Copyright © 2021 UP Resilience Institute.

This document is the intellectual property of UP Resilience Institute (UP RI). Permission is granted for
this document, in whole or in part, to be used and shared for noncommercial, educational, and
informational purposes only, provided that this copyright statement appears in all reproduced materials.
To disseminate or republish otherwise would require written permission from the source.

UP RI serves as the source and must be cited when reproducing any part of this document.

Editors: Kristoffer B. Berse and Dennis G. dela Torre

Contributors: Arnulfo M. Cabarles, Kirsten Lianne Mae C. Dedase, Lianne Angelico C. Depante, Jean
Mariel M. Rañises, Sidney Jam L. Sibug, Ian R. Villanueva, Gemmarie T. Zuñiga, Louis Phillip C. Flores,
Frederic Mark M. Santiago II
Layout and Cover Design: Ian R. Villanueva

Published by the University of the Philippines Resilience Institute

Citation: Berse, K. and D. dela Torre (Eds.) (2021). Exploring Green Growth as a Bouncing Forward
Post-Disaster Strategy. Proceedings Report of the Pagbangon sa Nagbabagong Panahon: An Exploratory
Workshop on Bouncing Forward through Green Growth as a Strategy for Post Disaster Resilient
Recovery. University of the Philippines Resilience Institute, 28 July 2021.

UP Resilience Institute
Magsaysay Avenue, cor. Apacible St., UP Diliman
Quezon City 1101, Philippines
Phone: (02)8981-8500 loc. 3771
Email: resilience.institute@up.edu.ph
https://resilience.up.edu.ph
 Exploring Green Growth as a Bouncing Forward
Post-Disaster Strategy

Proceedings Report of the “Pagbangon sa Nagbabagong Panahon: An Exploratory Workshop on

Bouncing Forward through Green Growth as a Strategy for Post Disaster Resilient Recovery”
28 July 2021 / Zoom
 ii

CONTENTS

CONTENTS ii

List of Figures iii

List of Abbreviations iv

Acknowledgment v

Introduction 1

Welcome Remarks 3
Dr. Alfredo Mahar Lagmay 3

Keynote Address 4
Cong. Joey Sarte Salceda 4

Plenary Talk: Exploring Green Growth as a Strategy for Post-disaster Resilient Recovery 5
Dr. Kristoffer B. Berse 5

Workshop Proper 6
Workshop Methodology 6
Breakout Group 1: Agriculture and Fisheries 8
Breakout Group 2: Livelihood and Business Development 11
Breakout Group 3: Housing and Settlements 14
Breakout Group 4: Infrastructure 17
Breakout Group 5: Social Services (Education, Health, and Social Protection) 20
Breakout Group 6: Resource Mobilization 22

Plenary Sharing of Outputs 26

Summary and Closing Remarks 30

Annexes 31
Annex A: Concept Note 31
Annex B: Press Release 33
Annex C: Welcome Remarks 34
Annex D: Keynote Address 36
Annex E: Plenary Presentation 38
Annex F: Group Photo 46
Annex G: List of Participants 47
 iii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Prioritization Matrix ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7

Figure 2: STAPLE Tool --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7

Figure 3: Prioritization Matrix of Strategies and Solutions for Agriculture and Fisheries sector ------------------- 9

Figure 4: STAPLE of Issues and Challenges for Agriculture and Fisheries sector ------------------------------------- 10

Figure 5: Prioritization Matrix of Strategies and Solutions for Livelihood and Business Development ------------ 11

Figure 6: STAPLE of Issues and Challenges for Livelihood and Business Development ------------------------------ 12

Figure 7: Prioritization Matrix of Strategies and Solutions for Housing and Settlements----------------------------- 14

Figure 8: STAPLE of Issues and Challenges for Housing and Settlements ---------------------------------------------- 16

Figure 9: Prioritization Matrix of Strategies and Solutions for Infrastructure ----------------------------------------- 18

Figure 10: STAPLE of Issues and Challenges for Infrastructure --------------------------------------------------------- 19

Figure 11: Prioritization Matrix of Strategies and Solutions for Social Services --------------------------------------- 21

Figure 12: STAPLE of Issues and Challenges for Social Services -------------------------------------------------------- 22

Figure 13: Prioritization Matrix of Strategies and Solutions for Resource Mobilization ----------------------------- 23

Figure 14: STAPLE of Issues and Challenges for Resource Mobilization ----------------------------------------------- 25
 iv

List of Abbreviations
ADB Asian Development Bank
CCC Climate Change Commission
CCET Climate Change Expenditure Tagging
COA Commission on Audit
CRA Climate Resilient Agriculture
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
DA Department of Agriculture
DAR Department of Agrarian Reform
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DFA Department of Foreign Affairs
DOE Department of Energy
DOF Department of Finance
DOH Department of Health
DOLE Department of Labor and Employment
DRF Disaster Risk Financing
DRM Disaster Risk Management
DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development
GG Green Growth
GGGI Global Green Growth Institute
ICE Institute of Civil Engineering
LGUs Local Government Units
NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
NCPAG National College of Public Administration and Governance
NDC Nationally Determined Contribution
NDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
NEDA National Economic Development Authority
NGAs National Government Agencies
OCD Office of Civil Defense
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OSH Occupational Safety and Health
PESTEL Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal
PSF People’s Survival Fund
STAPLE Social, Technological, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic
TESDA Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
 v

Acknowledgment

The University of the Philippines Resilience Institute (UPRI) extends its sincerest gratitude to the
participants of this policy workshop on exploring Green Growth as a post-disaster recovery strategy. This
undertaking would have been impossible without the active participation of representatives from the
Climate Change Commission (CCC), Commission on Audit (COA), Department of Agriculture (DA),
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Finance (DOF), Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA),
Department of Health (DOH), Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD), National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), National
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), Office of Civil Defense (OCD), and Technical Education
and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). We are also indebted to the inputs made by the local
governments of Borongan, Davao, Nueva Vizcaya, Ormoc, Quezon, Santiago, Tagum, Tuguegarao, and
Zamboanga.

The discussions were likewise enriched by contributions from fellow academics who attended the event.
We are thankful, in particular, to our colleagues from Batangas State University, UP Manila College of
Public Health, UP Mindanao, UP Visayas, and Visayas State University for their insights. We are also
grateful for the significant inputs from Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), specifically Aksyon Klima
Pilipinas (AKP), Greenpeace Philippines, The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies (IFRC), Oxfam, Parabukas, Rare Philippines Inc., and R1.

Needless to say, UPRI wishes to thank Rep. Joey Sarte Salceda of Albay’s Second District for his keynote
address. Rep. Salceda has always been a supportive partner of UPRI in our common quest for building
resilience and sustainable Filipino communities.

This workshop was made possible through the collective efforts of UPRI’s Research and Creative Work
(RCW) Division under the leadership of its Director, Dr. Kristoffer B. Berse. Guided by Mr. Dennis G.
dela Torre, RCW Chief Science Research Specialist, the activity was carried out by a dedicated RCW
team composed of Mr. Arnulfo M. Cabarles, Ms. Kirsten Lianne Mae C. Dedase, Mr. Lianne Angelico C.
Depante, Ms. Jean Mariel M. Rañises, Ms. Sidney Jam L. Sibug, Mr. Ian Villanueva, and Ms. Gemmarie
T. Zuñiga. UPRI was also ably assisted by interns from the UP Institute of Civil Engineering (UP ICE)
and UP National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP NCPAG), namely, Mr. Louis
Phillip C. Flores, Ms. Ma. Jaed Beatrice A. Lomeda, Ms. Klaidel Hope A. Concepcion, Mr. Leo
Emmanuel O. Sombiro, Mr. Frederic Mark M. Santiago II, Mx. Laime Cueva, Ms. Danielle Lladoc, and
Ms. Alyssa Victoria P. Velasco.

