GOOD PRACTICE EXCHANGE:

Localizing National Climate Change Action Targets Through Implementation of Mitigation Actions

16 March 2016 | Seda Nuvali, Sta. Rosa City, Laguna, Philippines Hosted by: the City Government of Sta. Rosa

DOCUMENTATION REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

• Project Background

• Objectives of the Event

2. Opening Remarks

• Context setting of the V-LED Project

• Climate Dialogue Exchange

3. Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC)

• Updates on the INDC focusing on Solid Waste

4. About Santa Rosa

• Santa Rosa: City Profile, Issues, and Vision

5. The Santa Experience

• Santa Rosa’s efforts to mitigate

6. Moderated Feedback Session

7. World Café

• Knowledge-sharing through a photo gallery of GHG mitigation actions by: Laguna’s Sta. Rosa and San Pedro, and Cavite’s Imus, Silang, and Carmona

8. 5 x 5 x 5 Challenge: Improving Local Climate Change Actions

9. Learning, Challenges and Opportunities for Actions

Annex I: Photos

Annex II: Post-Activity Evaluation Survey

Annex III: Attendance Sheet

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

Project Background The success of a global response to the climate challenge depends on the coordinated effort at multiple levels. Although national climate and green growth strategies and targets may be in place, very few countries have been able to establish dynamic vertical policy coordination mechanisms between the national and local levels. It is against this backdrop that UN-Habitat continues to support the Philippine government’s efforts in responding to challenges of climate change. Starting last quarter of 2015 until 2018, UN-Habitat will implement two but interrelated projects: (i) Vertical integration and learning on low emission development (V-LED) with support of the International Climate Initiative (IKI)- Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) and in partnership with adelphi Research GmbH; and (ii) Strengthening capacities of national and regional level governance to mainstream climate change concerns into national urban-related policies with UNEP and UNESCAP as partners. Both projects are geared toward supporting government in integrating climate change into national urban policy and fostering low-emission development at the national and local levels. In the Philippines, local governments are complying with their mandates to formulate their comprehensive plans and mainstream local climate change actions into these mandated plans. Much is happening at the local level and this makes it important to further support local efforts on climate policy and vertically link them to national programs and policies with climate and sustainable energy strategies and policies integrated into the process.

INTRODUCTION Objectives of the GPE ① Learn the highlights of Sta. Rosa’s

process of formulating their GHG Management Plan and setting their climate change baselines and targets to lower emissions in three years;

② Be oriented to the mitigation projects currently implemented to contribute to the reduction targets;

③ Learn from other LGUs’ experiences in local climate change action planning and opportunities for mitigation and adaptation action planning; and

④ Share insights on how the current mitigation projects can be enhanced for replication and sustainability.

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

Profile of the Participants The event was participated by cities and municipalities of Region IV’s Cavite and Laguna provinces.

To ensure a substantive sharing of knowledge, the participants were composed of the following:

• City/Municipal Planning and Development Coordinators

• City/Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Officer

• DILG City/municipal local government operations officer

• DILG Regional CDP trainer and/or DRRM focal person

To help facilitate the exchange of practices, partner agencies such as USAID and GIZ were invited while the NSWMC served as resource agency.

Province of Cavite Imus, Silang, and Carmona

Province of Laguna Sta. Rosa and San Pedro

Opening Remarks and Overview

Bernhard Barth Human Settlements Officer, UN-Habitat Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

sectorally, UN-Habitat tries to find good entry points in CC support. In this case, the team looks at solid waste management, correlated financial issues and overall implementation mechanisms in the integration of CC into planning processes. At the National level, focus is on multi-level governance framework, CC policies, and capturing lessons and disseminating them thereof.

In the V-LED project, adelphi is a consortium partner while UN-Habitat is the implementing partner in the region. The project has two main pillars: 1) vertical and horizontal exchange, learning and networking at national and city levels primarily, and 2) cross-country sharing. The Good Practice Exchange (GPE) is one of the components in which mechanisms to strengthen capacities are revealed and determined. Finally, Mr. Barth expressed how glad he is to learn about Sta. Rosa’s good practices and discover other cities’ initiatives as well. According to Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC), the Philippines committed a reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) to 70% in a short timeframe of 15 years. This can only be achieved through local action by local government units (LGUs), communities and individuals.

Marcus Andreas, PhD Project Manager, adelphi gGmbph

change adaptation (CCA). The V-LED follows a dialogical approach wherein we bring together actors on all levels in refining policies and action planning. This approach promotes constructive dialogues and applies an user-centered perspective, where all voices are tried to be considered and “key speakers” shift to “key listeners” and vice-versa. Dr. Andreas finished by underscoring the objectives of the GPE, namely: to learn from Sta. Rosa’s extensive experience in GHG management as well as from other cities’ relevant mitigation efforts, and the group’s insights on implementing sustainable initiatives. He said that he is looking forward to the lessons and the outputs of the event.

