climate policy implementation in the philippines...

Master’s Thesis

Climate Policy Implementation in the Philippines:

Coordination of Local Climate Planning

Submitted to the Department of Political and Social Sciences of Free University Berlin

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts in Environmental Policy and Planning

at Free University of Berlin & Technical University of Berlin

Author: Kora Rösler

Date of submission: December 16, 2016

Supervisors: 1st Prof. Dr. Miranda Schreurs & 2nd PD Dr. phil. Helmut Weidner

In collaboration with the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)

Philippines & adelphi research

2 | CLIMATE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN THE PHILIPPINES: COORDINATION OF LOCAL CLIMATE PLANNING

Executive Summary

This master’s thesis examines the role of coordination in the implementation of climate policy

in the Philippines. In the course of this, the study seeks to discuss how local climate planning

is shaped by horizontal and vertical coordination. Based on the argument that intensified

coordination could make implementation of local policy more effective, this study critically

reflects on coordination among implementing national institutions, international donors, and

the local governments. The study adopts a theoretical framework based on policy

implementation theory and coordination theory and also incorporates insights from multi-

level governance to reflect the different levels of government involved. Twenty expert

interviews and one focus group with actors from all relevant levels and groups provide

empirical evidence.

The findings of this study indicate a local implementation rate of about 10 to 30 percent,

demonstrating the need for increased implementation efforts. It shows that the

implementation processes and the local climate planning framework are lacking

coordination, making them fragmented. This imposes substantial barriers to urgently needed

local climate planning. Factors contributing to the lack of coordination include: ambiguity in

the law, overlapping mandates, limited personnel resources, turnover of staff as well as

change of government. As a result of the discussions, the research reveals two crucial starting

points to improve and streamline local climate planning: (1) The development of a unified

implementation approach for local climate policy and planning. (2) The application of a more

integrative and inclusive approach for local climate implementation, tackling donor activities

and local government involvement.


Table of Content

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 2

Table of Content ....................................................................................................................... 3

Lists of Tables and Figures ....................................................................................................... 5

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 6

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 8

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 9

2 Theory and Analytical Framework ..................................................................................... 15

2.1 Grounded Theory Method and Iterative Approach to Research ................................................................. 15

2.2 Multi-level Governance Perspective ........................................................................................................................ 17

2.3 Policy Implementation Theory .................................................................................................................................. 18

2.4 Coordination Theory ..................................................................................................................................................... 20

2.5 Deriving the Research Questions and Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 22

3 Methodology and Research Design ................................................................................... 25

3.1 Interpretative Approach ............................................................................................................................................... 25

3.2 Qualitative and Exploratory Research..................................................................................................................... 26

3.3 Case Study Research and Selection......................................................................................................................... 27

3.4 Research Instruments: Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 28

3.4.1 Semi-structured Expert Interviews ............................................................................................... 29

3.4.2 Focus Group .......................................................................................................................................... 31

3.4.3 Document Review ............................................................................................................................... 33

3.3 Qualitative Data Analysis: Data Treatment ........................................................................................................... 33

3.3.1 Coding ..................................................................................................................................................... 34

3.4 Research Process ............................................................................................................................................................ 35

3.5 Compiling the Research Design................................................................................................................................ 37

4 Empirical Results .................................................................................................................. 39

4.1 Context ............................................................................................................................................................................... 39

4.1.1 The Philippines ..................................................................................................................................... 39


4.1.2 The Climate Policy Agenda ............................................................................................................. 41

4.1.3 Status of Local Climate Planning .................................................................................................. 42

4.2 Policy Framework ............................................................................................................................................................ 44

4.2.1 Climate Change Act ........................................................................................................................... 45

4.2.2 National Climate Change Action Plan ......................................................................................... 46

4.2.3 Local Government Code ................................................................................................................... 47

4.3 Institutional Framework ............................................................................................................................................... 48

4.3.1 Institutional Structure ........................................................................................................................ 49

4.3.2 Institutions ............................................................................................................................................. 50

4.4 Coordination Mechanisms .......................................................................................................................................... 56

4.4.1 Horizontal Coordination Mechanisms ........................................................................................ 56