This proceedings report is being produced as part of the UPRI Green Growth Project funded by the UP
System.
 1

Introduction

Green economy, along with sustainable development, is acknowledged to be the only acceptable
alternative to the brown economy.1 The Brown economy “relies heavily on fossil fuels and does not
consider the negative side effects that economic production and consumption have on the environment”.2
In contrast, Green economy is defined as “one that results in improved human well-being and social
equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities” and can be considered
as “one which is low carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive”.3

At the global level, the green economy was called on by the Rio+20 Summit in 2012 while Asia and the
Pacific have already pioneered the concept of green growth in as early as 2005 (UNESCAP). Green
growth “provides a practical and flexible approach for achieving concrete, measurable progress across its
economic and environmental pillars, while taking full account of the social consequences of greening the
growth dynamic of economies”.4

At the national level, the Philippine government, in charting its own recovery and rehabilitation strategies,
is also expected to align not only with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, but
also the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate
Change.5 Considerably, the Philippines, in submitting its Nationally Determined Contribution pursuant to
the 2015 Paris Agreement, has committed to “peak its emissions by 2030 in the context of accelerating
the just transition of its sectors into a green economy and the delivery of green jobs and other benefits of a
climate and disaster-resilient and low carbon development to its people.”6 These provide the policy
bearings for green recovery and integration of Green Growth into recovery and rehabilitation strategies,
including key sectoral plans and focus areas.

According to NDRRMC Resolution No. 01, s. 2019, there are specific sectors of focus on rehabilitation
and recovery strategies. Sub-committees are created prioritizing these sectors which include (1)
Agriculture and Fisheries, (2) Livelihood and Business Development, (3) Housing and Settlements, (4)
Physical Infrastructure, (5) Social Services (education, health and social protection), and (6) Resource
Mobilization/Support.7

In terms of agriculture and fisheries, green growth’s contributions are expected on a long-term basis with
green tools and techniques reducing overconsumption resulting in savings on energy, water and
agrochemicals. For livelihood and business development, green growth shall aid the communities through
creation of green jobs reflecting the responsible management of natural resources.8 Green Growth on
housing and settlements, meanwhile, plays a significant role in integrating “sustainable housing practices

1
See Green jobs, a new measure of public management and sustainable development (Sulich and Zema, 2018)
2
See From Brown Growth to Green: the Economic Benefits of Climate Action (The World Bank, 2013)
3
See Towards a Green Economy (United Nations Environment Programme, 2011)
4
See From Brown Growth to Green: the Economic Benefits of Climate Action (The World Bank, 2013)
5
See Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery Planning Guide (NEDA, 2020)
6
See Nationally Determined Contribution (2021)
7
See National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council Resolution No. 01, s. 2019
8
See Agriculture and Green Growth (Stevens, n.d.)
 2

with focus on ‘green’ building materials and construction technologies, and climate-responsive housing
and settlement design”.9 Green growth also plays a crucial role in reducing ecological footprints through
physical infrastructures that will have an effect on manufacturing, construction or new emerging green
sectors.10 Additionally, social services (Education, Health and Social Protection) and green growth impact
one another, in such a way that better welfare for humans can be promoted without compromising the
environment, and vice versa. Lastly, NDRRMC mandated the development of the resource
mobilization/support sub-committee to ensure cross-cutting discussions across the sectors mentioned.

The above premises underscore the urgent need to discuss policy issues for the development of a DRF
system in the country, one that seeks to accordingly integrate Green Growth in response, recovery and
rehabilitation. It is in this regard that this policy workshop was organized by UPRI. A proceedings report
and a public relations news article (see Annex B) were generated from this workshop. The main
objectives of this workshop were to initially identify strategies and solutions on how to integrate green
growth elements on the assigned focus areas (agriculture and fisheries, livelihood and business
development, housing and settlements, physical infrastructure, and social services (education, health and
social protection) and to outline policy issues and challenges of NGAs, LGUs, and CSOs in implementing
strategies within the context of green growth/green recovery. A copy of the concept note with a program
of activities is furnished in Annex A.

9
See Livelihoods and economies (WWF, n.d.)
10
See Going Green, A Handbook of Sustainable Housing Practices in Developing Countries (UN HABITAT, 2012)
 3

Welcome Remarks

Dr. Alfredo Mahar Lagmay

Executive Director, UP Resilience Institute

The Executive Director of the University of the Philippines Resilience Institute (UP RI), Dr. Alfredo
Mahar Lagmay, officially commenced the policy workshop. In his welcome remarks, Dr. Lagmay
highlighted the need to shift from the current, predominantly brown economy to the green economy,
which is resilient, stable, and includes ecosystems integrity. Dr. Lagmay emphasized that a green
economy or “a low carbon, resource-efficient, and socially inclusive economy” can lead to the overall
improvement of human welfare without compromising environmental risks and scarcities. This is in
contrast to a brown economy that’s dependent on fossil fuels and does not take into account the negative
impacts on the environment.

Dr. Lagmay also mentioned the government’s commitment to transition the country’s sectors into a green
economy through green employment, low carbon development, and securing the country’s climate and
disaster resilience. For each sector, Dr. Lagmay discussed the significance of transitioning the economy.
For the agriculture and fisheries sector, Dr. Lagmay mentioned the use of green tools and technologies
that can diminish overconsumption and can ultimately save energy, water, and agrochemicals. As for the
livelihood and business development sector, a green economy will mean jobs in the communities and
business sector that practice responsible management of natural resources. For the housing and settlement
sector, transitioning to a green economy would mean the improvement of housing practices through the
use of eco-friendly construction materials and technologies. As for the physical infrastructure sector,
transitioning to green infrastructure can significantly reduce ecological impacts. Lastly, Dr. Lagmay
pointed out that integrating green growth into the social services sector can benefit and improve
education, health, and social protection services. Dr. Lagmay concluded his welcome remarks by
expressing hope that the green growth policy workshop will lead to green recovery by tackling policy
issues and challenges in integrating green growth strategies in building back a better and greener nation.
A copy of Dr. Lagmay’s entire speech is available in Annex C.
 4

Keynote Address

Cong. Joey Sarte Salceda

Green Economist and Deputy Speaker, House of Representatives
Representative, 2nd District of Albay
1st Chair of Developing Countries, Green Climate Fund

Narrating his personal experience with the devastating impacts of disasters, Cong. Joey Sarte Salceda,
who was also the 1st Chair for Developing Countries of the Green Climate Fund, emphasized in his
keynote address the need to be “champions of climate action as a lifelong commitment” and urgent
actions in addressing climate change and other devastating crises. Cong. Salceda narrated his commitment
of making the country climate-disaster resilient as evident by the creation of Albay Declaration of 2007
and the Manila Declaration of 2010 on Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. These
two declarations, spearheaded by Cong. Salceda led to the enactment of the Climate Change Act of 2009,
the NDRRM Act of 2010, and the development of the Climate Change Commission & Climate Change
Office and the NDRRMC. In 2019, Cong. Salceda authored House Resolution No. 535 or “A Resolution
Declaring a Disaster and Climate Emergency'' as part of his commitment in tackling climate change
impacts.