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

Mr. Bernhard Barth opened the event by welcoming the guests and acknowledging Sta. Rosa and adelphi as the event’s host and main partner, respectively. He explained UN-Habitat’s overall work on climate change (CC) and its objectives to support cities, at the same time engage at the city and regional levels, through capacity development, focusing on resilience and adaptation. The Regional Office started previously with a dedicated CC program in Sorsogon, and is now moving towards Low Emission Development (LED) Strategies. As cities work

Dr. Marcus Andreas oriented participants on adelphi as an organization. adelphi is a German-based company that provides solutions and services for global sustainability through research, consulting and dialogue, with several projects done worldwide for many international institutions, businesses, and organizations. The V-LED project originated from a recently concluded project called Climate Dialogue. It employs many top-down & bottom-up approaches to better learn and understand each other and foster constructive interaction and coordination to raise awareness, encourage exchange, and anchor climate

About Sta. Rosa

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

EnP. Ermin Luceno, MPM City Planning and Development Coordinator

II. City Profile

Located in the CALABARZON region, the City has a growth rate of 4.37%, which is higher than that of Manila, the Province of Laguna and even the entire country. Along with its rapid urbanization is the influx of people. This year, Sta. Rosa’s population has reached nearly 300,000—a 62% increase. As for the economic sector, the city has transformed from a food-producing municipality (back in the day when about 96% of the land was for agricultural use) to an industrial one as manufacturing companies started rushing in by the ‘80s. In terms of social activity, Sta. Rosa is the site of 171 subdvisions (with 3 govt. housing projects) and several educational institutions, making them the “University Belt of the South”. Sta. Rosa’s protective services (PNP & BFP) do however remain insufficient.

II. Climate Change Expenditure Tagging (CCET)

It is a process for identifying, reporting, and tracking Programs, Activities, and Projects (PAPs) that are responsive to CCA and mitigation, and consequently mainstreaming/institutionalizing CCA in the budget process. In 2015, Sta. Rosa proposed a 7.1% CCET in the AIP but only 2% was approved in the annual budget. In 2016, they’re proposing 12.72%, which is still subject for approval. In the context of climate planning, the city is currently confronted with flooding, urban problems (due to congestion), and lack of data.

III. New Vision

As they update their CLUP, Sta. Rosa has formulated a new vision with new thrusts, to wit:

I. Introduction As presented by Mr. Ermin Luceno, Sta. Rosa City follows a ‘complete’ vision of “a community with sustainable economic growth focused on industrial and commercial development that allows for maximum employment opportunities, promotes a high quality of life through the provision of basic services and achieves a humane and balanced environment”.

1. Highly Urbanized City

2. ISO-Certified City

3. Entrepreneurial Managed City

4. Inclusive and Sustainable

Development

5. Safe and Secure

Environment

6. Disaster-Ready

7. Community Empowered / Community

Transformation

8. IT-BPO Center of Excellence

9. Smart City 10. Empowered

Barangays

EFFORTS TO MITIGATE GHG EMISSIONS: CITY OF SANTA ROSA EXPERIENCE

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

EnP. Erlinda Creencia City Environment and Natural Resources Officer

I. Introduction to GHG Inventory It is the 1st important step towards crafting a more logical LCCAP to do our share in mitigating climate change. “You can only manage what you can measure”, hence, a plan can only be effective with sufficient data. In developing the inventory, 2010 was used as the base year, since there were no disasters on that year. Sta. Rosa’s 1st GHG inventory was developed in 2011 and frequency of reporting is every calendar year. 6 types of GHGs were included in the inventory: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrogen trifluoride, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. Every GHG hs a corresponding Global Warming Potential (GWP) which is determined by converting GHGs into its CO2 equivalent. For instance, methane has a GWP of 21, which means it’s 21 times higher than CO2. Emissions are computed per sector.

II. GHG Management Framework Plan and Target Setting The GHG Framework Plan is currently being mainstreamed into the new CLUP & CDP. It will serve as reference for the LGU and guide for other stakeholders on how to do their share in terms of reducing emissions. Sta. Rosa envisions a low-carbon community in the future. Prior to the inventory, the LGU has already set reduction goals and targets, and computed in different scenarios juxtapose and computed the resulting emissions of different initiatives in different scenarios. For instance, the conversion of fluorescent lights to LED in 20 city govt. offices is projected to a 0.3% reduction in a 3-yr. period. III. GHG Mitigation Measures With the increase in activities, population, and waste generation, Sta. Rosa set-up two major mitigating projects: Centralized Composting and Charcoal Briquetting facilities. Computations revealed that with the waste to bio treatment of 6,097 (2010) and 75,160 (2015) metric tons of waste, over 12,012.44 tCO2e of GHG emissions were reduced. It goes to show how GHG inventory helps evaluate the success of climate change projects.

