FINANCING for MPAs The Philippine Environmental Governance 2 Project.
-
Upload
candace-rose -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of FINANCING for MPAs The Philippine Environmental Governance 2 Project.
FINANCING for MPAs
The Philippine Environmental Governance 2 Project
Workshop Objectives
Present costing and revenue elements in the establishment and implementation stages of an MPA
Present comparative MPA costing of 6 Eco-Gov sites
Participants able to do costing exercises based on their respective MPA action plans
Orientation on Ring-Fencing and CCIF Financial Model
Expected Output
Better understanding of the financial aspects of an MPA
Action Plan with corresponding cost items and revenue sources
Knowledge on concept of Ring-Fencing and the CCIF Financial Model
Session Outline
Part 1 Presentation of Concepts and
Case study
Part 2 Workshop on Action Plan
(identification of activities, costs,
and sources of funds)
Part 3 Introduction to CCIF Financial
Model
45 Minutes
1 hour &
45 Minutes
30 Minutes
MPA Costs
Two Types of MPA Costs
Establishment Cost• Start-up costs in establishing an MPA
Implementation/Recurring Operating Cost• Costs incurred for the operation and maintenance
of an MPA
MPA Costs
Establishment Cost
• Administrative/Organization (MS Mgt Planning Workshop, ground working, action planning, (MS Mgt Planning Workshop, ground working, action planning, cross visits, Forming and Organizing Enforcement team, etc)cross visits, Forming and Organizing Enforcement team, etc)
• Site Development/Habitat Enhancements
(Construction of Guard house, Delineation of Marine Sanctuary(Construction of Guard house, Delineation of Marine Sanctuary and Installation of buoys and markers, posting of signages)and Installation of buoys and markers, posting of signages)
• Acquisition of Equipment (Patrol boat, binoculars, paddle boats, diving gears, (Patrol boat, binoculars, paddle boats, diving gears,
rechargeable rechargeable flashlights, hand-held radio, etc) flashlights, hand-held radio, etc)
MPA Costs
Establishment Cost
• Baseline Survey (Reef and bio-physical Assessments)(Reef and bio-physical Assessments)
• Capability Building (Deputation of Bantay-Dagat, alternative livelihood, monitoring (Deputation of Bantay-Dagat, alternative livelihood, monitoring
and evaluation, paralegal and Municipal CLE training, IEC, etc.)and evaluation, paralegal and Municipal CLE training, IEC, etc.)
MPA Costs
Recurring Operating Costs
• Regular coastal clean-up activities• Annual Bio-physical monitoring• Regular patrolling and guarding• IEC activities• Regular meetings• Repairs and maintenance of buoys and markers• Office maintenance and operating cost
MPA Costs
Recurring Operating Costs
• Salaries / Honoraria of personnel• Traveling Expenses• Fuel and oil• Follow-up trainings• Supplies and Materials (Office and Other Supplies)• Repairs and maintenance of guardhouse, pump
boats and other equipment
MPA Fund Sources
MPA Fund Sources
LGU Allocations (Mun. / Bgy. / Prov.)• 20% Dev. Fund• General Fund (CRM Regular Allocation, Mayor’s Office and
Intelligence Fund) National Government (including PDAF) Fines and Penalties User fees (diving, educational, entrance, etc.) Fund-Raising activities Grants and Donations
• Non-Government Organizations• Private Institutions• Private Individuals
Phases Pilar MPA Program ImplementationPhase 1 Phase 2
Establishment Stage (2005)
Transition Phase (2006) Implementation Phase (2007)
Bio-Physical baseline surveyMS Mgt PlanningY1 Action Plan’g Delineation and installation of buoys and markersAcquisition of flashlight, rain-coats & rubber bootsFabrication of billboards and signagesPulong-pulongM& E TrainingParalegal TrainingFund Raising ActivitiesFundSourcesEco-Gov – 72,503MLGU-97,000Plan Int’l- 93,694PO – 1,500Indv- 3,000Total -267,697
Installation of Buoys and MarkersGuarding and patrollingEnforcement PlanningParalegal Training and Mun. CLE PlanningAdmeasurements TrainingBio-Physical monitoringCross-visit to Bohol and NegrosAction Planning for Y2Const. of floating guardhouseInstallation of billboardsFund Raising ActivitiesFund Sources:MLGU -109,240Eco-Gov – 113,684Plan Int’l- 44,626PO- 74,404Private Sector – 4,000Total P345,954