4.4.2 Vertical Coordination Mechanisms .............................................................................................. 57

4.4.3 Further Coordination Mechanisms ............................................................................................... 60

4.5 Planning Framework ...................................................................................................................................................... 62

4.5.1 Local Climate Plans ............................................................................................................................ 62

4.5.2 One Plan – Two Approaches .......................................................................................................... 64

4.5.3 Further Critical Issues ........................................................................................................................ 67

5 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 70

5.1 Connecting the Dots: Hypotheses and Empirical Findings ............................................................................ 70

5.2 Reflecting on the Methodological and Theoretical Framework .................................................................. 74

6 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 76

Appendix ................................................................................................................................. 81

Appendix I – List of Interview Partners .......................................................................................................................... 81

Appendix II – Exemplary Interview Guides................................................................................................................... 83

Appendix III – Focus Group Report................................................................................................................................. 85

Appendix IV – Focus Group Templates ......................................................................................................................... 87

Appendix V – Focus Group Guide ................................................................................................................................... 92

Appendix VI – List of Focus Group Participants ......................................................................................................... 94

Declaration of Authorship ..................................................................................................... 97

References ............................................................................................................................... 98


Lists of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Levels of Operation or Groups of Actors ...................................................................................... 30

Table 2: Categories and Codes .......................................................................................................................... 35

Table 3: Research Steps ........................................................................................................................................ 36

Table 4: Status LCCAP ........................................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 1 Grounded Theory Approach Scheme ............................................................................................ 16

Figure 2: Institutional Structure ......................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 3: Local Climate Plans .............................................................................................................................. 63


List of Abbreviations

CCA Climate Change Action

CCAM Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

CCC Climate Change Commission

CCCC Cabinet Cluster on Climate Change on Adaptation and Mitigation

CDP Comprehensive Development Plan

CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan

COP Conference of the Parties

CORE Communities for Resilience

CPBRD Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department

CSO Civil Society Organization

DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government

DILG Region IV-A Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Region IV-A

(CALABARZON)

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

DRRM Disaster Risk Reduction Management

EIA Environmental Impact Assessments

GHG Greenhouse gas

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH

(German Society for International Cooperation)

HLURB Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board

iCSC Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities


LCCAP Local Climate Change Action Plan

LCP League of Cities of the Philippines

LDRRMP Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Plan

LDC Local Development Council

LDRRMC Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council

LGA Local Government Academia

LGC Local Government Code

LGU Local Government Unit

MTPDP Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan

NCCAP National Climate Change Action Plan

NDRRMC National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council

NEDA National Economic Development Authority

NGO Non-governmental organization

PDP Philippine Development Plan

PSF People’s Survival Fund

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UN-HABITAT United Nations Human Settlements Programme

UP-SURP University of the Philippines - School of Urban and Regional Planning

VA Vulnerability Assessments

V-LED Vertical Integration and Learning for Low-Emission Development in

Africa and Southeast Asia


Acknowledgements

This master’s thesis is the result of a year-long research work in the Philippines and Germany,

and many contributions for which I would like to express my deep gratitude:

First of all, I would like to thank my first supervisor Prof. Dr. Miranda Schreurs for her guidance

and substantive direction all throughout the process. Thanks are also extended to PD Dr. phil.

Helmut Weidner for his suggestions and feedback on this work as the second supervisor. In

addition, I am grateful to the DAAD for receiving a scholarship that allowed my stay in the

Philippines.

The study benefited greatly from the involvement in the V-LED project by adelphi research and

UN-HABITAT, thanks to Anne Dahmen and Bernhard Barth. This was a unique learning

experience and I would like to express my very great appreciation to the whole team in Manila

and Berlin, particularly Priscella Mejillano, Laids Mias and Dr. Marcus Andreas.

Significant thanks go to the interviewees and participants of the focus group for their valuable

insights and time shared with me. Further thanks go to Jens Marquardt for sharing experiences

from his dissertation project in the Philippines.

Special thanks to the reviewers Naima von Ritter Figueres and Dr. Marcus Andreas for excellent

comments and suggestions in revising the thesis as well as to Keager Mc Laughlin and Miguel

Calayan for further remarks.