NAME SYMBOL GWP

CARBON DIOXIDE CO2 1

METHANE CH4 21

NITROGEN

TRIFLOURIDE

NF3 17200

NITROUS OXIDE N20 310

HYDROFLUOROC

ARBONS

HFCs 140-

11700

PERFLOUROCARB

ONS

PFCs 6500-

9200

SULFUR

HEXAFLOURIDE

SF6

GHG accounting follows the Geographic Plus Approach which uses different scopes: Scope 1 for in-boundary, direct GHG emissions from natural gas & vehicle fuel combustion; Scope 2 are indirect emissions from purchased electricity; and Scope 3 for all other indirect and cross-boundary emissions. To compute for GHG emissions, the equation is: (Activity Data x Emission Factor = GHG Emissions). All materials have corresponding emission factors as set by, IPCC guidelines. What is harder to compute is the activity data as it requires a lot of measurement conversions from kilogram to tons, liters to tons, etc.

EFFORTS TO MITIGATE GHG EMISSIONS: CITY OF SANTA ROSA EXPERIENCE

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

Other initiatives include the ff: • Solar street lighting – 77 units resulted to

0.028 tCO2e GhG emissions avoided • Urban greening – one tree can sequester 8

tCO2 per year. It depends on the age and species. The mangrove is the best. Unfortunately, you can’t put them in urban areas.

• Regulated plastic use • “Basuranihan” (Basura at Bayanihan) – every

last Friday of every month, the LGU collects

54% 32%

6% 5% 2% 0% 1% 1. INDUSTRY

2. ELECTRICCONSUMPTION3. ROADTRANSPORTATION4. SOLID WASTE

5. WASTEWATER

6. AGRICULTURE

7. STATIONARYENERGY

Emissions, tCO2e = 2,006,151.80

7 Main Sources of Emissions, Jan.- Dec. 2010

and buys recyclables handed in by residents. • Integrated Water Resources Management Program – climate impacts are trans-boundary, therefore it

necessitates the participation of neighborng LGUs. Inter-local cooperation in responding to climate change would mean more contributions. The program follows an eco-system-based approach and is a joint effort of four LGUs, chaired by ILDA and supported by Japan; it aims too create one plan to respond to Climate Change.

IV. Lessons Learned The GHG inventory is critical in the formulation of the GHG Management Plan and LCCAP. Without indicators, how can you manage? All LGUs need support from national agencies and the private sector in terms of data collection. Not all data are readily available in the city govt. For example, in order to monitor fuel, we have to partner with gas companies. What’s important is the quality of data we are getting from other sources. External support is also needed in implementing LCCAP, which is now required by DBM in the release of funds. V. Challenges Not all LGUs have environment officers and is neither a mandatory position. Some LGUs don’t even create positions for environmental offices. How then can you institutionalize climate change within government? This is a challenge, considering that preparation of the GHG inventory and data maintenance, among others, requires technical staff. Capacity development is also very important, so are data collection and management, and annual reporting of emissions. A database management system will also help evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation activities but without resources, technical staff, and funding, it remains as another challenge. VI. Closing Ms. Creencia shared that as much they want to be a carbon neutral community, they don't have much forest cover since they’re mainly industrial. GHG emissions are easily offset by trees. In her closing statement, she thanked the participants and urged LGUs to formulate well their LCCAP and share in the mitigation of GHG emissions and climate change. Mr. Cris Rollo commended Sta. Rosa for explaining the challenging process. He asked how long it took for Sta. Rosa to conduct it and how much it cost, considering that GHG inventory isn’t so established in the country. Ms. Creencia said that they’re one of the fortunate LGUs supported by a USAID project in the preparation of the inventory. The LGU only contributed costs in terms of time, staff, and hosting. The mentors were funded by C-Energy. It took one to two years and started with a simpler entity level inventory. From there, Sta. Rosa learned the mechanics and how to compute. Then they proceeded to the community level. She mentioned that most of the LGUs assisted by USAID were also part of PLENRO and so, encouraged others to seek assistance from foreign donors.

INTENDED NATIONALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTIONS (INDC)

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

Ma. Delia Valdez Senior Environmental Management Specialist, DENR-EMB

I. Introduction

Ms. Valdez first clarified that she is actually from the Solid Waste Management Division of DENR’s Environmental Management Bureau (EMB). The National Solid Waste Management Council (NSWMC) is actually composed of 17 member agencies, with DENR as the secretariat of the group.

Timeline The Paris Agreement of 2015

II. Background As a backgrounder, E.O. 174 is the law that institutionalizes the GHG inventory and management. DENR is the lead agency for industry, waste and forestry. DENR-EMB has been submitting GHG inventory reports done by consultants to the UNFCCC. In the next years, it will be written by NGAs and data will be gathered from LGUs. DENR. III. What is INDC? The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions identifies the actions a national government intends to take under the UNFCCC climate deal agreed in Paris in December 2015. The Paris agreement has not been will be legally binding once the document is ratified, so the INDC is still a work in progress. Recomputations are still being done in the Solid Waste sector to attain what was committed in the Paris agreement. For the base year 2010, emissions in the Philippines amount to 83 million tons of CO2e. If actions are business as usual, it’s projected to increase to 221 million. But if the country achieves a 70% emissions reduction, 66 million tons CO2e will be reduced. The Philippines’ commitment is classified as “conditional”, which means we can only commit if there’s support in terms of finance, capacity building or technology transfer.