Guarding and patrollingAcquisition of paddle boatBio-physical monitoringInstallation of billboardMarine CampFund SourcesMLGU-145,010BLGU-14,000Plan Int.- 100,000Eco-Gov-41,144PMMP-21,048Private Indv. – 760Total = 321,962
Sustainability Concerns of MPAs
High investment costs Escalating operational and maintenance
costs Highly subsidized program Limited financing Funds compete with other basic services of
government
Tips to MPA financing
• Secure buy in of the program from Local leaders to be prioritized in budget allocation
• Prepare Work and Financial Plan• Update local leaders on status of
implementation and utilization of fund• Secure external sources of fund
Case Study on MPA Financing
Case Study - MS Profile
Name of MPA Location Area Mgt. Set-up
PMMP
(Sept. 2005)
Pilar,
Camotes179 hectares
(30 MS; 149 MR)
Co-mgt bet. Bgy and MLGU
Villahermosa MS (2004)
Tudela, Camotes
69.3 hectares(29.8 core; 39.5 buffer)
Bgy managed (LGU assisted)
Bibilik Fish MS
(2002)
Dumalinao, Zambo Sur
20 hectares(No take zone)
Co-mgt bet. Bgy and MLGU
Tambunan MS (2003)
Tabina,
Zambo Sur
103 hectares(95 core; 8.5 mangrove)
Municipality managed
Talisay MS
(2004)
Tabina,
Zambo Sur
32.8 hectares(19.8 MS; 13 mangrove)
Peoples Org. managed
MiSSTTA
(2003)
Tukuran,
Zambo Sur
160 hectares Co-mgt bet. Bgy and MLGU
Case Study - MS Profile
Name of MPALGU Class
and IRA Ave. Yearly
BudgetAve. Yearly Budget /ha.
PMMP 5th/16.9M 125,000 ($%) 697
Villahermosa MS 5th/16.5M 25,000(<1%) 361
Bibilik Fish/MS 3rd/28M 61,900 (1%) 3,095
Tambunan MS 5th/24.5M 435,000 (9%) 4,230
Talisay MS 5th/24.5M 0 0
MiSSTTA 4th/33M 600,000 (9%) 3,750
Case Study - Cost
Name of MPA
Establish-ment
Cost/ha
Implemen-tation
Cost/ha
Total Ave. Cost /year
Ave. Cost / ha.
PMMP
05-06
445,082 (2,482/ha)
612,153 (3,390/ha)
1057,035 528,617 2,947
Villahermosa MS 02-06
377,867 (5,453/ha)
808,898 (11,672/ha)
1,186,765 237,353 3,425
Bibilik Fish /MS 02-06
799,159 (39,958/ha)
1,427,326
(71,366/ha)
2,226,485 445,297 22,265
Tambunan MS 03-06
840,778 (8,163/ha)
1,999,942
(19,417/ha)
2,840,720 710,180 6,895
Talisay MS
03-06
357,576 (10,902/ha)
970,452 (29,587/ha)
1,328,028 332,007 10,122
MiSSTTA
04-06
741,081 (4,632/ha)
1,574,016 (9,838/ha)
2,315,097 771,699 4,823
Case Study - Labor Cost
Name of MPA % of Labor Cost to Total Cost
PMMP 26%
Villahermosa MS 50%
Bibilik Fish/MS 34%
Tambunan MS 42%
Talisay MS 39%
MiSSTTA 42%
Insight on Cost
• Cost vary with the nature of materials or labor (i.e. opportunity cost)
• Phase (e.g. establishment, implementation sustaining) and activities of MPA affect cost
• Size matters, i.e. large MPAs are more economical to manage than small MPAs (“economies of scale”)
• Cost-sharing results in smaller expenditures for each of the parties involved in co-management
Case Study - Sources of Fund
Pilar Marine Park
Establish-ment Stage
Implemen-tation Stage
Total
Municipality 202,904
46%
427,15970%
630,06359%
Barangay 4,9901%
15,8512%
20,8412%
Community 0 11,0002%
11,0001%
Grants/Donation
237,18853%
152,24325%
389,43137%
MPA Revenue
0 6,9001%
6,9001%
Case Study - Sources of Fund
Villahermosa MS
Establish-ment Stage
Implemen-tation Stage
Total
Municipality 70,874
19%
22,937
3%
93,811
8%
Barangay 88,000
23%
235,143
29%
323,143
27%
Province 0 25,000
3%
25,000
2%
Community 48,000
13%
312,000
2%
360,000
30%
Grants/Donation 166,993
44%
164,818
20%
331,811
28%
MPA Revenue 4,000
1%
4,000
. 5%
8,000
1%
Case Study - Sources of Fund
Bibilik Establish-ment Stage
Implemen-tation Stage
Total
Municipality 497,240
62%
537,901
38%
1,035,141
46%
Barangay 25,691
3%
76,399
5%
102,090
5%
Province 0 3,860
.3%
3,860
.2%
Community 15,000
2%
50,000
4%
65,000
3%
Grants/Donation 258,228
32%
729,350
51%
331,811
44%
NGA 3,000
<1%
29,816
2%
8,000
2%
Case Study - Sources of Fund
Tambunan Establish-ment Stage
Implemen-tation Stage
Total
Municipality 548,685
65%
1,124,779
56%
1,673,464
