2006, 605 in May 2007, 610
in May 2008 and 640 in May 2009 was observed. Fish biomass in the core zone
quadrupled in 2009 from only 1.33 metric tons per square kilometer in 2005. Such
improvement is expected to continue and will result in positive impacts on the over-all
fishery conditions and income and food security of dependent communities. In FFM,
improved livelihood options arising from improved management of natural resources has
also led to beneficial socio-economic results. For instance, individual property rights
holders in Kiamba, Sarangani Province gained an additional income of from PhP1,800 to
P2,300 or USD38-50 per month from the abaca plants they planted in their tenured areas.
The rise in environmental governance indices matched the attainment of the various
EcoGov biophysical targets in FFM (e.g., hectares of natural forests under improved
management), CRM (e.g., hectares of coastal areas under improved management), and

UEM (e.g., waste diversion) for the base period. In FFM, all assisted LGUs (including
those not covered by the GSA) have placed 254,392 ha of natural forests under improved
management and as well, turned under productive development 32,097 ha of bare
forestlands as of the final GSA for the base period in 2009. In CRM, 111,368 ha of
coastal areas have been placed under improved management in 56 directly assisted LGUs
in 12 provinces. In addition, the management of total of 50 existing marine sanctuaries
covering 2,608 hectares has improved while 50 new marine sanctuaries with total size of
1,814 ha were established from 2004 to 2009. In UEM, 90 directly assisted LGUs have
achieved 25% waste diversion as of the end of the base year. Three SLFs have become
operational while four other such facilities were awaiting completion as of the base year
GSA.
BENEFITS TO KBAS
Annex A contains an assessment of an array of direct and indirect biodiversity
conservation benefits of enhanced environmental governance among LGUs situated or
bordering KBAs. The discussion has been adopted from the 2009 Base Year Final GSA
Report prepared by the author. The data covers only up to the final year of the base
period GSA. They have not been updated to include 2011 data since the base year
assessment covered only LGU performance up to 2009. Updated data for both the base
period and extension period LGUs are available with the EcoGov Project.
PERCEIVED BENEFITS FROM GOVERNANCE IMPROVEMENT

As early as the midterm GSA, the participants have perceived beneficial effects of
improved governance of their forest and forestlands, coastal areas and urban
environments, which ranged from biophysical to socio-economic in nature (Table 19).

Table 19. Results/outcomes of improved environmental governance perceived by GSA
participants in 2007 1
Percentage of LGUs with this perception
Perceived results/outcome Northern Central S & C. Western
Luzon Visayas Mindanao Mindanao
FFM
Improved forest cover 33% 39% 50% 12%
Improved income and revenue generation 33% 12% 25% -
Reduction in illegal activities/threats 17% 19% 25% -
Improved biodiversity, quality of forest cover 33% 22% 35% 6%
Natural forest conversion stopped/declined 6% 10% 25% -
Citations, awards for good performance 11% - - -
Prevention of open access 28% 16% 35% -
CRM
Reduction of destructive and illegal fishing 32%
100% 62% 59%
activities
Increased apprehension due to effective 13%
25% 25%
enforcement
Enhanced fish production/abundance/size
29%
especially in immediate vicinity of marine 100% 50% 47%
sanctuary
Increase in number of functional enforcement
bodies with right mix of 50% -
- -
capabilities/competencies in area of operation
Increase in the number of active
groups/citizens/stakeholders that are committed 75% -
to improved CRM - -
Cleaner coastal areas 100% 29% 75% 29%
Improved status of resources such as mangrove,
corals, seagrass, and general biodiversity in 75% 35% 75% 53%
MPAs
Increased number of
25% - -
permittees/licensees/registered fisherfolks -
Improved revenue collection from
25% - - -
permits/licenses,
Recognition/award received - 16% 25% 18%
Enforced coastal zones - 29% - 6%
UEM
More efficient collection and transport, wider
collection area 37% 32% 48% 35%
Revenues generated from users’ fee 26% 9% 29% 24%
Awards received for being clean 42% 15% 33% 12%
Reduction in street litter, improved aesthetics 37% 29% 62% 24%
Reduction in air, water, and land pollution
-
sources in the disposal area 5% 6% 24%
Reduced incidence of violations - 15% 19% -
1
summarized from 2007 GSA results