IV. Solid Waste Mitigation Options The following options being discussed in the SW sector and identifed in studies made with assistance of the CCC are actually to be done by LGUs. 1) Aerobic Composting – composting of solid waste with air; can range from small to large scale;

currently being practiced in Carmona and Santa Rosa. GHG reduction is measured by the amount of waste digested.

INTENDED NATIONALLY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTIONS (INDC)

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

2. Anaerobic Composting – anaerobic digestion with methane recovery 3. Eco-efficient landfill cover – combination of compost and soil. The bacteria from the compost eats up

the methane produced in the dumps DENR Dept. Admin. Order No. 9-2006 provides guidelines on the closure of open dumps. The department is open to the use of eco-efficient soil cover on small & medium-sized dumpsites. For large dumpsites, there are thickness orequirements of soil cover for waste & dump. Denr is studying to amend the said order. The problem with small dumpsites is they cannot effectively use landfill gas fro ocmposting as methane could’ve already dissipate in such conditions. A study by GIZ in Ormoc city tested the Eco-efficient Landfill Cover and revealed the following: • Methane has different concentrations in different areas of the dump • Methane is not emitted immediately upon dumping. Rather, it is emitted throughout the years. • Study concludes that Eco-efficient Landfill Cover is effective in closing open and controlled dumps. • It’s also less costly rather than the specified 60 cm of thick soil to cover dumpsites.

4. Landfill gas flaring – Not all dumpsites have the capacity to recover methane for power generation. There are instances when disposal facilities have to utilize flaring of methane to convert to CO2 for cost efficiency.

5. Control of open burning – includes increased collection coverage and frequency, IEC against OB, etc.

VI. Other Options

1. Optimization of waste collection vehicle and routing schemes 2. Segregation of recyclables – for MRF and susbequent recycling; MRF may not contribute anything to

GHG reduction, but recycling will. 3. Methane treatment and utilization: Electricity generation at biggest facilities – Methane emitted at

waste disposal sitesare converted into energy 4. Leachate collection and treatment at disposal sites: Recirculation, aerobic or anaerobic treatment

with methane recovery – many of which are Caegory 2 and 3 landfills 5. Co-processing of pre-segregated MSW as alternative fuels and raw materials (AFR) in cement kilns –

converting residual wastes to cement kilns as fuel. This may not be attributed to the waste sector, rather to the industry sector.

6. Waste-to-Energy (WTE) conversion of residual wastes – yet to be evaluated in terms of contribution to GHG emission reduction but was nevertheless identified as an option

VII. Way Forward After the Paris Agreement, EMB is now re-calculating their figures and is yet to determine how much reduction is to be done by which sector. For the waste sector, there are a lot of computations and re-calculations but the agency is still not prepared with the final figures, especially that the sector is divided into two: water and solid wastes. Ratification will follow after the internal review & assesment. By 2020 will be the international review, then it’s legally binding. Finally, Ms. Valdez said they are revisiting and reconstructing commitments and strengthening the government’s capability in the MRV to be able to identify GHG reductions attributed to different sectors. The INDCs will be updated in the next 5 years. By then, the country’s MRV will be hopefully robust.

Merlina Cabrera (Silang): What is the area size & volume of waste when it comes to small and medium open dumps? Delia Valdez (NSWMC): That is currently being studied. We have yet to assess since we have review the policy and issue another policy to come up with a sound basis.

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

Cris Rollo (UN-Habitat): INDC is a national target but the components are local. Is there local information that informs national submission and vice versa? Also, do we have a target date for the ratification? Valdez: Right now, the EMB is developing their capacities to translate data from LGUs to the national government so we can have a robust data. We have the 2010 base year and 2nd National Contributions, which are all assumptions; some come from a specific solid waste facility. If institutionalized already and we have the resources, we can have accurate data from the MRV (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification). It is a work in progress, and may be realized in the next few years but not next year.

Ermin Lucino (Sta. Rosa): LGUs should do the inventory, otherwise, they cannot set targets and contribute to the national climate action goals. While there are no sectoral targets, LGUs in the meantime can come up with GHG data. Rolando Abad Jr. (DENR-EMB): It shouldn’t just stop in GHG inventories per LGU. Our commitment is to reduce waste as embedded in the law. Regarding computation, GHG inventory can be done sectorally and data can be forwarded to EMB for processing.

Ricardo Marfiga, Jr. (ICLEI): It appears that LGUs have no definite roles in contributing to the national agenda. Per Sec. de Guzman of the Climate Change Commission, the 70% reduction should be finalized this May. If there are no amendments, the figure will be final. Valdez: For the waste sector, you’re already doing it regularly at the local level: composting, utilizing waste disposal facility, closing open and control dumps. Another added activity is just to measure how much GHG is reduced by such activities. It is not something new. We’ve been practicing this for several years. It’s just a matter of measuring and verifying it. Corazon del Mundo (Imus): I disagree because it’s a NATIONALLY determined contribution, and as such, it must come from the local. Hence, LGUs are crucial here. If we give you fake data, your INDC data will be fictitious. So it’s important that LGUs provide the correct statistics. Priscella Mejillano (UN-Habitat): This is related to the comment earlier. If we look at 70% reduction nationally, from the LGU perspective, it can look like a disaggregation of LGUs. Considering 1,400 LGUs, which among the 5 sectors can I contribute to? We have to clarify if there is disaggregation. In terms of timing, local plans will be updated following the elections. That can be an entry point for DENR and other concerned agencies on how data will be matched and incorporated into the new plans.

