KPMG
5.6 ESTRATEGIA CREATIVA
The second external influence is donor funding. The Philippines’ socio-economic status as a lower-middle income nation and its decentralised political environment welcomes cooperation from other agencies to work with both government and civil society on development issues, and thus facilitates the large number of donor-funded projects currently implemented in the Philippines. The role of donor funding in determining activities (namely projects and programmes, but also plans) inclusive of both climate change adaptation as well as DRR became evident through fieldwork interviews with government and non-government agencies in Metro Manila. During an interview with the Climate Change Commission Villanueva (N1) asserts that lots of International NGOs and donor organizations working in the Philippines on climate change and disaster issues is “one of the perks of being tagged a developing country”
and is “also because we are very advanced in terms of policy. We have the legal framework in place to support climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction actions” (N1). Such international development organizations and multi-lateral donors mentioned during fieldwork interviews include: World Bank, Global Environment Facility UN Development Program (GEF-UNDP), Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), USAID, AusAID, Department for International Development (DFID), Millennium Development Goals Achievement Fund (MDG-F), UN-Habitat, Asian Development Bank (ADB), International
Development Research Centre (IDRC), Cities Alliance55, Oxfam, Plan International and Christian Aid among others. A summary of some of their projects is listed below in Table 18. These are by no means exclusive, yet they serve to highlight the range and number of donor-led projects related to climate change and disasters and/or urban poor housing in the Philippines.
The obvious positive influence of donor funding for adaptation is the money itself. As an interviewee from HUDCC commented “Right now our usual partners are World Bank, ADB, UN and UN-Habitat … Of course the financing aspect is very critical … the constraints as a coordinating council [mean] we don’t have that much resource as well” (N5). And in reference to a capability-building project in relation to hazards Barrientos states “HUDCC is very involved in this project through the help of the MDG-F…which made the big programme possible” (N5). Money from donors is also particularly pertinent for climate change actions because “the Climate Change Act [does] not have a clear provision for the sources for adaptation” (L12). Secondly, because donors are also often international development organizations they not only are a source of money but they influence the use of funds through their knowledge, experience and access to networks: “They [UN-Habitat] have experience from other countries so we rely on their knowledge” (N5). A neutral influence, which has both positive and negative possibilities, is that donors often take an active role in driving projects or co-leading them with government. In reference to a pilot project in the city of Sorsogon to integrate climate change adaptation and DRR into their ‘Local Shelter Plan’ and to come up with a prototype house that is resilient to hazards, HUDCC asserts, “it is UN-Habitat who really has spearheaded this” (N5). And Villanueva comments that it is “AusAID [who is] trying to push for this type of [risk]
55 The Cities Alliance is a global partnership for poverty reduction and the promotion of the role of cities in sustainable development. Its members include local authorities (united cities and local governments and metropolis), governments (Australia, Brazil, Chile, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Italy, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, Sweden, and the USA), NGOs (Slum Dwellers International (SDI) and Habitat for Humanity International) and multi-lateral organizations (European Union, UN-HABITAT and the World Bank). (CitiesAlliance, 2013)
mapping” to not only map physical hazards but also vulnerabilities in Metro Manila (N1).
Project name or topic Level Funder Source
Hazard Mapping and Assessment for Effective and Risk Analysis projects funded by AusAID]
Regional UNDP NAMRIA (N11)
Managing Climate Change Information n/a GTZ Climate Change
Office (N2) Adaptation to Climate Change and Biodiversity
Conservation National GTZ Climate Change
Office (N2)
Strengthening Climate Resilience Global DFID Christian Aid
(L4)
Disaster Risk Management (Resilience Project)59 National CIDA, UNDP NAMRIA (N11) The Climate Change Adaptation Project for
Philippines National GEF (Special
Climate Change Fund)
NAMRIA (N11)
Early Flood Warning System Regional
(Metro
Settlers in Danger Areas National World Bank PHILSSA (L9)
Developing a National Slum Upgrading Strategy for the Philippines [into which climate change adaptation
and DRR are hoped to be integrated] National
World Bank
Table 18. Example of donor-funded projects and programmes in the Philippines garnered from fieldwork interviews Source: Compiled from fieldwork interviews between February and June 2012
56 The source of the formal project title is from AusAID (2011)
57 The source of the formal project title is from MDG-F (2013)
58 The source of the formal project title is from CCaR (2013)
59 The source of the formal project title is from UNDP (2010c)
A second neutral influence of donor funds is that they often come with conditions on their use in terms of the project focus, for example funds must be used in projects to address climate change or risk reduction; this has three possible outcomes. First, since climate change adaptation is high on the international agenda this can be reflected in the plentiful availability of donor funding on this topic. However if this were to change it is likely to affect funding availability for the worse, as is the case for Christian Aid in the Philippines regarding DRR: “funding is slowly becoming limited” (L4). The positive consequence of this is that Christian Aid are trying to make DRR issues more cross-cutting so that they can be included in projects applying for non-DRR related funding. Or in the case of the Philippines’ Climate Change Commission because “a lot of funding goes to climate change adaptation, we’re trying to link it to DRR so we can share the money with them” (N1). Second, the conditions attached to funding can cause applications for funding to be manipulated to appear as if they are a climate change adaptation project when in fact they are intended for another issue, for example water resource management or sanitation. On the other hand funding conditions can ensure the inclusion of certain features in projects;; for example, “Governments will not get funding from the donor unless they have the participatory aspect” (L3). Third, funding conditions often include a limited timeline. In the case of Christian Aid’s ‘TS Ketsana Rehabilitation Program’ (see Section 6.2) it was limited to three years “primarily because it’s connected with a humanitarian appeal [so] there is a certain time limit… [because] it’s difficult to explain to your benefactors that we’re doing a response 10 years after the disaster”
(L4). This is difficult for recipient NGOs, like Christian Aid, who “recognize that development cannot be done as a 6-month or 1-year project” (L4). A final restrictive influence of donor funds on climate change actions in the Philippines is that delays or limited funding significantly affect when projects can be implemented. In an interview with PAGASA in reply to a question about incorporating climate change projections at the city level it was said, “We’re going to map Metro Manila and the
surrounding areas for this year. At the moment we are in the organization stage – getting data and waiting for the financial resources from AusAID” (N13;; italics added).