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The task of improving environmental governance is not easy. It also takes time. Getting
the 105 LGUs to adopt menu of good practices to elevate the quality of their
environmental governance took seven years of close and sustained partnership with the
EcoGov technical assistance team.
With close technical guidance, coaching and mentoring from EcoGov, the LGUs have
earmarked human and financial resources which enabled them to implement sound
technical strategies based on the principles of functionality, transparency, accountability
and public participation. The LGUs together with their constituents prepared and
implemented various environment and natural resources management plans and
formulated ordinances and enforced them. The LGUs also created functional and
accountable management offices and bodies and initiated improvement in their over-all
management systems and operating standards. They either formed or joined local
networks and partnered with other LGUs, government agencies and non-government
stakeholders to improve their performance in both EcoGov assisted and unassisted
sectors. The more the LGUs learned to innovate, become efficient, responsive,
transparent, participatory and accountable, the more the process of improving local
environmental governance has become self-propelling and self-sustaining, as EcoGov
experiences in the various sites show.
The LGUs varied in the speed at which they achieved the good environmental
governance index. LGU level factors such as commitment, political will and good
leadership, together with outside technical and logistical assistance proved to be good
formula for achieving and sustaining good performance. The availability of the GSA tool
that helps the LGU monitor and identify needed improvement in their performance also
proved crucial.
The impact of 105 local government institutions with strengthened capacity to reduce the
threats and optimize opportunities from their forest and forestlands, coastal and marine
areas and urban environment is made evident by the observed rise in the achievement of
EcoGov’s biophysical targets in these sectors. Moreover, the elevated quality of local
environmental leadership has given rise to a number of LGUs that have become model
sites for good environmental governance practices in their respective provinces.
The GSA has proved to be an inexpensive, quick and yet sound and effective tool for
measuring and managing LGU performance in environmental governance. Its use should
be promoted among other LGUs in the country.

Annex A
BIOPHYSICAL BENEFITS OF ENHANCED ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
IN KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS
EcoGov hypothesizes good environmental governance will result in concrete and

quantifiable changes in the biophysical environment which directly or indirectly can help
reduce the threats to biological resources in KBAs. For instance, improved forest
governance is expected to reduce the pressure and threats to forests and forestlands,
expedite forest regeneration activities, and facilitate investments to make bare and idle
forestlands productive. Improved coastal governance is being anticipated to help address
and mitigate issues and threats to biodiversity conservation associated with overfishing
and destructive fishing. Improved management of solid wastes and investment in
sanitation facilities are expected to help address threats to human health and biodiversity
associated with water and land pollution and toxic emissions.
Annex Tables 1-3 present the names of LGUs with observed ‘biophysical improvements’
as measured using several proxy indicators found in EcoGov’s Performance Monitoring
Plan. The indices they obtained in FFM, CRM, and UEM are also presented in order to
gain insights as to whether, indeed, improved indices lead to actual, on the ground
improvements. It should be noted that the data presented have been taken only for the
LGUs covered by the 2009 GSA, which together, comprise only about half of the LGUs
assisted by EcoGov in the different sectors. Moreover, only the LGUs situated in or
bordering the key biodiversity areas have been considered in this assessment.
FFM Index and Biophysical Improvements
In the area of forest and forestland management, good governance is expected to reduce
the incidence of illegal logging and further conversion of remaining forests in forestlands.
EcoGov is using two proxy indicators to monitor these outcomes a) areas of natural
forests placed under improved management and, b) areas of bare forestlands placed under
productive management.
Natural forests refer to primary (old growth) and naturally regenerating secondary
(residual) forests. They are considered under improved management when they meet two
criteria (a) they are under a certain form of tenure or government allocation instrument,
and b) they have effective on-site management as defined under the EcoGov’s
Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP).
The other proxy indicator measures the size of bare forestlands (e.g., open areas and
grasslands) in co-managed or community-tenured forestlands that are placed under
productive development. Bare forestlands are considered under productive development
when they meet three conditions: 1) the area is covered by a sub-agreement, stewardship
contract, tribal recognition of individual claim within communal tenure; b) there is an
investment (e.g., plantation, orchard, agroforestry, etc.) in the tenured area by LGU or