Voltaire Acosta (GIZ): What is the role of co-benefits in all of these? Valdez: We have partners to help with cost-benefit analysis so that we can determine which option would be costly and beneficial not only in waste management but in other sectors as well.

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

Bernhard Barth (UN-Habitat): In the context o moving forward for LGUs, what needs to be done in unlocking the hurdles? Also, how strongly do LGUs engage in the reduction of waste, beyond those mentioned in the Paris Agreement?

Josephine Tioseco (USAID): Just an input on the different tracks we are taking in GHG inventory: 1) National – includes sectoral inventories and follows a more structured formal inventory consistent with UNFCC UNFCC guidelines; 2) Subnational - V-LED falls under this track; and 3) Private Sector. CCC with the help of USAID is developing a framework on GHG reporting and management including an online registry for the private sector. All tracks should complement each other but in terms of protocol reporting obligations, it’s only at the national level. LGUs are not tied to the formal structured inventory; that’d be bloody. There’s a lot of data required. The focus for LGUs is on mitigation and developing the GHG Management Plan, not so much in the rigid inventory work.

Cindy Bryson (UN-Habitat): If recycling is not included in inventories under waste management and much of the recycling recovery activities are at the local level, how are they calculated? If the recycling stays in the Philippines, then the reduction in emissions is counted here. But is the recycling shipped overseas? How do we encourage recycling when the focus is shifting towards GHG reduction? Valdez: There are recycling facilities in the Philippines right now, although some waste are pre-processed here and then exported somewhere else. This is one of the several cross-sectoral matters we’re trying to iron out with other sectors to prevent double counting. To encourage recycling, facilities are located in urban areas. The NSWMC is currently conducting an urban recycling market development study targeted this year, the results of which will be provided to stakeholders. It is a work in progress.

Erlina Creencia (Sta. Rosa): Within our city, we still account for emissions of solid waste disposed in our out-of-town sanitary landfill. Perhaps this can fall under Scope 3. Abad (DENR-EMB): There are different methodologies for national/sectoral and LGU inventories. At the national level, we do not use the said scopes. For solid waste generated here but exported and recycled outside the Philippines, GHG reduction will be attributed to the receiving country. With regards to the INDC ratification, I think it can be ratified by 2020. It doesn’t say though that it will be legally binding by 2016, as the it needs to be updated and further consultation with more stakeholders will be required to strengthen INDC targets.

Questions regarding the AVP on Charcoal Briquetting and Composting Facility, two mitigation projects identified in Sta. Rosa City In their GHG Framework: Doris Sageres (Imus): There’s smoke produced in charcoal briquetting. Isn’t that GHG emission? Creencia: In actual operations not seen on the video, we usually use a bamboo apparatus to condenses smoke into liquid that can be used as pesticide/deodorizer. Elenor de Leon (Imus): Does the smoke contain lesser CO2? And do you consider the safety of the workers? In the video footage, they’re not wearing masks.

Creencia: Charcoal produces a blue flame with lesser burning efficiency. Workers are provided masks but they often remove it. They’re also given yearly vaccines.

Moderated Feedback Session

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

1. What needs to be done to unlock the challenges

in compliance to RA 9003 or SWM? How strongly

are LGUs engaged in waste reduction?

2. Are there projects presented by Sta. Rosa

applicable to your LGUs? What are the areas you

can enhance if you implement in your locality?

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

① ADDRESSING CHALLENGES IN SWM o Institutionalization of ENRO o Provide budget/funding o Capacity building o Brgy. Clustering for Materials Recovery Facility

(MRF) with proper monitoring mechanism o Massive and continuous IEC esp. at the

community level o Good planning: 2016-2025 SWM Plan o Theme supported by city visions

② AREAS FOR ENHANCEMENT IN THE REPLICATION OF GHG MITIGATION PROJECTS IN STA. ROSA

o Health & safety measures of workers in the facilities

o Contained burning o Political will

• Commitment of LGU officials to enforce national law & local ordinances

• Enforcement of ordinance for household level solid waste segregation & segregated collection

• Prioritize environmental programs/projects • Prov’l LGU steering the process for ILC

o Human resource development and institutionalization • Capacity development training of technical

staff, municipal/city legislators and LCEs on understanding & implementing RA 9003

• Creation of plantilla positions for MENRO o Active people’s participation o Operationalize central MRF & Brgy. MRFs o Experience exchange, learning hub, and

demonstration sites to encourage replication o Alternative financing from NGA, private sector,

NGO, community, inter-local cooperation

“Most LGUs don’t have a specific officer in-

charge for environmental management, particularly in solid waste management. And even when LGUs do decide to get an ENRO, they don't have the budget to implement, primarily because funds are focused on health, livelihood, & disaster mgt. Also, ENROs lack the capacity and necessary knowledge, unless they’ve done trainings.” – Mr. Chris Barlam of Carmona City for Group 1