Lastly, sincere thanks to Nico Küntzel and Theresa Zimmermann who exceedingly supported

and encouraged me throughout the whole year!

Beyond that, an enormous thank you to the Filipinos: I am most grateful that field studies in the

Philippines not only taught for research, but also for life, foremost teaching laughing for

resilience. In this sense, “salamat po” and “Danke”


1 Introduction

“It’s about the implementation. It’s not about whether we should cut back in our greenhouse gas emissions. We’ve already said we will cut it! The question is how. How do we get there?” (iCSC)

In recent years, global climate politics has been experiencing a paradigm change, shifting

from a strong focus on the global level to sub-national levels (Jänicke, Schreurs & Töpfer

2015). While the debates about climate change have been dominated by the perception that

this global problem needs a global solution, the approach exploring local and regional

contributions, and applying a more multi-level (Sovacool 2011) and “polycentric” (Ostrom

2010) approach has been gaining popularity. “[These approaches] regard the plurality of

actors and levels and the complexity of their interactions not as obstacles but rather as an

opportunity for […] supporting policy instruments” (Jänicke, Schreurs & Töpfer 2015:3). The

final declaration of the recent United Nations climate negotiations in Marrakech, the COP22,

has been heralding „a shift towards a new era of implementation and action on climate and

sustainable development” (Marrakech Action Proclamation 2016). A major cornerstone of this

“new era of implementation” are also the sub-national levels, as this approach has

increasingly been gaining ground. Such trends illustrate the potential of sub-national levels

for climate action; the local level forms the focus of this research.

The Philippine political system is built on decentralized structures with a strong emphasis on

local empowerment and autonomy. Many local climate action and planning processes for

climate are recorded thanks to a pioneering national framework legislation on climate policy.

The Climate Change Act (CCA), passed in 2009, paved the way to formulate climate plans and

mainstream climate change in local plans. In addition, a National Climate Change Action Plan

(NCCAP) was adopted for the period of 2011 to 2028 that entails a series of targets for local

governments. The research conducted for this study, however, reveals that the

implementation of climate policy at the local level could be accelerated through


improvements in coordination, both horizontally as well as vertically1. In this light, this study

explores the role of coordination of local climate planning by integrating perspectives and

insights from multiple levels.

Considering the country-specific characteristics of the Philippines, the level of urgency to act

on climate change is extremely high. In 2013, the Philippines was identified as the country

most affected by climate change (Germanwatch 2012). The incidence of extreme weather

events, such as heavy rainfall and typhoons, is increasing, and a number of coastal regions

are already reporting rises in sea level. Consequentially, the Philippines can expect more

severe impacts country-wide and throughout its economy, while the poorer population

groups that rely on an interact environment for their livelihoods are affected the most (World

Bank 2013). At the same time, the Philippines account one of the fastest population growth

rates in the world (World Bank 2013) and face strong urbanization that increase the

importance of mitigation.

Climate events and climate prediction, has unleashed enormous forces for ambitious climate

targets on several levels. At the international level, the Philippine government has pledged to

reduce at least 70 percent of GHG emissions by 20302 as part of its Intended Nationally

Determined Contribution (INDC) under the UNFCCC Paris Agreement signed in December

2015 (Philippine's INDC 2015). While this target is conditioned by the extent that financial

resources will be made available to the Philippines, the pledge represents the second highest

reduction worldwide (Climate Action Tracker 2016). This condition combined with a partial

prevailing lack of technical, personnel, and financial capacity make development cooperation

crucial to the Philippine climate arena and is therefore are also examined in this study.

Such international target can only be achieved in cooperation with sub-national levels. In the

Philippines, the Climate Change Act mandates all Local Government Units (LGUs) to

undertake climate planning:

The LGUs shall be the frontline agencies in the formulation, planning and implementation of climate

change action plans in their respective areas, consistent with the provisions of the Local

Government Code, the Framework, and the National Climate Change Action Plan. (CCA, Section 14)

1 In this study, horizontal coordination refers to coordination between national institutions, central-central

relations, whereas vertical coordination relates to coordination between the national and the local level,

central-local relations. These terminologies will be used interchangeably.