private entity, and c) individual property rights holder underwent training and is himself/
herself investing in agroforestry, fruit tree farming, etc. to make the land productive.
Annex Table 1 below shows that the LGUs that have experienced one or both proxy
indicators of outcomes of good forest governance registered high FFM indices ranging
from 0.87-1.00, except for Dipaculao. In fact, 24 of these LGUs have 1.00 FFM index.
This Table also shows that adoption of good practices in forest management by 27 LGUs
in 17 KBAs had resulted in total of 204,433 hectares or around 62% of the combined
natural forests of these LGUs placed under improved management. Eight of these LGUs
were able to completely placed all of their natural forests under improved management.
Bulk of the natural forests placed under improved management were under community
tenure (Community-based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA) and Indigenous
Peoples tenure), the rest were under LGU-DENR co-management. At the project level,
EcoGov was able to place an aggregate hectarage of natural forests of 262,092 hectares
under improved management. This represents around 44% of total of natural forest of
596,352 in all project-assisted areas with natural forests, both within and outside KBAs
and covered and not covered by the 2009 GSA. Fifteen LGUs in KBAs practicing good
forest governance were also able to place total of 32,097 hectares (14%) out of the total
of 235,633 hectares of bare forestlands under productive management.
Annex Table 1. Biophysical improvements in the forest and forestlands of LGUs

Bordering Terrestrial and Marine Key Biodiversity Areas (as of
December 2009)
Estimated Natural Forests
Size of Areas under Forestlands
Natural Improved Under Productive
Forests Management Estimated Management
Inside (% of estimated Size of Bare (% of estimated
3
Key Biodiversity FFM LGU natural forests) Forestlands bare forestlands)
Area (size) LGU 2 Index (Ha) (Ha) 4
(Ha) (Ha)
N. Luzon
Quirino Protected 4,299 379
Landscape Aglipay 0.93 5,292 5,499
(81%) (7%)
(164,364 ha.)
2,535
Cabarroguis 1.00 9,692 9,087 -
(26%)
3,782 8
Madela 0.93 44,163 10,461
(9%) (0.1%)
77,150 2,878
Nagtipunan 1.00 103,848 33,669
(74%) (8%)
Casecnan Protected 17,683 42
Landscape Dupax del Sur 0.93 17,683 9,783
(100%) (0.4%)
( 90,723 ha)
Nagtipunan already counted under Quirino Protected Landscape
Baler Bay Dipaculao 0.20 26,088 25,708 3,486 -
2
The KBA may cover more LGUs than listed here; the list only includes LGUs covered by the 2009 GSA that host
part or whole of a KBA and which shows improvement)
3
Size pertains to total estimated area of natural forests found in the LGU, data does not indicate how much of an
LGU’s natural forest is part of the KBA
4
Size pertains to total estimated area of bare forestland found in the LGU, data does not indicate how much of an
LGU’s bare forestland is part of the KBA