“Briquetting can be enhanced in terms of health & safety measures for workers. There may be alternatives to burning materials too.” – Ms. Merlina Cabrera of the Municipality of Silang for Group 3

“Good planning should have a roadmap. That’s why the SWM plan should be well formulated and aligned with the city visions.” – Mr. Ermin Lucino of Sta. Rosa for Group 2

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

In a modified World Café, the participants toured a photo gallery

featuring various GHG mitigation efforts of various LGUs. Representatives

were tasked to discuss the following:

1) Initiatives aimed at solid waste management and

methane reduction

2) Challenges in implementation

3) LGU perspectives on the ways national government can

better support LGUs in the replication and adaptation

of good practices on LED and mainstreaming the plan

Quick Q&A portion ensued after every presentation.

CITY OF IMUS, CAVITE

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

Presenter: Ms. Doris Sageres Initiatives:

• Brgy. Clustering – Imus has 97 barangays which are grouped into 9 clusters • Centralized Composting Facility – built on a 2,300 sq. m. lot catering to 16 barangays (1 cluster) and

two public markets. It accumulates 6 tons of biodegradables/day. The city targets to build 8 cluster composting facilities.

• Imus Technology of Plastic Residual Waste – collection of plastic residuals (tetra paks, sando bags, etc.) that are converted to “ecological waste” in which they are ground into components. 20% plastic are combined with cement and sand.

• Recycling Livelihood Technology –Tetra paks are recycled into bags, wallets, and other accessories. • Charcoal Briquetting – to be funded by DTI as a BuB Project. Ongoing canvassing of, the right

equipment for the facility.

Challenges: • Attitude – People still fail to practice segregation at source. Some barangays refuse to accommodate

biodegradable waste in their area.

Question & Answer: Q: Where do you market your composts? A: Composts are given for free to farmers and public schools. We’re also working out on marketing it to

offset the costs. The new composting facility we’re planning to purchase has 1-day composting capacity but is worth 1.8 million.

Q: What is the advantage of clustering barangays for composting facility as opposed to barangays

having their own? A: There are barangays without a viable location for it so we maximized what’s available. Q: How many persons does it take to operate the facility? A: Currently, we have 15 composting staff and 10 for the plastic residual waste. Q: What safety measures you apply in your area? A: Aprons, masks, gloves, and boots are provided, although admittedly, the staff don’t wear them at all

times as it can be restrictive. However, the facility is kept sanitized and deodorized through a built-in technology patterned after technology.

Q: Since you have a plastic waste technology, do you have an ordinance against plastic use? A: We have a regulatory ordinance on the use of plastics but we’re not banning it.

CITY OF CARMONA, CAVITE

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

Presenter: Mr. Chris Barlam Quick Facts:

• Carmona Sanitary Landfill used to be owned and operated by the Metro Manila Dev’t Authority (MMDA). When it was closed, MENRO was created which paved way to eco projects.

Initiatives:

• Carmona Ecology Center – center for all waste management programs • Centralized materials recovery and composting facilities • Eco-livelihood Center – recycle tetra paks into various products; partnered with Beachwalk (flip-flop

sandals company) to convert their wastes into bean bags, etc. • Transfer Station – small dump trucks collect residual wastes from households to the Carmona

Ecology Center then transfer it to bigger dump trucks that will transport it to the sanitary landfill. This process minimizes fuel consumption.

• “Basura Palit Gamit, Atbp.” – a recycling project where trash is exchanged for basic commodities like rice, cooking oil, sugar, coffee, and even school supplies.

• 500 kg. bioreactor • “Ako Basurero” IEC Campaign • Selective Plastic Ban

Challenges:

• Manpower - for operations of facilities. Not all barangays have MRFs so the LGU resorted to clustering. Schools & subdivisions have small dog-cage-like MRFs for recyclables. To date, Carmona has 29 functional MRFs all in all. Food wastes and yard trimmings are also collected for regular composting.

Question & Answer: Q: Since you have IEC in schools, have you proposed integrating SWM or CC into the curriculum? A: We had initial talks with local schools to integrate CC and DRR but it is subject to DepEd’s approval. For now, we can only conduct IEC campaigns. We’re targeting school children as they are more receptive than older citizens who usually don’t observe SWM. Q: How’s the monitoring? Do you have data on the amount of waste you compost? A: Yes, we monitor and forward the data to DENR and NSWMC.

