Results of the PIR showed that while Philippines has several laws and policies in place for biodiversity, there is still a need to address those with negative impact and promote those with positive impact on biodiversity conservation and restoration. Resource mobilisation opportunities from selected policies such as the Energy Regulation 1-94 as amended; Malampaya Fund; Motor Vehicle User’s Charge; Mining Taxes & Royalties and Fees from Mining were examined.
From 2008-2013, the baseline financing for biodiversity was estimated at Php 5B (USD 110 million) among national agencies contributing to the 20 Aichi Targets, non-core agencies, and local governments. This represents 0.08% of GDP and 0.31% of the national budget for this period of analysis. Within this period, the budget of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) was observed to be increasing at the rate of 23% per year. The biodiversity budget has been increasing at a faster rate of 34% per year for the same period, although its contribution to total budget is less than 20% of the total. Increase in funding can be realised by realignment of budgets coupled with effective mainstreaming among core and non-core biodiversity agencies. Comprising an average of 4% of the 20% development fund representing share of national taxes, local governments contribute Php 0.5B (USD 13 million) based on protected areas expenditures alone.
The total estimated cost of implementing the PBSAP from 2015-2028 ranged from PhP334 billion or USD 7.4 billion (low) to PhP388 billion or USD 8.6 billion (high) with an annual requirement of Php 23.9 billion (USD 530 million). The projected appropriations of the government agencies for this period is only USD 1.5 billion versus the USD 4 billion estimated cost of activities identified in the PBSAP.
BIOFIN’s Finance Plan is targeting to raise PhP20 billion by 2020 by implementing the following solutions: a) consolidation, mainstreaming, and formalising the PPBER process through biodiversity tagging; b) increasing funding of local governments through realignment, increased access to earmark funds, or generation of revenues on site; and c) private sector engagement.