3
(Ha) (Ha)
(99%)
Candidate KBA-
2,655 5
Caraballo-Pallali Quezon 1.00 11,293 1,927
(24%) (0.3%)
(55,220)
2,927 258
Diffun 1.00 5,147 11,917
(57%) (22%)
Total for 8 NL
223,206 136,739 (61%) 85,829 3,570 (4.1%)
LGUs in KBAs
Total for all 14
NL LGUs with 353,952 176,643 131,111 3,570
natural forests
C. Visayas
Talibon Protected
Landscape and
380
Seascape (6,457 Talibon 1.00 568 2,807 -
(67%)
ha) and Danajon
Reef Bank
Nug-as and Mt. 844 65
Alcoy 1.00 844 2,618
Lantoy (10,457 ha) (100%) (2.5%)
715
Dalaguete 1.00 715 5,873 -
(100%)
Mt. Capayas 2,846
Dauin 1.00 2,846 3,327 -
(13,610 ha) (100%)
Cuernos de Negros 3,676 11,324
Sta. Catalina 1.00 4,484 34,451
(23,565) (82%) (32.9%)
123
La Libertad 1.00 123 4,874 -
(100%)
Southwestern 13,900
453
Negros (26,347) Bayawan City 1.00 453 17,308 (80%)
(100%)
and Sulu Sea
Sta. Catalina Data already reported under Cuernos de Negros
Tañon Strait, Bais 965
Bais City 1.00 1,369 9,783 -
Bay (70%)
Central Cebu
432
Protected Toledo City 1.00 432 3,357 -
(100%)
Landscape
Total for 9 CV
11,774 10,434 (89%) 83,870 25,289 (30%)
LGUs in KBAs
Total for all 12 15,062 10,458 90,962 25,289
CV LGUs with
natural forest
S. & C Mindanao
Mt. Piagayungan 902 907
Wao 1.00 12,412 1,495
(154,340 ha) (7%) (60.7%)
Mt. Daguma 3,360
Bagumbayan 1.00 6,627 17,125 -
(32,360 ha) (51%)
Mt. Apo Natural 4,093
Makilala 1.00 5,165 1,515 -
Park (99,091 ha) (79%)
Mt. Busa-Kiamba 15,768 80
Maitum 1.00 16,805 1,740
(114,144 ha) (94%) (4.6%)

3
(Ha) (Ha)
2,437 224
Maasim 1.00 7,462 28,776
(33%) (0.8%)
28,162 1,635
Kiamba 1.00 28,162 6,139
(100%) (27%)
Moro Gulf 642 337
Lebak 1.00 5,400 4,000
(12%) (8%)
Moro Gulf 1,619 55
Kalamansig 1.00 9,927 4,082
(16%) (1.3%)
Total for all 8 91,960 56,983 (62%) 64,872 3,238 (6%)
LGUs in KBAs
Total for all 21
SCM LGUs
199,319 74,738 257,893 3,238
with natural
forest
W. Mindanao
Basilan Natural Lamitan City
253
Biotic Area (4,497 0.87 1,198 534 -
(21%)
ha) and Moro Gulf
Total for WM
1,198 253 534 -
LGU in KBAs
Total for all 7
WM LGUs with 29,875 253 51,141 -
natural forest
GRAND
TOTAL for All
328,198 204,433 (62%) 235,633 32,097 (14%)
27 LGUS in
KBAs
TOTAL for All
EcoGov-assisted
596,352 262,092 531,107 32,097
LGUs with
natural forest

CRM Index and Biophysical Improvements
Ecogov uses three proxy indicators to measure outcomes of improved coastal governance
(Annex Table 2). The first proxy indicator measures coastal areas under improved
management. For a coastal area to be considered as such, four criteria have to be met: 1)
LGU has a legitimized coastal and/or fisheries resource management (CRM/FRM) plan,
or legitimized zoning scheme for municipal waters; 2) LGU has an approved annual
budget allocations for implementation of CRM/FRM activities; 3) there is a functional
LGU-based resource management organization in charge of implementing the legitimized
plan/s, with strong focus on CRM enforcement, and 4) LGU implements good practices
in CRM and/or fisheries resources management. Good practices in CRM include
activities stated in the CRM plan. Good practices in FRM include both enforcement and
management of fishing effort.
The second proxy indicator measures the number and size of new marine sanctuaries
(MS) or marine protected areas (MPA) established in a LGU. A new MS or MPA is
considered established when the following criteria are satisfied: 1) it is covered by a
legitimized management plan which is the basis for the issuance of a pertinent municipal
ordinance, 2) there is a management body formed for its management, 3) there is funding
allocation from the LGU or other sources for its management, and 4) at least two
implementation activities are ongoing, one being on law enforcement. Other
implementation activities may include: community IEC, installation and maintenance of
bouys, patrolling, apprehension of violators, and establishment of user’s fee.
The third proxy indicator concerns the number and size of existing marine sanctuaries/
marine protected areas placed under improved management. This refers to established
marine sanctuaries where implementation activities have been maintained for at least one
year and have resulted in reducing fishing effort and destructive fishing in no-take areas.
Annex Table 2 shows that an overwhelming number of LGUs with very high CRM
indices have satisfied at least one proxy indicators of outcomes of improved coastal
resource governance. A total of 101,906 hectares of coastal areas had been placed under
improved management by nine LGUs bordering KBAs in all three regions. In addition, a
total of 59 new marine protected areas covering more than 2,985 ha of coastal waters had
been established. Forty five of these with combined size of 1,052 hectares had been
established in Phase 2, while 14 covering total of 1,932 hectares had been established in
Phase 1. Of the existing MPAs found in 24 LGUs, a total of 36 covering more than 2,100
hectares had been placed under improved management. While Central Visayas had the
most number of new MPAs established, Western Mindanao had the largest area of coastal
waters covered by marine protected areas.