MUNICIPALITY OF SILANG, CAVITE

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

Presenter: Ms. Merlina Cabrera Initiatives:

• Growing of Ornamental Plants – due to high farm inputs, coffee plantations have already been converted to ornamental and pineapple plantations

• Vegetable Production – for low-income farmers • Multi-story Cropping System – 4 to 7 kinds of crops

per hectare to maximize Silang’s fertile land • Coco Matting – installed along river banks as a CCA

measure and in part of the Supreme Court’s mandate to clean up Manila Bay; local livelihood source

• River Dredging and Clean-up

Challenges: • Social acceptability – farmers want “easy money” so

most prefer selling their land to large firm, resulting to land consolidation by multinational corporation; garbage dumping on coco mats

• Land conversion – “biggest problem” of Silang

CITY OF SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA

Presenter: Ms. Yula Viriña Initiatives:

• Recycling Activities – eco-bag made of water hyacinth & foil; used tires & PET bottles for urban gardening

• Pilotage sanitary landfill • Segregated collection at source • Pilotage/City MRF • Enforcement of policies: ban of plastic & styrofoam use,

smoking in public places, littering, improper waste disposal, open burning, etc.

• IEC • Clean-up and tree-planting activities

Question & Answer: Q: Where do the collected materials from the MRF go? A: Since MRFs are privately owned, there’s a system

wherein waste segregators purchase reusables and recyclables which LGUs pay per cubic meter or truckload.

CITY OF STA. ROSA, LAGUNA

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

Presenter: Ms. Erlinda Creencia Initiatives *additional details to the morning presentation:

• Environmental Code – passed in 2011; includes provisions on SWM, regulated use of plastics, and the total ban of styrofoam

• LED – promotion of use of alternative energy source • Charcoal Briquetting • “Ayoko ng Plastic” Campaign • Green Book - open to all Sta. Rosa stakeholder; Every July 10 is Sta. Rosa Environment Day,

wherein the top 3 partners/stakeholders are awarded/incentivized • Land Developer’s Guidebook – crucial tool as flooding is a major issue in Sta. Rosa • Centralized Composting Facility – for kitchen wastes and biodegradables

Challenges:

• Political will – In several cases, non-compliance to RA 9003 isn’t the Mayor’s fault but the barangays’. The National govt. can impose a “3-strike policy” on non-compliant barangays

Question & Answer:

Q: Do you still see the value of national govt. giving sanctions on LGUs for non-compliance? A: In our Environmental Code, there are penalties. We have yet to penalize violators yet because we

still don’t have Implementing Rules & Regulations. Q: What drove you to come up with the Land Developer’s Guidebook? A: It went through a process and approved by the Sanggunian. Sta. Rosa is a catchment area so we

have no control of the surface run-off. Although we have a drainage plan, most properties are privately owned so we want new developers to help control the run-off among others and be guided accordingly.

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

Improving local climate change actions in

5 themes, 5 components, and 5 solutions

x x

THE

CHALLENGE

In the form of a special challenge, the participants of the GPE were asked to develop recommendations for action to strengthen the Philippine local climate planning system. They therefore discussed fields for actions to improve local climate action planning, comprisedof ‘Priorities’, ‘Tools and Training’, ‘Coordination and Communication’, ‘Implementation’ and ‘Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation ’. The outcome of the workshop was a long list with recommendations for action, whereas the experts from different fields evaluated the following four actions as the most important to improve the Philippine local climate planning system:

1. Development of a monitoring, reporting and evaluation system on local level, including planning tools established by the national level (DILG, CCC), in close consultation with the local government units (LGUs);

2. Conduct of GHG inventories by the local government units; 3. Capacity building to be initiated by national agencies (HLURB, DENR, DILG) to local government

units on climate action planning?); and 4. Strengthening LGU cluster approach for cohesive climate change action planning among LGUs

sharing the same ecosystem.

The commitment across the range of actors and the richness of ideas that were generated during the workshop certainly showed promise to strengthen the Philippine local climate action planning system and to move a few steps forward in combating climate change.

CHALLENGES OPPORTUNITIES ACTIONS BY RATE

PRIORITIES 1. Mainstreaming

of INDC/CCA

targets into

CLUP & CDP 2. Enforcement 3. Political will 4. Social

acceptability 5. Funding 6. Implementatio

n at grassroots

level

1. Access to

People’s

Survival Fund

(PSF) 2. Incentives

from the

National Govt. 3. Additional

employment

opportunities

Capacity Development HLURB, DENR,

DILG 1

Sourcing of funds in nat’l

& int’l levels, private

sectors

LGU 2

Deputation, Policy support

LGU – CENRO,

LCE, SP, DRRMO 3

Behavior change,

communication, project

information campaign

CENRO,

CDRRMO, ABC 4

TOOLS &

TRAINING

1. Insufficient

data on CCA

(GHG

emissions, CC

projections) 2. Absence of

personnel to

focus on the

CCA

Interest of

investors who can

bring in additional

resources/income

to support LGU

programs/projects

Completion of

Community-based

Monitoring System

MPDC 1

LCCAP M/CENRO,

M/CDRRM,

M/CPDC

2

Conduct GHG inventory M/CENRO,

M/CDRRM, M/CPDC

3

Replicate & enhance Sta.

Rosa’s Development

Guidelines

SB/SP 4

Creation of M/CENRO SB/SP 5

COORDINATION &

COMMUNICATION 1. Lack of

standards/proto

col on CCA

PPAs 2. Lack of focal

person/group 3. Lack of data

available

1. Sharing of

knowledge/best

practices

through

forum/trainings,

etc. 2. PSF for

funding/dev’t

partners

Institutionalization of

focal persons NG/Congress 1

Harmonizing LGU

efforts/PPAs through

clustered planning

DILG, LGUs 2

Development of

innovative IEC e.g. social

marketing

NG 3

Establishment of regular

meetings e.g. monthly,

quarterly, etc.