2 carbon dioxide and relative to its “business as usual” scenario of 2000-2030


On the whole, alarming climate developments and bold international and local targets

demand a strong climate policy development and implementation. Therefore, as already

indicated, the national government developed a comprehensive framework legislation on

climate policy that provides a form of a local climate planning framework. In the Philippines,

local climate planning implies actions in the field of Climate Change Adaptation and

Mitigation (CCAM) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). To narrow the focus of this research,

mainly the field of climate change is investigated. Local climate planning is mainly based on

the CCA and the NCCAP and consists of three local plans, and various tools and guidelines

that are implemented by different institutions. So far the yield of this framework for climate

planning has been moderate; results of this research indicate that about 10 to 30 percent of

the LGUs are active on climate planning. Yet, climate planning is fundamental to adapt and

mitigate the ever increasing climate change and the NCCAP envisions every Philippine local

government to have a Local Climate Change Action Plan (LCCAP) in place by 2017.

This begs the question what hinders local governments to undertake necessary climate

planning? Conversations with LGU representatives and experts on climate policy and

planning from various levels revealed a general overload with climate planning processes due

to various causes. A significant barrier often cited is a lack of coordination that to some

extent causes confusion on the ground. A report on the Philippine climate policy conducted

by the World Bank (2013:31) stated that an “[i]nsufficient execution through vertical and

horizontal institutional coordination prevents effective implementation of the current climate

agenda”. In the same line, Al Gore (2016) highlighted the gap that often occurs between

targets and planning during a climate training in Manila.

Immersing into policy implementation theory, the demand for coordination is widely

emphasized. One of the oldest but still not antiquated study about policy implementation by

Pressman & Wildavsky (1984:133) states: “No phrase expresses as frequent a complaint about

the federal government as does ‘lack of coordination’. No suggestion for reform is more

common than ‘what we need is more coordination’”. Hence, coordination is one of the key

determinant for successful policy implementation and according to Gordon (2015:136) even

the “ultimate goal of climate governance”.


To shed light on the stagnant implementation of climate policy at the local level in the

Philippines, this research examines the role of coordination by employing policy

implementation theory and coordination theory, together with additional insight from multi-

level governance to reflect on the different levels involved. Understanding how coordination

performs and affects local climate planning processes is essential for its effective

management, and taking it a step further, to the implementation of climate policy. This

interest triggered the following research questions:

How is coordination of local climate planning produced and sustained? Why do

coordination issues occur and how can they be addressed?

While pursuing these questions, two hypotheses on particular aspects of coordination in

policy implementation will be elaborated and discussed. Therefore, the two conceptual

elements, interdependence and institutions, borrowed from coordination theory as indicated

by Leite & Buainain (2013) are used to deepen theoretical understanding. According to the

authors, the concepts have a significant impact on the dynamics of coordination and their

consideration helps to better understand coordination, hence providing a vital ground to

discuss the research questions.

This study refers greatly to a review of the Philippine climate policy “Getting a Grip on

Climate Change in the Philippines”3, prepared by the World Bank in 2013. Furthermore, the

work “The Power to Change? How Multi-level Governance Structures Affect Renewable

Energy Development in Southeast Asia”4 by Marquardt from 2015 addressed the question

how coordination between multiple jurisdictional levels affect renewable energy development

in the Philippines by applying a multi-level governance approach. These studies provided

scientifically founded results for this research and shaped this master’s thesis textually and

methodologically. Thus, this study intends to expand on these threads with more in-depth

insights from local climate planning. Due to the fact that not much research has been carried

out on Philippine climate policy and, to the extent known, none details the coordination of

climate policy with respect to local climate planning; this research contributes to fill an

important research gap.

3 World Bank 2013. Getting a Grip on Climate Change in the Philippines: Extended Technical Report.

Washington D.C.

4 Marquardt, Jens 2015. The Power to Change? How Multi-level Governance Structures Affect Renewable

Energy Development in Southeast Asia. Freie Universität Berlin.


For the analytical framework of this study, a grounded theory approach is applied. Following

a qualitative, exploratory, and interpretive research strategy, the in-depth case study on

climate policy implementation processes in the Philippines is analyzed by means of twenty

semi-structured expert interviews and one focus group both conducted in the Philippines.