Annex Table 2. Biophysical improvements in the coastal resources of LGUs situated in
Marine Key Biodiodiversity Areas (as of December 2009)
Coastal Areas New Marine
Under Sanctuaries Existing marine
Improved Established sanctuaries under
Region/Key CRM Management (EcoGov Phase 1 improved
Biodiversity Area LGU Index (ha) and Phase 2) (ha) management (ha)
Northern Luzon
Baler Bay 5 Ditangol (19) Ditangol (19)
Dinalungan 1.00 11,769.4
Mabudo (37) Mabudo (37)
Dipaculao 1.00 19,661.1 Dibutunan (57.7) Dibutunan (58)
Puntian-
Baler 0.94 -
Digisit (242.6)
Total for NL 31,430.50 4 (356.3 ha) 3 (114 ha)
Central Visayas
Camotes Sea/Island Pandong Bato (28) Pandong Bato (28)
Carmen 1.00 -
Batong Diyut (45) Batong Diyut (45)
Pilar 1.00 - Pilar (179) Pilar (179)
Villahermosa (69) Villahermosa (69)
Tudela 1.00 -
Puertobello (39)
Consuelo (33) San Isidro (48)
San Francisco 1.00 23,367.7 San Isidro (48) Santiago (18)
Santiago (18.59)
Esperanza (42) Esperanza (42)
Poro 1.00 - Libertad (33) Libertad (33)
Inosukan
Danao City 1.00 4,232.2 Danao MS (39.7)
Cebu/Bohol Strait - Casay (5.0)
Dalaguete 1.00 -
Balud (12)
- Daang Lungsod-
Alcoy 0.94 -
Guiwang (22.71)
Tañon Strait Basdiot Fish
Sanctuary (4.17)
Moalboal 0.88
Saavedra Fish
Sanctuary (8.13)
Anibong (6.4)
Awaan (25)
Calag-Calag (24)
Ayungon 1.00
Iniban (37)
Tampucon 1 (36.1)
Tiguib (19.5)
Dauin 1.00 Poblacion (6)
Siquijor Island Lazi 1.00 - - Lazi
Siquijor 1.00 - - Siquijor
BoholMarine Canuba (7.4) Cantagay (6.8)
Triangle/ Ipil (6.8) Tubod Mar (11.9)
Bohol/Mindanao Sea Cantagay (6.8)
Bunga Mar (3.0)
Jagna 1.00 - Pangdan (15.2)
Nausok (4.6)
Larapan (8.6)
Tubod Mar (11.9)
Naatang (5.0)
5
Ecogov counts this among the marine KBAs although this is not yet part of the present list prepared by CI-DENR.