NG, DILG, CCC 4

IMPLEMENTATION 1. Change of

administration

(not prioritized

by the new

LCE) 2. Funding 3. Technical

manpower 4. Political will

1. PSF access 2. Mainstreaming

DRR/CCA into

LDP 3. Mitigate/adapt

to disaster

risks 4. International

funding/project

s

Involve all stakeholders:

barangays, CSOs, and

private sectors

LGU 1

Creation & appropriation

of technical person LSF 2

Apply the LCCAP to

the PSF LGU 3

MONITORING,

REPORTING, &

EVALUATION

1. No LCCAP or

climate-proofed

CLUP/CDP 2. No established

monitoring

systems/tools 3. LGU technical

capacity 4. Lack of CCA

data and data

providers

1. New CLUP

Guidelines 2. Existing LGA

modules 3. Presence of

development

partners e.g.

ICLEI, UN-

Habitat, USAID

leaders, GIZ,

etc.

Develop the MRE system,

including tools National (DILG, CCC),

in close consultation

with LGUs

Provide resources, capacity

building, finance, & human

resources

National, local,

congress, dev’t

partners

2

Revisit and update

CLUP/CDP guidelines;

Ensure they are harmonized

LGU with TA from

HLURB/DILG 3

Enhance networking, peer-

to-peer exchange, learning

hubs

DILG-LGRC (virtual),

development

partners,

PPPDC/Envi/Agri

Officers concerned

4

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

THE 5 X 5 X 5 CHALLENGE: KEY POINTS

Priorities “One of the challenges in mainstreaming CCA into the CLUP and CDP is distinguishing CCA from DRR projects. They’re usually mixed-up. That is why there is a need for capacity development on how to mainstream CCA into these plans.”

Coordination & Communication “One way of enhancing IECs is to invite CSOs and other stakeholders to guide them on PPAs for their sectors. Regular meetings are needed to monitor and ensure compliance with agreements and commitments.”

Tools & Trainings “In order to execute projects, LGUs need baseline data. Also, the replication and enhancement of Sta. Rosa’s Development Guidelines provides an opportunity to draw and establish good relations with investors.”

Implementation “Local govt. units play a key role in the effective accomplishment of all climate change actions. A change of administration will impact political which is critical to the implementation of initiatives.”

Monitoring, Reporting, & Evaluation “In the updating of the CLUP & CDP, guidelines from way back 2013 until the present must be reviewed to harmonize approaches. There are too many plans, knocking out each other.”

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

Learning, Challenges, and

Opportunities for Action

| Post-activity Evaluation Results |

Learning

V-LED Good Practice Exchange | 16 March 16 2016, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines

What have you learned?

Local Initiatives / LGU Practices Participants drew a lot from the local initiatives shared by LGUs, and saw them in the context of climate actions, on top of plainly being sectoral action. Best practices on SWM, CCA, and CCM were well noted for potential replication in their own area. Many gained a lot of pointers from the host LGU Sta. Rosa and particularly highlighted Land Development Management Guidebook as an effective tool in CCA and CCM.

Awareness and Appreciation towards good practices on SWM

The activity helped illustrate SWM in the context of CCM. It also raised more awareness on RA 9003 and the importance of enforcing local policies in GHG mitigation. the reportedly “interesting” ways other LGUs have enforced it at the local level. Others have also learned from the experiences of LGUs in enhancing their composting facilities to better mitigate GHG emissions.

GHG, Inventory, and GHG Reduction Sta. Rosa’s presentation on the GHG Inventory and Management Plan oriented participants to the process and more importantly its impacts and significance in CCA. They were able to validate the need to obtain ample data to conduct GHG inventory, which will be critical in the development of a GHG management plan. Furthermore, LGUs believed that GHG emissions can be measured at the local level given the support in terms of tools and resources from external partners.

Challenges

A common theme raised by participants when it came to challenges was the institutional gap: the lack of ENROs and/or focal persons and effective set-ups both at the national and local level to effectively enforce policies. There were also concerns as to the right strategies to apply in conducting GHG inventory and sustaining the process in one’s area. It may be challenging to replicate projects as though they may seem similar, they may vary in the actual implementation. Another major issue is the need for sufficient data to properly formulate the LCCAP. Lastly, LGUs are challenged as to how they can significantly contribute to national targets at the local level.

Opportunities for Actions

Participants expressed a resounding call for collective action to mitigate climate change through GHG reduction. Everybody has to be “serious” in their commitment to contribute to the local mitigating initiatives and work together. Moreover, LGUs must always be aligned and vertically linked with national and regional levels especially with regards to environmental initiatives and projects for better implementation and impact. The event underscored an opportunity for LGUs to strengthen their formulation of LCCAP by way of conducting GHG inventory, which is basically founded on a good database. Detailed Post Evaluation Report is attached to this report.