Being a Green Economist, Cong. Salceda also discussed the devastating impacts of the coronavirus
disease (COVID-19) pandemic which caused unparalleled economic loss. With this, Cong. Salceda
highlighted three main crises that must be addressed urgently, i.e. the COVID-19 pandemic, quality
education, and disaster and climate emergency. Cong. Salceda also cited sustainable agriculture, green
education, and use of science including research and development as part of climate solutions and green
growth. He vowed that these key thrusts will be part of his legislative agenda for the next three years.
Cong. Salceda culminated his speech by committing to listen to the stakeholders in attendance regarding
their views on green growth as a strategy for post-disaster recovery.
 5

Plenary Talk: Exploring Green Growth as a Strategy for Post-disaster

Resilient Recovery

Dr. Kristoffer B. Berse

Director, Research and Creative Work, UP Resilience Institute
Associate Professor, UP National College of Public Administration and Governance

In his plenary talk, Dr. Kristoffer Berse provided the context for exploring Green Growth as a strategy for
post-disaster resilient recovery. He started his discussion by explaining the general concept of Green
Growth based on the definitions provided in the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development in 2012 and the 5th Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and
the Pacific in 2005. He further expounded that Green Growth, coupled with Low Carbon Development
and a Green Economy, lead to Sustainable Development.

Dr. Berse also delved into the salient features of Green Growth according to UNESCAP and GGGI, most
common of which are social inclusion, economic growth, environmental sustainability, and poverty
reduction. He also quoted OECD’s take on green growth as being a “means for fostering economic growth
and development, while ensuring natural assets continue to provide the resources and environmental
services on which our well-being relies.”

He next discussed some examples of green growth strategies as applicable to different sectors cited in the
framework that NEDA developed. These include Agriculture and Fisheries, Livelihood and Business
Development, Housing and Settlement, Physical Infrastructure, and Social Services. Dr. Berse mentioned
that the Philippines has long been gearing to transition to a Green Economy with different laws and action
plans already established. Furthermore, with NEDA’s Post-Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery
Framework, specific sectoral outcomes, goals (both medium and long-term), and cross-cutting concerns
are outlined.

Dr. Berse posted a question to the participating stakeholders coming from different sectors: “How can we
incorporate appropriate Green Growth strategies to foster resilient post-disaster recovery?” Before he
ended his presentation, he cited ADB’s Carbon Resilient Recovery Framework to give the participants
background on the expected outputs for the policy workshop. A copy of Dr. Berse’s presentation is
available in Annex D.
 6

Workshop Proper

Workshop Methodology
The participants were divided into 6 groups or breakout sessions based on the focus areas from the
NEDA’s Recovery and Rehabilitation Planning Guide11. These focus areas are: 1.) agriculture and
fisheries, 2.) livelihood and business development, 3.) housing and settlements, 4.) physical infrastructure,
5.) social services (education, health and social protection), and, 6.) resource mobilization. Participants
then chose one rapporteur from their group to present the workshop outputs in the plenary session. There
were two main workshop sessions with a brainstorming phase at the start of the first session.

The first workshop session focused on identifying strategies and solutions on how to integrate green
growth elements in the assigned focus areas. The tool used was a Prioritization Matrix in consideration of
2 factors namely Effort and Impact. Effort refers to the capability, time, and resources it will take to
implement the identified/suggested strategies and solutions while Impact refers to the value and/or effect
of the strategy on the assigned sector.

The Prioritization Matrix was divided into 4 quadrants namely Do Now, Do Next, Do Later, and Do If (as
seen in Figure 1). Do Now quadrant means the strategy suggested is feasible to be done immediately since
Low Effort is needed in order to implement it while there is High Impact. On the other hand, Do Next
refers to strategies that can be prioritized next with its High Impact but considerable resources may be
needed which means there is a need for High Effort. Meanwhile Do Later means there is Low Effort or
the resources needed for the strategy are sufficient but since the value is low (Low Impact) then the
strategy can be done later. Lastly, Do If means it’s the least priority strategy with its Low Impact but High
Effort factors.

11
See Disaster Rehabilitation and Recovery Planning Guide (NEDA, 2020)
 7

Figure 1: Prioritization Matrix

For the second workshop session, the tool used was STAPLE in identifying the issues and challenges of
implementing green growth strategies. STAPLE is a modification of PESTEL12 analysis which refers to
Social, Technological, Administrative, Political, Legal, and Economic factors (as seen in Figure 2). Social
refers to factors involving interactions among humans, institutions and communities. Technological refers
to technological innovations resulting in increased productivity and efficiency. Administrative refers to
general management of implementation of processes and operations. Political refers to regulation or
deregulation and other policies which may affect proposed strategies. Legal refers to laws which may
support or prohibit implementation. Economic refers to factors affecting scarcity of resources, involving
labor, supply and demand.

Figure 2: STAPLE Tool

12
See PESTEL Analysis Introduction (Alanzi, 2018)
 8

Breakout Group 1: Agriculture and Fisheries

The Agriculture and Fisheries Group is composed of 10 members representing the COA, DA, DAR,
NEDA, OCD, Borongan City, Quezon City, Nueva Vizcaya, UP Visayas, and Visayas State University.
The session was moderated by Mr. Arnulfo M. Cabarles, with documentation support provided by Ms.
Klaidel Hope A. Concepcion and Mx. Laime Cueva.

To kick off the discussions for the first part of the workshop, a representative from one NGA suggested
the conduct of an assessment of risk and hazards, identification of Climate Resilient Agriculture (CRA)
options and technologies, and application of climate information. She mentioned that these were the
initiatives that they have in their agency and there might be strategies on the ground at the lower level
(LGUs). A participant from an LGU then suggested planting disaster resilient crops. Another
representative from the LGU shared that they are currently offering incentives in the form of tax rebates
for landowners who lend their idle lands to displaced workers for urban agriculture. A member from the
Academe noted that due to limited space for agricultural production, some are now proposing vertical
gardening. He also emphasized the need for zero-waste in every part of the economic cycle.

Participants from various NGAs also raised the idea of using renewable energy in farm/fishing operations
and maximizing the use of renewable energy in the agriculture sector (supporting on-farm renewable
energy sources such as solar panels and wind farms). They also suggested efficient use and management
of irrigation systems and alternate wetting and drying and the adoption of low-carbon technologies for
agriculture (e.g. solar powered irrigation).

During the prioritization phase of the workshop, the participants then identified the levels of impact and
efforts needed to implement the above strategies (as seen in Figure 3). The group agreed that assessment
of risk and hazards and application of climate information should be prioritized. They believe these will
require low efforts as there are already initiatives for these strategies. Likewise, planting disaster resilient
crops was also considered under high impact and low effort quadrant.