In regards to the research’s case studies (discussed in Chapters 6 and 7), donor funding is also important although its influences varies. Gawad Kalinga depends upon donations to finance the construction of housing and site development in order to embark on GK village projects. These donations typically come from multinational companies in the private sector, such as Proctor and Gamble, Coca-Cola etc., and not international development organizations. Unlike the donors listed above, they generally do not set prerequisites or conditions upon the use of the money that determines or influences the practice of climate change adaptation in GK. In the case of Homeless People’s Federation for the Philippines, they receive money from SDI (under the Urban Poor Fund International, which gets funding from the Gates Foundation) and from Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR) to fund their House Materials Loan Program (HP5). Contrary to GK, both SDI and ACHR have granted this money specifically for the use of strengthening communities post-disaster (HP1). Through the facilitation of Homeless International HPFPI also access the Community-Led Infrastructure Financing Facility (CLIFF) program for housing funded by DFID and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), and receive grant money from the Asian Coalition for Community Action (ACCA) through ACHR to fund big housing and small upgrading projects. Although not explicitly designated for adaptation or risk reduction the aim of ACCA is “to transform development options for Asia’s urban poor by supporting a process of community-led change … [to] tackle problems of land, infrastructure, social and economic development and housing at scale” (ACHR, 2012). By ACCA and CLIFF financially supporting such development issues they influence adaptation and risk reduction activities as often communities concomitantly reduce risks and build their
resilience to climate-related hazards whilst addressing development needs. One of the HPFPI case study communities, PSHAI, also benefits from the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) who funds the Pro-Poor Eco-Settlement Study there and has financed rainwater-harvesting tanks. The relationship with UNESCAP has significantly influenced awareness to climate-related hazards and sustainability in both HPFPI and PSHAI. As for TAO-Pilipinas, DFID-funded TS Ketsana Rehabilitation Program is a driving influence for its DRR work with the Sub-Urban community. Furthermore an ACCA grant is making it possible for the Masagana community to fund the construction of more resilient housing at a new relocation site in Bulacan.
The contrast between the money received from international organizations in the case studies, versus those received to fund programs at the city, regional and national level typically in partnership with government, is the driving force. Although it requires further study to verify, it appears that the former have more control in determining the content and application of the funds, whereas the latter are more likely to be determined from the outset by the donor agency. It is here that the influence of international agreements comes into play too and exerts their role in multi-level governance for climate change. Two aspects that need further research are: ‘What is the role of donor funding in determining which projects and programmes are implemented and in determining their subject matter (for example, climate change adaptation or risk reduction), target community and methodology?’ and ‘How does such funding affect (through influence or control) community initiatives and does this go against the principles of CBA?’
5.3 Summary
This chapter identifies both the national and regional influences and external influences upon the practice of adaptation to climate change and community-based settlement initiatives in Metro Manila. Included in national and regional influences
this chapter identifies the role that hydromet hazards, notably flooding and tropical cyclones, development issues, and the national policy environment play in CCA (and DRRM) actions in the Philippines, specifically within the context of Metro Manila. In terms of external influences are international agreements namely the UNFCCC for climate change adaptation and the Hyogo Framework for Action for DRRM.
Interviews from the case study confirm that these have significantly influenced the framing of policy for CCA and DRRM within the Philippines. Furthermore donor funding affects adaptation initiatives not only because they provide necessary financial resources, but also because they bring knowledge and experience to the Philippines and provide access to beneficial networks for adaptation practice. These however have potential set backs linked to limited funding timelines and restrictions based on terms of use for funding.
This review of influences is relevant for CBA as it acknowledges that the Philippines has a relatively well-developed policy environment in support of CCA and DRRM, specifically through the twin laws: the Climate Change Act of 2009 and the DRRM Act of 2010. Additionally that support for the integration of CCA and DRRM into planning, housing for the urban poor and local government are also found in the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016, the Local Government Code of 1991, the Urban Development and Housing Act and the Greenprint for Metro Manila 2012-2023 and hopefully in future the National Building Code. However, in all this, it highlights that there are numerous basic development issues (such as informal settlements, poor solid waste management, poor drainage etc.), which need to be prioritised by government as foundational actions to reduce the vulnerability of Metro Manila to climate-related hazards and the impacts of climate change. It is within this development context that CBA operates and without government addressing these development issues adaptation approaches like CBA cannot be fully effective.
Challenges for CBA practice identified from this context analyses are identified later in Chapter 8.