Coastal Areas New Marine
Under Sanctuaries Existing marine
Improved Established sanctuaries under
Region/Key CRM Management (EcoGov Phase 1 improved
Biodiversity Area LGU Index (ha) and Phase 2) (ha) management (ha)
Alejawan (10.7) Alejawan (10.7)
Madua Sur (4)
Madua Norte (3.5)
Mawi (21.6)
Duero 1.00
San Antonio (2.8)
Itum (9.7)
Langkis (21.8)
Guinsularan (4.1)
Not part of marine
KBA but of Central
Balamban 1.00 - Balang-balang
Cebu Protected
Landscape
Central Visayas
27,600 36 (870 ha +) 19 (549 ha +)
Total
South and Central Mindanao
Davao Gulf Punta Dumalag (37) -
Davao City 1.00 - Agdao Centro
Bunawan Lasang
SCM Total - 3 (37 ha +) -
Western Mindanao
Sulu Archipelago Isabela City 0.71 - Lampinigan (88.4)
Maloong Canal Shoal
Lamitan City 0.94 -
(100)
Moro Gulf Dimataling 1.00 3,933 Dimataling (75) Bacayawan (20)
Bibilik (20)
Dumalinao 1.00 4,908 Bibilik (20)
Bagong Silao (22)
RT Lim 0.40 - RT Lim (112)
Concepcion (28)
Concepcion (28)
Tabina 1.00 14,367.8 Tambunan (95)
Tambunan (95)
Talisay (20)
MISTTA (160) MISSTA (160)
Tukuran 1.00 1,892
PALS (70) PALS (70)
Bangaan (880) Bangaan (880)
Tungawan 1.00 17,775.6
Pagadian City 0.82 - Daodao (77) Dao-Dao (77)
Combo (20) Combo (22)
Labangan 1.00 -
Bulanit (20) Bulanit (43)
Culasian-Tenatan CuTe (28)
(25) Samvil (26)
San Pablo 1.00 -
Tibu-Tabu (163)
Samvill (26)
Zamboanga Sibuguey RT Lim Already reported under Moro Gulf
Tungawan Already reported under Moro Gulf
Total for WM 42,876 16 (2,508) 14 (1,511)
GRAND TOTAL
For All LGUs in
101,906.5 59 (2985+) 36 (2174)
KBA (Phase 1-
2009)
GRAND TOTAL
for ALL EcoGov 50 MPAs
111,368 50 (1,814)
Assisted LGUs (2,608 ha)\
(2004-2009 only)

UEM Index and Physical Improvements
EcoGov measures outcome of improved management of municipal waste in terms of

LGU’s diversion of at least 25% of solid waste from disposal through recycling,
composting, processing and other resource recovery techniques. Six evidences have been
considered as proof that an LGU is actually achieving waste diversion target: 1) presence
of an operational composting facility, 2) waste diversion of at least 25% in specific major
waste generators such as public market, population center, commercial district, 3)
presence of ISWM plan and annual budgets to implement waste segregation, IEC,
enforcement, composting and recycling, 4) SWM ordinances that are being enforced, 5)
ongoing IEC program particularly on segregation, composting and recycling, and 6)
strengthened and organized recycling sector (e.g., junkshop operators, itinerant buyers of
recyclables). An LGU has to achieve some of the above criteria to be considered meeting
the at least 25% waste diversion target.
Based on Annex Table 3 below, 52 LGUs hosting or bordering KBA were able to achieve
waste diversion of at least 25% of total generated wastes. South and Central Mindanao
and Central Visayas have the same number (17) of LGUs that were able to achieve 25%
waste diversion.
Another proxy indicator of biophysical manifestation of improved UEM considered by

EcoGov is investment by an LGU in sanitation facilities. Improved sanitation can reduce
threats arising from contamination and pollution not only to human health but also to
biological resources in the different land and water ecosystems. A total of 11 LGUs in
KBAs have invested in wastewater sanitation facility, majority of them (73%) are found
in South and Central Mindanao. The total for the project (both KBA and non-KBA
LGUs) as of December 2009 was 19 LGUs.
Another proxy indicator of biophysical improvement (closure of open dumpsite and

establishment of a proper waste disposal facility) is added in Annex Table 3 although this
is not officially part of EcoGov’s PMP. Based on the data collected by EcoGov, a total of
42 KBA LGUs had achieved this proxy indicator, of which nine (9) are already operating
a suitable sanitary landfill facility. By geographic region, Northern Luzon with four such
facility had the most number of SLF. Except for Quezon and Bagumbayan, all LGUs that
manifested biophysical outcomes were good performers in UEM.