On vertical gardening, a participant from NGA noted that there is a need to develop more technology and
this requires high effort. The group agreed to place identification of CRA options and technologies in the
same category since they may apply a programmatic approach. Through assessment of risk and hazards,
which is a priority strategy, they can identify the crops to be planted in certain areas depending on the risk
profile. For adoption of low-carbon technologies for agriculture (e.g. solar powered irrigation), a
representative from NGA shared that the technology is already available but there is still a need to roll out
and share knowledge to stakeholders, thus requiring high effort. This also applies to alternate wetting and
drying and the use of renewable energy in farm/fishing operations.
 9

Figure 3: Prioritization Matrix of Strategies and Solutions for Agriculture and Fisheries sector

For the efficient use and management of the irrigation system, another representative from the NGA noted
that this has high impact but will also require high effort as it involves review of infrastructure. He also
shared that zero-waste in every part of the economic cycle is doable and will only take low effort in terms
of technology. He added that as part of the circular economy approach, this definitely has high impact; but
in terms of adoption, there is still a need to showcase it to stakeholders which will require high effort.
Maximizing the use of renewable energy in the agriculture sector and supporting on-farm renewable
energy sources such as solar panels and wind farms will take high effort but this is conditional. This can
only be adapted if there is sufficient support. Hence, this strategy was placed under the Do If category.

During the second workshop, participants were asked to identify issues and challenges in implementing
the above strategies for the agriculture and fisheries sector. These issues and challenges are further
classified into STAPLE factors (as seen in Figure 4). A participant from LGU raised that there are gaps in
policy regulations in mining and agriculture which fall under political factors. A representative from NGA
mentioned a lack of opportunity for growth under social factors. He added that at the grassroots level,
they are stuck in their traditional practice and there is a challenge in knowledge sharing.
 10

Figure 4: STAPLE of Issues and Challenges for Agriculture and Fisheries sector

For technological factors, another participant from NGA noted the lack of support for Research and
Development, and extension. There is no sufficient funding for research. Another representative noted
availability and cost. Under legal factors, a representative from the LGU mentioned overlapping policies
in land use and resources such as mining laws for national and local (small-scale) government concern
which also overlaps with agrarian reform areas.

For administrative factors, a representative from NGA raised the capacity of LGUs with regard to
agriculture and fisheries as a possible challenge. This was supported by a participant from LGU, who
cited that a commodity investment plan is required for investment in agriculture, but the LGU has no
technical capacity for value chain analysis per commodity. The same representative from NGA
recognized that farmers and fisherfolks are the most vulnerable and they are identified as the poorest of
the poor, thus having low adaptive capacity, emphasizing that the workforce in agriculture and fisheries
are not economically stable.

For political factors, a participant from an LGU added that some interventions or strategies are already
identified in their local development plans. However, when translating these interventions into actual
investment, the bulk of the expenditure is mostly on the administrative. The group also agreed that there is
a challenge of prioritization of projects at the local level.
 11

Breakout Group 2: Livelihood and Business Development

Figure 5: Prioritization Matrix of Strategies and Solutions for Livelihood and Business Development

The Livelihood and Business Development Group consists of 10 representatives from the CCC, DA,
DFA, DOLE, Tuguegarao City, Batangas State University, UPRI, and Rare Philippines Inc. Ms. Kirsten
Lianne Mae C. Dedase moderated the session while Mr. Leo Emmanuel O. Sombiro provided
documentation support.

The first part of the workshop was brainstorming strategies and solutions on integrating elements of green
growth (GG) in livelihood and business development and categorizing these in the prioritization matrix
depending on considerations in terms of impact and effort.

Participants from the LGUs suggested that the integration of green growth should begin from the planning
stage. Representatives from the CSOs and Academe agreed and mentioned that there should be
mainstreaming of parameters in the business and livelihood programs coupled with raising awareness on
the context of green growth development. In line with bringing GG to public attention, participants from
NGAs mentioned the need to conduct regular dialogues and meetings with the concerned stakeholders to
ensure their engagement from the inception of administering possible standards to encourage the practice
of GG in businesses. Likewise, representatives from the NGAs emphasized the need to streamline plans
 12

with the national development goals. All of the aforementioned ideas were placed as low effort and high
impact or the Do Now category, meaning that this is where the policymakers should kick-off.

From the planning stage, the team then shifted the discussion to suggestions on how to augment
implementation of the GG integration falling under the category of high effort and high impact, meaning
that the following strategies shall be prioritized next. Representatives from CSOs and Academe then
proposed to create champions, not only political leaders but also celebrities and influencers, better
adapting to the changing ways of promoting advocacies with the advent of social media. To further extend
reach, they also suggested broadening engagement to extension projects of the universities and other
related agencies such as the Go Negosyo centers of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). On a
business level, the participants also thought of developing business plans to attract funders by
demonstrating the program’s profitability and sustainability. Meanwhile, suggestions to incentivize (i.e.
tax breaks) the workforce to contribute to Green Growth were brought up.

Other ideas from the CSOs and Academe classified under low impact plus low efforts were behavioral
change and social experiment marketing campaigns. The participants raised that while utilization of social
media is the new trend in advertisements, there are still laggard people that need to be engaged. For this
reason, the presence of traditional advertising to reach this market remains relevant.

Figure 6: STAPLE of Issues and Challenges for Livelihood and Business Development
 13

For the team’s Do If category or the strategies having a low impact and high effort, they mentioned that
businesses should reduce costs by using more efficient lighting and creatively reusing materials.
Moreover, they also suggested the adherence to ISO14000 standard.

Challenges raised under social factors were the lack of awareness and advocacy programs to understand
green growth initiatives. Consequently, these challenges may further lead to the lack of commitment of
project beneficiaries.

On factors involving technology, representatives from NGAs noted that the Philippines is not
technologically advanced. It means that it may lack the capacity to support technologically driven
development policies on Green Growth. Aside from that, accessibility issues relating to livelihood and
business technologies were also raised, specifically on scarcity and affordability. Participants from the
CSOs and Academe also mentioned the temporal behavior adoption as not everyone adapts easily from
the traditional business systems to online operations.

The team tackled administrative factors at two different levels: at the LGU level and business level. On
the LGU level, the participants agreed that one challenge of GG integration in livelihood and business
development is the monitoring and evaluation mechanisms during the implementation stage. Another
issue is that the plans and contracts initially signed by the LGUs with its partners (external or national
government) may not be aligned with the goals of GG, thereby hindering them in implementing such
policies. On the business level, representatives from NGAs noted the lack of a Business Continuity Plan
(BCP), most especially on small businesses, aiming to protect personnel and assets. At the same time, the
existence of BCP also ensures that the operations remain functioning when disasters strike.

Under political factors, the discussion on low prioritization for GG initiatives was raised. Representatives
from the CSOs and Academe noted that politicians tend to pursue policies that are easier to implement
and are aligned with their goals. They also discussed the need for political champions with influences to
push forward these initiatives. Meanwhile, participants from the NGAs cited that politicians’ term limits
play a role in the continuity of projects as leaders tend to have different policy priorities. They also
mentioned the dilemma of aligning projects between LGUs and the national government.

On legal factors, the representatives from LGUs raised the issue of excessive bureaucracy. This was
agreed upon by other participants from the CSOs and Academe, noting that there are tedious steps of
business registration, taxation, and compliance, making it even more challenging to implement legal
mandates for green growth in far-flung areas in the country. Meanwhile, representatives from NGAs
mentioned the issue of lack of ordinances to reflect national policies. Also, while there is a need to draft a
law addressing further issues on Green Financing or the financing of Green Growth initiatives, drafting
policies and bills is very time-consuming.

A common issue raised by the team involving economic factors is the high cost of transition to adapt to a
Green Behavior. To add to that, prices of raw materials remain unstable coupled with fluctuating inflation
rates. Representatives from the NGAs mentioned that implementation would be even more difficult in this
kind of situation, to the point of even engaging celebrities in the program. Participants from the LGUs
 14

added that the issue also lies in the lack of avenues to look for funding or grants to finance green growth
initiatives.