59%
Barangay 1,053
.2%
29,853
15%
31,366
1%
Province 0 2,250
.1%
2,250
.1%
Community 1,500
.2%
9,000
.5%
10,500
.4%
Grants/Donation 278,290
33%
784,050
39%
1,062,340
37%
NGA 10,8000
1%
50,000
2%
60,800
2%
Case Study - Sources of Fund
Talisay Establish-ment Stage
Implemen-tation Stage
Total
Municipality 7,000
2%
40,933
4%
47,933
4%
Barangay 0
0%
24,372
3%
24,372
2%
Community 54,820
15%
418,040
43%
472,860
36%
Grants/Donation
295,756
83%
487,107
50%
782,863
59%
Case Study - Sources of Fund
MiSSTA Establish-ment Stage
Implemen-tation Stage
Total
Municipality 469,607
63%
904,794
57%
1,328,028
59%
Barangay 43,546
6%
139,805
9%
183,351
8%
NGA 68,600
4%
68,600
3%
Grants/Donation
227,928
3%
460,817
29%
686,745
30%
Insight on Fund Sources
• Municipalities and barangays tend to allocate more funds to MPAs that they themselves manage or co-manage
• MPA share not highly prioritized in municipal and barangay 20% DF
• Co-management between barangays and municipalities results in greater total budget for the MPA
Salient Observations
• Critical role of external assistance to sustain MPA, at least in the initial phases
• NGAs contribute minimally, MPA are functionally largely as local responsibility
• High dependency on LGU budget and external funding makes MPAs vulnerable to changes in political leadership and withdrawal of donor support
• Revenue generation is as yet at initial stage, but critical to sustainability
• Incentives for local resource managers and volunteers key also to sustainability
Ring Fencing
Ring-Fencing means• Separation/isolation or fencing-off of financial
accounts of specific programs of LGUs to enable – exclusive use of resources earmarked for these
programs– retention and plow back of revenues generated by
the program for use in implementation or investments
Ring Fencing - Definition
• In operational terms, it means either
– setting up a special account for the program under the General Fund of LGUs, with subsidiary accounting system, or
– operating as an autonomous economic enterprise
Ring Fencing - Definition
Why Ring-Fence?
• General Objectives:
• To build a more sustainable and financially viable program or operations.
• To improve governance and promote sound management practices: transparency, accountability, and informed decision-making
Legal Basis
• The Local Government Code allows LGUs to create special accounts under the General Fund for public utilities and economic enterprises, development projects funded by its internal revenue allotment and other special accounts created by law or ordinance.
• Sec. 105, Chapter 6 (Special Accounts) of the New Government Accounting System (NGAS) states that “LGUs shall maintain special accounts in the General Fund for public utilities and other economic enterprises, loans, interests, bond issues, and other contributions for special purposes
Why ring-fence ENR Programs ?
• ENR-related activities are assigned to different LGU units especially if LGU has no environment office
• program budget/expenses are lodged in various LGU units and are not tracked on a program basis
• LGUs are often unable to properly program activities (e.g., start refo at the right time) or respond immediately to “emergency” needs of programs (e.g., repair of equipment for solid waste management)
• revenues become part of the General Fund and can be used by the LGU for purposes unrelated to ENR
• revenue potentials are not fully tapped; revenue collection is also not tracked on a program basis
Why ring-fence ENR Programs?
Specific Benefits: • Establishes information on LGU “investments” in
the ENR sector or a specific ENR program. • Budget allocated by the LGU for the program and
revenues generated from related services are kept within the program to sustain/improve operations.
• Better monitoring and tracking of the performance of the program through separate and reliable financial reports.
• Better and transparent basis for setting fees• Facilitates private sector engagement in the program• Promotes “enterprise” thinking within LGU
Thank You!