Annex Table 3. Physical improvements related to urban environmental
management in LGUs situated in/bordering Terrestrial and Marine
Key Biodiversity Areas (as of December 2009)
Diverting at
Region/ least 25% of Investing in
Key Biodiversity waste from Closed Open Sanitation
Area LGU UEM Index disposal Dumpsite Facility
Northern Luzon
Quirino Protected Cabarroguis 0.88 √ √ -
Landscape Dupax del Norte 0.81 √ √ -
Madella 1.00 √ √ -
Nagtipunan 0.88 √ √ -
Casecnan Dupax del Norte Reported under Quirino Protected Landscape
Protected Nagtipunan Reported under Quirino Protected Landscape
Landscape Aritao 1.00 √ √ (SLF) -
Aurora Memorial Maria Aurora 1.00 √ √ -
National Park
(AMNP)
AMNP and Mt. Baler 1.00 √ √ -
Dingalan
Total for KBA
Candidate KBA- Quezon 0.69 √ - -
Caraballo-Pallali
Bambang 0.94 √ √ -
Bayombong 1.00 √ √ (SLF) -
Diffun 0.94 √ √ -
Bagabag 0.94 √ √ (SLF) -
Not part of Solano 1.00 √ √ (SLF) -
existing KBA List
Cauayan City 0.94 √ √ -
Total for NL 14 13 (4 SLF) 0
Central Visayas
Bohol Marine Dauis 1.00 √ √ -
Triangle Duero 1.00 √ √ -
Jagna 1.00 √ - -
Central Cebu Compostela 1.00 √ √
Protected Danao City 1.00 √ √
Landscape Toledo City 1.00 √ - -
(CCPL)
Mt. Capayas Danao City Already reported under CCPL
Dauin 1.00 √ √ -
Cuernos de San Jose 1.00 √ √ -
Negros Sta. Catalina 1.00 √ √ -
Amlan 0.88 √ - -
Bais Bay Bais City 1.00 - √ SLF √
Sulu Sea & Sta. Catalina Already reported unde Cuernos de Negros
Southwestern Bayawan City 1.00 √ √ SLF √
Negros
Ban-ban Bindoy 1.00 √ - -
Tañon Strait Bindoy Already reported under Ban-ban
Tanjay City 0.88 - -
Bais City Already reported under Bais Bay
Danajon Reef Talibon 1.00 √ √ -
Bank & Talibon
Protected
Landscape and
Seascape
Camotes San Francisco 1.00 √ √ -
Island/Sea