Breakout Group 3: Housing and Settlements

The Housing and Settlements Groups is made up of 10 representatives from COA, DA, DOH, DOLE,
DSWD, TESDA, and Nueva Vizcaya. The session was moderated by Ms. Sidney Jam L. Sibug with Ms.
Ma. Jaed Beatrice A. Lomeda, who assisted in the documentation.

Discussions in the first workshop were initiated by mentioning the importance of sustainable housing and
settlements, highlighting that the rapid urban growth and urban-rural migration open a large opportunity
to mitigate climate change. Additionally, the increase in housing needs and informal settlements mean
higher risk to hazards causing an urgent need to incorporate green growth elements into housing and
settlements particularly in post-disaster recovery. This initial discussion prompted participants from
various NGAs and the LGU to suggest strategies and solutions on how to integrate green growth in
housing & settlements.

During the brainstorming phase, emerging strategies focused on planning & design of housing and
settlements, food security, implementation of existing policy, waste management, upscale training as an
economic strategy, use of renewable sources of energy, and creation of green spaces.

Figure 7: Prioritization Matrix of Strategies and Solutions for Housing and Settlements
 15

At the prioritization stage, the participants agreed that what can be done now include mainstreaming of
green growth elements into planning and designs of housing and settlements as well as sustainable
practices for food security, implementation of the green building code, and community encouragement. To
elaborate, a participant from an LGU emphasized that disaster risk assessment must be done when
drafting the housing plans. As part of proper planning, designs for settlement areas especially after a
disaster must be sustainable and that integration of technology must be adapted in order to craft local
energy efficiency including utilization of fossil fuel. Also, proper waste management on solid and liquid
waste was emphasized as a strategy that can be done now in implementing sustainable housing &
settlement plans. It was also suggested that coordination mechanisms with other related stakeholders must
be made seamless. The implementation of the green building code was also categorized under the Do Now
category since it’s a low effort strategy given that it’s an existing policy but the impact is high. Under the
same prioritization quadrant, sustainable practices focusing on food access and security were also
suggested. The participants pointed out that one of the concerns in settlements after a disaster is food
security, as evident by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a response and recovery strategy, urban agriculture
and planting of crops at home and settlement areas were suggested to be viable solutions in order to
maintain food access. Moreover, it was suggested that scaling up of family and community nutrition
programs must be done now including the encouragement of communities in building their knowledge
about green growth.

For the next prioritization category involving high effort and high impact aspects, participants agreed that
providing access to basic utilities and development of knowledge and capacity building programs are
strategies that can be done next. The access to basic utilities, e.g. water source, was classified in this
category after the participants from NGAs explained that the construction of facilities in order to provide
access to utilities may take a significant amount of time and resources. The next strategy suggested under
the Do Next category centered on knowledge and capacity building of the target beneficiaries. Training on
urban gardening, use of renewable resources, and energy conservation are solutions in order for the
housing and settlement plans to be sustainable. In addition, upscale training was cited as an economic
strategy that equips the target beneficiaries with skills for better employment opportunities and better
chances to recover on their own after a disaster. However, the participants remarked that the development
and conduct of training programs and other capacity building activities take considerable time and
resources. Hence, these solutions were tagged under the Do Next category.

For the Do Later quadrant, the participants agreed that giving incentives to families and communities for
greener home living can be done later once housing and settlement plans have been put in place. The
impact was considered to be low since the value is more on the individual household and the effort
needed to provide incentives was also considered to be low. For the last quadrant, the participants
suggested that backyard gardening, use of renewable resources, and green spaces are strategies that can be
done if enough resources are available.

The second workshop focused on identifying issues and challenges of green growth strategies in housing
and settlements in terms of STAPLE (as seen in Figure 8). For the social factor, the participants identified
the lack of awareness of the communities regarding policies and principles of sustainable housing as well
as the sustainability of the projects and attitude of the beneficiaries as the issues that can impede the
implementation of green growth strategies in housing and settlements. This was further discussed by the
 16

participants from NGAs by emphasizing that unequal access to information and technology causes
challenges in disseminating information related to sustainable living practices. Moreover, a participant
from an NGA mentioned that post-disaster settlement recipients often experience inertia or the feeling of
disempowerment in effecting change in their lives brought about by the lack of awareness, which often
leads to a resistant attitude of the people towards the strategies. One participant from another NGA
mentioned that there were cases in which beneficiaries no longer want to work, which hinder the
implementation of sustainable practices.

Figure 8: STAPLE of Issues and Challenges for Housing and Settlements

For the technological factor, issues on being climate and disaster-proof were pointed out given that there
is lack of access to green technology. The lack of knowledge on urban agriculture was also seen as a
technological issue. As for the administrative factor, the participants agreed that the difficult procurement
 17

process, agencies working in silos, and inefficient management of resources pose challenges in integrating
green growth. As for the political factor, participants emphasized the need to address the issues of policy
restrictions and insufficient green champions especially at the local level. The participants agreed that
local leaders must be green champions in order to successfully incorporate green growth solutions.
Looking at the legal factors, the participants came to the conclusion that existing laws must be updated in
relation to the pressing issues and existing environmental solutions. Additionally, legislation of the
suggested green growth strategies was seen as a necessary issue that must be addressed in order to gain
legal and financial support. Lastly, budget constraints and inefficient management of resources were seen
as the biggest economic challenges in implementing green growth strategies. The participants also agreed
that one of the major concerns of the recipients in settlement areas is the possible change of livelihood
which can cause delays in implementing sustainable housing and settlement plans.

Breakout Group 4: Infrastructure

The Infrastructure Group includes 11 members representing the CCC, DA, DOE, Davao City, Santiago
City, Zamboanga City, UP Mindanao, and IFRC. Ms. Gemmarie T. Zuñiga was the moderator of the
session with the assistance of Mr. Louis Phillip C. Flores for documentation.

The first workshop commenced with a brief overview of the integration of Green Growth in Physical
Infrastructure, especially in the context of the Philippines. Examples of strategies and solutions from other
countries served as springboard for the initial discussions on how to integrate green growth elements in
the Infrastructure Sector.

Coming from different sectors and backgrounds, a wide array of strategies and solutions in integrating
green growth in the Infrastructure Sector were discussed for the first part of the workshop. Starting the
discussion was a Disaster Law Adviser who emphasized the need to monitor the implementation of the
Philippine Green Building Code, adding that government offices and LGUs responsible for such
monitoring should be identified. This was seconded by a participant, stating that there are a lot of
strategies that LGUs can do to implement green technology policies such as informing the local
population of the long-term advantages of green technology using evidence-based data. Participants
unanimously agreed that the creation of a mechanism that disincentivizes the use of high carbon materials
in construction should go hand-in-hand with incentivizing the use of sustainable materials.

On the use of solar energy, participants highlighted that the country should focus more on maximizing its
potential to harness such energy, being a tropical country with a rich supply of sunlight. This can be done
by paying attention to the design of a structure, including its lighting, ventilation, height, water catchment,
practicality, cost-efficiency and site-selection. Elaborating on the idea of using solar energy, a participant
from the DOE confirmed that solar energy starts with a high cost. However, improvements in technology
are slowly reducing the cost of solar energy. Citing the efforts of her agency, the said participant is
positive that technology for solar power generation will become more accessible in the coming years.
Aside from using solar energy in buildings and other infrastructure, the practice of recycling water
especially in condominium buildings and adopting green offices wherein green appliances are used, were
also recommended.
 18

The discussion on strategies and solutions ended on the note of developing a sustainable transport sector,
being one of the contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. This was supported by suggestions for the
establishment of bike lanes and use of e-vehicles.

The second part of the discussion focused on the Prioritization Matrix tool where the group weighed the
possible efforts required in materializing a strategy alongside the magnitude of its impact (as seen in
Figure 9). Among the nine strategies that were brainstormed by the participants, six of these were
determined to have high effort and high impact. These strategies are coined as something that should be in
the Do Next category after strategies with high impact and low effort are achieved. Strategies that fell in
this quadrant mostly had elements of unavailable materials (e.g. lack of sustainable materials for low
carbon footprint construction; accessible solar panels), lack of policy (e.g. no existing policy to
incentivize the use of sustainable materials), large scale implementation (e.g., use of solar panels), and
social or cultural challenges such as changing people’s mindset when it comes to the use of sustainable
transport systems.

Figure 9: Prioritization Matrix of Strategies and Solutions for Infrastructure

However, one policy was placed in the first quadrant (Do Now) which meant it only entails low effort but
has a high impact as a strategy. This was the policy regarding the practice of recycling water in buildings.
It was determined to only require low effort since there is already a technology available to implement
this kind of system.
 19

Lastly, in between these first two quadrants are two strategies that the group had varying opinions on.
Even though everyone agreed that these two policies have a high impact, some determined them to have
high effort whereas others felt that they only needed low effort to be implemented. These two policies
mostly revolved on a building’s structural design, construction site, and the implementation of the
Philippine Green Building Code.

The second workshop highlighted issues and challenges in integrating green growth elements in the
Infrastructure Sector identified by the participants themselves. Most of the discussions revolved around
conflicts in the implementation of programs and policies brought by different gray areas, red-tape,
funding concerns, and the lack of clear accountability measures. In relation to this, the participants
mentioned that political will is a must for government officials and politicians for these strategies and
solutions to come to fruition and be accepted by the communities. Lastly, banking on the issue of
acceptance of the community, participants emphasized that Filipinos should be hired and capacitated in
implementing these strategies to instill a sense of ownership and ultimately, foster sustainability of the
provided solutions.

Figure 10: STAPLE of Issues and Challenges for Infrastructure

 20

Breakout Group 5: Social Services (Education, Health, and Social Protection)

The Social Services Group, which was moderated by Mr. Lianne Angelico C. Depante, comprised nine
(9) representatives from DA, DAR, DENR, DOH, NCIP, Tagum City, Tabaco National High School, and
UP Manila College of Public Health. Along with the moderator, Ms. Danielle Lladoc and Ms. Alyssa
Victoria P. Velasco provided documentation support for the breakout session.

The fifth breakout session commenced with a brief contextualization of social services vis-à-vis green
growth. More particularly, the contextualization highlighted the role of education, health, and social
protection in facilitating the transition to an economy that is anchored on both sustainability and
inclusiveness.

The first segment of the session focused on the brainstorming of strategies to integrate green growth
elements in the context of the social services sector. In the sphere of education, the participants, with
some coming from the academe, were in agreement that education that forms positive environmental
values (i.e., “green society”) must commence as soon as children start basic schooling. In connection with
the preceding strategy, a representative from the academic sector mentioned that, while efforts to revise
and incorporate green elements in basic education modules have already been started locally, they should
be furthered and scaled at the broader level.

On a related note, our government should prioritize educational interventions in the agricultural sector, as
averred by some representatives from the national government agencies. Strategies suggested in reference
to the foregoing include promoting new equipment and educating farmers and other stakeholders on how
to use green agricultural technologies.

With regard to health and green growth, the participants agreed that efforts must start with pushing for the
inclusion of green growth elements in occupational health safety (OSH) guidelines for both large and
small businesses, as current policy, according to some representatives, remains inadequate. Furthermore,
solid waste management appeared to be an important concern to the participants. In particular,
representatives from the academe and healthcare sectors proposed that recycling and proper disposal of
hospital waste (e.g., personal protective equipment, mask, hydrochloric acid) must be encouraged to
“greenify” the health industry. Another participant from the local government agreed to the foregoing
idea, adding that guidelines for those at the community level must also be devised to avoid mixing
domestic and medical waste in the landfill or in our bodies of water.

Finally, regarding social protection, many participants lamented the inadequacies of basic infrastructure in
social protection, particularly the “data collection system” for cash aid programs, such as Pantawid
Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) and ‘ayuda’ (roughly translated as aid in English) for those affected by
community quarantines due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Extending this suggestion, a representative from
one national-level line department proposed that, in the future, cash transfer and aid programs must be
complemented with financial literacy education.
 21

Before proceeding to the second part of the session, a participant from the LGU suggested that attention
must also be made in increasing the capacities and resources of local authorities to provide basic social
services needed to facilitate development in general and green growth in particular.

The second part of the workshop delved into the participants’ perceived prioritization of the strategies
generated in the preceding section. Given the importance of social services, all participants concurred that
the generated strategies must be pursued and categorized either under Quadrant 1 (Do Next - High Impact,
High Effort) and Quadrant 2 (Do Now - High Impact, Low Effort), as seen in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11: Prioritization Matrix of Strategies and Solutions for Social Services

Most green growth strategies pertaining to education were categorized under Quadrant 2. For the
participants, educational reforms must start now since the impact of these interventions take multiple
generations to manifest. On the other hand, generated non-educational strategies were placed under the
first quadrant largely due to the effort needed for implementation, as explained below.

Using STAPLE, the participants generated a list of factors that may possibly constrain the adoption and/or
implementation of the generated strategies. Starting with social factors, the group saw that the adoption of
green strategies may possibly be hampered by the lack of buy-in from the citizens themselves. Another
social factor is the possibility of programs not being able to work as intended. For example, social
protection programs may not encourage behavior change, e.g., consumption of more
environmentally-friendly products.
 22

Figure 12: STAPLE of Issues and Challenges for Social Services

With regard to technological factors, the problem identified was the inadequacy of the current capacity
and technology of the government, especially local authorities, in identifying the recipients for social
protection programs. For both the administrative and political aspects, the group raised the issue of
problematic coordination between government agencies, horizontal and vertical-wise.

An overwhelming number of participants cited ‘political will’ as a factor, especially in the context of
implementing education programs. Regarding legal factors, one of the identified issues was the
inadequacy of the current medical waste management policy. A representative from the national
government said that policies dealing with such systems need to be revised or updated, as policy
synchronization when it comes to treating medical wastes is lacking. Finally, economic factors or issues
and challenges seem to converge to one point: there is a lack of budget and resources both at the national
and local level to procure and implement green technologies and strategies (e.g., waste management).

Breakout Group 6: Resource Mobilization

The Resource Mobilization Group, which was moderated by Mr. Dennis G. dela Torre, is composed of 11
representatives from COA, DA, DOLE, Ormoc City, UP Visayas, Aksyon Klima, Greenpeace Philippines,
 23

Oxfam, Parabukas, and R1. Mr. Frederic Mark M. Santiago II assisted with the documentation of the
session.