Diverting at
Region/ least 25% of Investing in
Key Biodiversity waste from Closed Open Sanitation
Area LGU UEM Index disposal Dumpsite Facility
Not part of KBA Corella 0.88 √ √ -
Cortes 1.00 √ √ -
Maribojoc 1.00 √ √ √
Total for Central 17 14 (2) 3
Visayas
South and
Central
Mindanao
Mt. Piagayungan Wao 1.00 √ √ (SLF) -
Mt. Daguma Isulan 0.88 √ √ -
Bagumbayan 0.56 √ - -
Lebak 0.94 √ √ -
Kalamansig 1.00 √ √
Mt. Matutum Polomolok 1.00 √ √ (SLF) √
Protected Tupi 0.94 √ √ -
Landscape Tampakan 1.00 √ √
Mt. Busa-Kiamba Surallah 1.00 √ √ -
Tboli 1.00 √ √
Kiamba 1.00 √ √ √
Maitum 0.88 √ - √
Sarangani Bay Alabel 0.94 √ - √
Kiamba Already reported under Mt. Busa-Kiamba
Polomolok Alredy reported under Mt. Matutum Protected Landscape
General Santos City 1.00 √ - √
Mt. Apo Natural Kidapawan City 1.00 √ - √
Park
Mt. Apo Natural Davao City 1.00 - √ -
Park, Mt. Sinaka
and Davao Gulf
Mt. Latian Alabel Already reported under Sarangani Bay
Complex
Ligawasan Marsh Tacurong City 1.00 √ √ (SLF) √
Koronadal City 1.00 √ √ √
Total for SCM 17 13 (3 SLF) 8
Western
Mindanao
Basilan Natural Isabela City 0.88 √ √ -
Biotic Area, Sulu
Archipelago
Mt. Sugarloaf, Pagadian City 0.38 √ - -
Moro Gulf
Moro Gulf Dumalinao 0.94 √ -
Moro Gulf, Tungawan 0.81 √ √ -
Zamboanga
Sibuguey
Total for WM 4 2 0
Grand Total for All 52 LGUs 42 LGUs (9 11 LGUs
LGUs in KBAs SLF)
GRAND TOTAL For
ALL EcoGov-Assisted 90 61 19
LGUs

THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT
(ECOGOV)
Unit 2401, Prestige Tower
F. Ortigas Jr. Road (formerly Emerald Avenue)
Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1605
Philippines
Tel. No. +63 2 635-0747 q Fax: +63 2 637-8779
e-Mail: ecogov_info@dai.com
Webpage: www.ecogov.org

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Environmental Governance Project

Guided Self-Assessment on the State of

Final Assessment Results

Maria Zita Butardo-Toribio

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... iii

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS from the base year (2005-2009) through the

REVISITING THE BASE PERIOD ASSESSMENT RESULTS (2005, 2007,

RESULTS OF THE GSA FOR THE EXTENSION PERIOD (2009-2011) .............. 28

LGU-LEVEL FACTORS THAT MAY HAVE INFLUENCED

END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT i

RESULTS AND OUTCOMES OF IMPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 65

ii THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT iii

Figure 1. Trend in LGU Category, 2005, 2007, 2009..................................................... 9

iv THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

AZE - Alliance for Zero Extinction

END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT v

The Guided Self-Assessment on Local Environmental Governance (GSA) is a simple,

vi THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

The Guided Self-Assessment on the State of Environmental Governance Practices or

“80 government institutions meeting environmental good governance index

END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT 1

The composition of the GSA questions is as follows:

By Sector By Function By Principle

• Functionality: Are basic management systems (plans, offices/staff/

2 THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

• Multi-sectoral representation in the ‘core informants’. The informants include

• Careful explanation by facilitator of questions, indicators, and standards of

• Use of reference documents, photos and other hard evidences of performance to

PARTICIPANTS AND METHOD

END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT 3

The questionnaires were administered sector-by-sector, following a strict protocol. The

CALCULATING AND INTERPRETING THE SURVEY RESULTS

• Governance principle-specific index – indicates the extent to which the LGU

• Governance function-specific index – indicates the extent to which the LGU

4 THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

LGU GSA Index Categories

1- Good Performing - cross-sector or over-all index is between 0.

FEEDBACK AND ACTION PLANNING SESSION

END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT 5

COVERAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT

906 516 958

6 THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT 7

Table 3. Summary of EcoGov 2 Accomplishments: Government Institutions Meeting

8 THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT 9

10 THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT 11

12 THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

TREND IN PERFORMANCE BY SECTOR

Figure 2. Trend in sectoral indices, 2005, 2007, 2009

END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT 13

TREND IN THE ADOPTION OF GOVERNANCE FUNCTIONS

LGUs in certain provinces registered comparatively slower progress in law enforcement

14 THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

TREND IN THE ADOPTION OF GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES

END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT 15

16 THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT

END OF BASE YEAR (2009) GUIDED LGU SELF-ASSESSMENT 17

Figure 5. Trend in Average Regional Cross-Sector Indices

18 THE PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE 2 PROJECT