Discussions in integrating green growth solutions in resource mobilization started with a participant from
the Academe scrutinizing the idea of interchangeably using green growth with other green pathways even
with climate change as it reflects a very liberal, market-oriented perspective. Then, a participant from a
CSO started the proposal of strategies and solutions by suggesting that planning and budgeting for
Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) implementation must include green growth elements.
Another CSO participant then followed up by mentioning that a just transition to resource mobilization
should not compromise the ecosystem's integrity and the safety and security of communities affected. He
added that funding on green growth and NDC sectoral plans from national level and subnational level
must be ensured. Lastly, he emphasized that the country needs to demand climate justice & accountability
from annex 1 countries regarding their duty on climate financing with heavy priority of giving grants over
loans.

Figure 13: Prioritization Matrix of Strategies and Solutions for Resource Mobilization

A participant from an NGA then laid out a strategy that starts with the government giving priority funding
and support for climate tagged budget expenditures. The same participant mentioned the need to
transform Philippine agriculture and fisheries towards a low carbon resilient food system that provides
adequate and nutritious food supply. The participant also urged the reduction of vulnerabilities of food
systems from climate risk with emphasis to the value chain approach and consistency with commitments.
 24

In addition, the need to adequately prepare for emergencies and pandemics was suggested. She also
suggested that there must be engagement of everyone about food production and quarantine protocols.
Followed by that are the implementations of special programs to eradicate poverty alongside location
specific and risk-based planning for climate action and DRM. Lastly, she mentioned that there must be a
focus on water management in the Philippine setting. This was expanded by another CSO participant
adding that there has to be a comprehensive identification of adaptation needs in relation with proper
sources of financing whether from local sources and other external sources. The participant elaborated
that building the capacities of the LGUs to implement programs and services identified in adaptation
plans is a must in order to avoid issues in execution. Lastly, she emphasized that the implementation of
the People’s Survival Fund (PSF) plans has to be improved.

Another participant from an NGA then suggested that the government should ensure financial inclusion of
all stakeholders in the Philippine setting in order to further facilitate participation toward green growth.
All these strategies and solutions were tagged as the topmost priority given the urgency of addressing
climate change (as seen in Figure 13).

During the second workshop of identifying issues and challenges in terms of STAPLE, a participant
raised the issue that proper planning and budgeting that incorporates green growth should have been done
from the beginning and that we currently have to catch up for the missed timeline. This was echoed by
another participant by pointing out that there are issues on procurement and in the Tier 2 of the
government in relation to Climate Change Expenditure Tagging (CCET), and the budget process that
might result in tagged measures being invalid or turning into maladaptation. She has also emphasized that
in the economics of green growth, intersectoral maladaptation might occur in which development goals
and adaptation goals for vulnerable communities might come into conflict.

A member from the Academe also identified that resource mobilization needs to be multi-spatial,
accounting for the local, national and global setting. There has to be recognition that the structural
dynamics of the market dynamics has to be met without sacrificing transformational goals. She also
pointed out social and political issues where injustice and exclusion in providing equitable access to
sustainable resources and threatened participatory spaces for decision-making, policy-making and
implementation in climate actions has proven to be challenging for stakeholders. Lastly, a CSO
participant has expressed that the non-implementation of the policies and laws on the participation of
CSOs, specially area-based community organization in barangays and all other levels of local governance,
has been problematic in the pursuit of green growth.
 25

Figure 14: STAPLE of Issues and Challenges for Resource Mobilization

 26

Plenary Sharing of Outputs

Agriculture and Fisheries

Mr. Roald Taperla, Senior Economic Development Specialist from NEDA, shared a summary of the
discussion under the Agriculture and Fisheries sector. For the strategies and solutions, he first shared the
practices categorized as high impact and low effort. These strategies include the assessment of risk and
hazards, application of climate information, and the planting of disaster resilient crops. Next, for the high
impact and high effort, several strategies were mentioned. These are the use of vertical gardening,
implementation of efficient irrigation systems, adoption of low carbon practices, adopting alternate
wetting and drying practices, the use of climate resilient agricultural options and technologies, and
adoption of zero-waste technologies or the circular economy approach. Under the same category, he
mentioned that maximizing the use of renewable energy is a high effort strategy for it requires a high
investment.

Moving on to the issues and challenges, he shared that the group has identified the limited growth
opportunities in the sector as a social issue. According to their discussion, farmers and fisherfolk have
limited access to education that could enhance their human capital. For the technological issues, the
limited financial support in research, and the availability and cost of low carbon technologies were the
identified challenges. Mr. Taperla shared how his groupmate from the DA has mentioned that there are a
lot of agricultural research opportunities that could have been funded. For the administrative issues, his
group has identified the limited capacity of LGUs to undertake activities such as performing value-chain
analysis, and implementing reforms and strategies. The challenge of prioritization at the local level was
identified as a political issue. He mentioned that limited resources prevent all priorities from being
implemented. Thus, according to him, prioritization becomes highly dependent on the criteria set by the
local chief executives. For the legal issue, the group identified the overlapping policies governing land
resource management especially on forestry, mining, and agriculture. Lastly, the limited income of
farmers and fisherfolk to adapt to various hazards and risks was seen as an economic issue.

Livelihood and Business Development

Ms. Joyce Barafon, Policy and Partnerships Adviser of Rare Philippines Inc., presented to the plenary the
discussions under the Livelihood and Business Development group. She started the discussion on the
strategies categorized as high impact and low effort. One of the strategies was integrating the green
growth framework to the planning stage of livelihood programs and LGU development plans. Another
was the streamlining of the plans with national development goals such as the Philippine Development
Plan. Moving to the high impact and high effort activities, one of the strategies was to attract funders by
developing a business plan that demonstrates a program’s profitability and sustainability. The idea of
offering incentives such as tax breaks to the workforce was also discussed as a way to develop livelihood
and business. For the low impact and low effort activities, the group has identified two campaign
strategies. These are behavioral campaigns and social experiment marketing campaigns. These can be
implemented in traditional and digital modes such as on TikTok. Lastly, for the low impact and high effort
activities, the identified strategy was the reduction in the operating costs of businesses. According to their
 27

discussion, this can be done by implementing green practices such as efficient lighting and creative reuse
of materials.

In identifying the issues and challenges, for the social aspect, the group recognized that green growth
strategies are not the priority of LGUs and other sectors. Together with this, it was mentioned that there is
the problem of funding and lack of awareness on green growth policies. For the technological aspect, the
group has considered the fact that not everyone is tech-savvy. Businesses might have a difficult time
transitioning from old to new technologies for it would require a lot of effort and behavioral changes. In
the administrative aspect, monitoring and evaluation of the policies at the local level was the identified
challenge. Furthermore, it was mentioned that the existing plans of LGUs may not be in parallel with
green growth advocacies. Therefore, there is a need to review these plans and determine how green
growth can be integrated into them. When it comes to the political aspect, she mentioned that the group
recognized how local chief executives may not be able to prioritize green growth policies. Also, due to
term limits, it was mentioned that there is the issue of the projects’ continuity. With regard to the legal
aspect, excessive bureaucracy was one of the challenges. More specifically, it was identified that the
tedious steps in business registration, taxation, and compliance are a big issue in the sector. Ms. Barafon
mentioned that there is the presence of the law on the Ease of Doing Business. However, according to her,
there is no clear picture of its implementation status. Lastly, for the economic aspect, one of the issues
was the lack of venues to obtain funding to implement green growth projects. Also, the required
behavioral changes would mean a high transition cost.

Housing and Settlements

Mr. Edgardo Caldit, TESD Specialist II of TESDA, summarized the discussion of the group under the
housing and settlements. For the high impact and low effort strategies, one of the suggested activities was
to properly design resettlement areas with green components in the construction. Another strategy was to
scale up family and community nutrition programs. For the high impact and high effort strategies,
different training programs on several skills were suggested. Such skills include disaster preparedness,
urban gardening, and the use of renewable energy sources. Providing incentives to communities and
families for a greener home living was the group’s suggested strategy under low impact and low effort.
Moving to the low impact and high effort strategies, integration of green infrastructure in urban areas was
one of the identified activities. According to the group, the said infrastructure would benefit the people’s
mental health and restore biodiversity.

For the issues and challenges under the social aspect, one of those identified was the feeling of
disempowerment of people in changing their lives. According to Mr. Caldit, there are times when people
are resistant to change. Another issue was the sustainability of projects. Mr. Caldit mentioned how
projects lose their momentum as time passes by. For the technological aspect, one of the issues was the
people’s lack of knowledge on urban agriculture. Under the administrative aspect, the group identified the
procurement of resources as a challenge. Furthermore, they have also recognized the inefficient use of the
resources as another source of problem. For the political aspect, the group’s discussion has pointed out
that there is a lack of green champions among national and local leaders. Following this is the legal
aspect. The group has recognized the fact that there is a difficulty in turning suggested strategies into an
 28

actual policy. To add, they have also raised that environmental laws which need updating are not moving
in Congress. Lastly, for the environmental aspect, it was identified that there is a budget constraint.
Moreover, they have pointed out the possibility that beneficiaries might need to shift towards a different
livelihood.

Infrastructure

Ms. Jasmine Mohammadsali, Information Officer I of Zamboanga City, presented a summarized

discussion of the infrastructure group. For the high impact and low effort activity, the use of green
technologies such as water recycling units, solar panels, and green appliances on current buildings was the
identified strategy. The group has identified two strategies that straddle between the prioritization matrix.
First was the proper design of structures when it comes to lighting, site selection, and ventilation.
According to Ms. Mohammadsali, it was placed in-between because of the uniqueness of structures. Some
can easily adopt new technologies while others cannot. Second was the implementation of the Green
Building Code and identification of responsible government offices. According to Ms. Mohammadsali,
the law already exists but the difficult part is on the implementation given the government’s different
priorities. For the high impact and high effort, one of the strategies was the use of sustainable construction
materials. Ms. Mohammadsali said that this is a high effort activity for it would require a change in the
people’s market behaviour. In addition, another mentioned strategy was policies incentivizing the use of
green materials while disincentivizing the use of high carbon materials.

Moving to the issues and challenges under the social aspect, Ms. Mohammadsali started by discussing
how infrastructure affects indegenous communities. She mentioned how some projects encroach upon
ancestral domains. According to her, this leads to conflicts between the infrastructure sector and the
indegenous communities. For the technological aspect, the question on whether the country has access to
green technologies was raised. The issue of the availability of specialized manpower to operate these
technologies was pointed out. Under the administrative aspect, the identified challenge was the difficulties
in implementing green policies due to red tape. For the political aspect, an issue was identified on the
required political will to implement green policies. Ms. Mohammadsali said that there is always the issue
of political continuity. Lastly, funding for green infrastructure projects was seen as the main challenge
under the economic aspect.

Social Services

Ms. Preciosa Osit of the DAR summarized the discussion of the social services group. For the high
impact and low effort strategies, the need to update the basic education’s curriculum to include green
growth modules was raised. According to Ms. Osit, this has the goal of instilling green values and
concepts to the children. It was also mentioned that the current pandemic has shown that data collection
systems should be improved. For the high impact and high effort strategies, one of the suggested activities
was the inclusion of green growth concepts in the employee’s training modules. It was also raised that it
should also be included in the occupational health and safety framework. Another strategy was the
management of waste especially with the increased amount of pandemic byproducts.
 29

Moving on the issues and challenges, for the social aspect, the group identified a possibility that people
might not buy the program. Social protections systems may also not work as intended. For instance, it
may fail to encourage people to adopt green initiatives. For the technological aspect, the problem
identified was the inadequacy of the current technology to identify the recipients of social protections. For
both the administrative and political aspect, the group raised the issue of coordination between
government agencies in both the local and national level. They also recognized the challenge of
improving the adaptation capacity of communities in times of disasters. Another challenge they identified
was the need for a strong political will to implement financial literacy programs. Moving to the legal
aspect, one of the identified issues was the inadequacy of the current medical waste management system.
According to Ms. Osit, policies dealing with such systems need to be revised or updated. Furthermore,
she noted that there is a lack of policy synchronization when it comes to treating medical wastes. For the
economic aspect, it was mentioned that there is a lack of budget to procure waste management
technologies. Moreover, it was pointed out that LGUs and NGAs have limited resources. Hence, there is a
difficulty in promoting green growth initiatives.

Resource Mobilization

Mr. dela Torre summed up the resource mobilization group’s discussion. For the prioritization matrix,
most were identified as high impact and low effort. One of the suggested strategies was the need for NDC
to include green growth concepts. In addition to this, it was discussed that NDCs should span across the
national to the local level. Furthermore, it was mentioned that the agricultural and fisheries sector should
move towards a low carbon and resilient food system. The group has also identified improving the
implementation of the People’s Survival Fund as another strategy. Two high impact strategies that straddle
between low and high effort were identified. First was ensuring that resource mobilization does not
compromise the ecosystem’s integrity, and the community’s safety and security. Second was demanding
climate justice against Annex I countries with regard to climate financing. It was added that there should
be a priority on grants over loans.

Next, the issues and challenges were discussed. For the social aspect, it was pointed out that there is an
exclusion in providing access to sustainable resources and in the decision making process of climate
actions. For the administrative aspect, it was discussed that there is a challenge in the planning and
budgeting to incorporate green growth elements in a project. It was also mentioned that there is the issue
of procurement. Moving to the political aspect, it was recognized that participatory spaces for resource
mobilization are threatened. It was also pointed out that policies and laws regarding the participation of
CSOs are not implemented. Lastly, for the economic aspect, it was discussed that resource mobilization
should be multi-spatial. In other words, it should span from local to global. Intersectoral maladaptation
was also seen as an economic challenge due to conflicting goals and objectives of different policies.
 30

Summary and Closing Remarks

Mr. dela Torre provided a recap of the policy workshop. He reiterated the important point raised by Dr.
Lagmay in his opening remarks - the need to shift from the current predominantly brown economy to
green economy. He also emphasized the key points in the keynote address of Cong. Joey Salceda and his
commitment to green growth.

Mr. dela Torre shared that the policy workshop is part of UPRI’s research project on green growth. He
also noted that the policy workshop is just the start of the conversation on policies and green growth and
there will be two more. The project includes a policy forum on climate and disaster risk financing and
insurance as a national strategy, which is tentatively scheduled in September. He also mentioned that the
last stage of the project will be the presentation of findings in November.
 31

Annexes

Annex A: Concept Note

32
 33

Annex B: Press Release

 34

Annex C: Welcome Remarks

35
 36

Annex D: Keynote Address

37
 38

Annex E: Plenary Presentation

39
40
41
42
43
44
45
 46

Annex F: Group Photo

 47

Annex G: List of Participants

48