Overall aim and audience of this research

Against this background, the overall aim of this research is to examine the status quo of the

implementation of local climate policy with special focus on the role of coordination.

Moreover, it intends to contribute to the determination of factors that hinders effective

coordination of local climate planning, by which starting points for improvement and

streamlining of the framework may be identified.

The audience of this research is manifold. In the first place, it targets academics interested in

the implementation of the Philippine climate policy, and in particular, in role of coordination

of local climate planning. In the second place, Philippine climate policy makers, development

cooperation practitioners, and civil society actors in the field should be able to make use of

this research given its provision of an in-depth analysis of local climate planning that may be

further used.

Outline

This master’s thesis is divided into six parts. After the introduction, the theoretical and

analytical framework of this research will be presented in the second chapter. Starting by

outlining the grounded theory method together with the iterative approach that were

applied to this research, the following sections introduce the multi-level governance

perspective and arguments from the theories of policy implementation and coordination.

Based on arguments of these research streams, the research questions and hypotheses of this

study are presented.

The third chapter provides an overview of the methodology developed for this research. The

methodical approach is set out, comprising of interpretive, qualitative, and exploratory

elements, which is followed by an explanation of the case study research and case study


selection. Then, the research instruments ranging from semi-structured expert interviews to a

focus group to document review and analysis are presented. The chapter ends with an

explanation of the methods used to analyze the qualitative data and the compilation of the

research design.

Chapter four presents the empirical results of the in-depth case study. This precedes

contextual information about the Philippines, the climate policy agenda and the status of

local climate planning. Then the four factors of this investigation are examined in respect of

coordination, comprising of the policy framework, the institutional framework, coordination

mechanisms, and the planning framework of local climate planning.

The fifth chapter provides a discussion of the empirical results by reflecting central insights

gained in light of the research design and the given hypotheses. In this course, reflections on

the empiricism, the theory and methodology are shared.

Finally, chapter six, contains a conclusion of this master’s thesis by pointing out overall

results, limitations of the research approach, and recommendations for further research.


2 Theory and Analytical Framework

This chapter will present the theories used to examine the role of coordination in the

implementation of climate policy. Before doing this, the analytical framework developed for

this research will be presented, building on grounded theory method and the iterative

approach by applying a multi-level governance perspective. After that, a general introduction

to policy implementation theory is given, followed by a more detailed examination of

coordination theory, including the presentation of the two concepts, interdependence and

institutions as indicated by Leite & Buainain (2013). While discussing critical aspects of these

theories, the origin of the research questions and the derivation of the hypotheses will be

shown.

2.1 Grounded Theory Method and Iterative Approach to Research

Grounded theory, pursuant to the understanding of Glaser & Strauss (1967) and Esterberg

(2002) was used to develop the theoretical framework of this study. For this reason, it is

presented in this chapter, although it is primarily a methodological approach to qualitative

research than a theory per se or a single method.

According to Esterberg (2002), the grounded theory approach is guided by the philosophy to

begin research by analyzing the empirical world and, as a result, develop a theory consistent

with what is seen. This stands in contrast to begin research with a particular theory and then

looking at the empirical world to see if the theory is supported by the findings or not

(Esterberg 2002). Consequently, with the grounded theory approach rather new theories are

developed, instead of testing and verifying prevailing theories. Figure 1 illustrates this

method.


Figure 1 Grounded Theory Approach Scheme

(illustration by Esterberg 2002)

Despite the iterative nature of the grounded theory approach, this was strongly intertwined

with an iterative approach to research. This approach intends a cyclic process of going back

and forth between the theoretical framework and data. As Reichertz (2007) suggests, it

involves developing the general theoretical framework prior to the fieldwork, but updating

and fine-tuning it to incorporate insights from the empiricism.

Applied to this thesis, the theoretical framework was developed in an inductive and

explorative way by means of a relatively open data collection and assumptions derived from

the field research in the Philippines. Following these two approaches, the theoretical

framework was constantly further developed in response to the empirical insights acquired.

In order to expand the findings from the relatively open data collection, theoretical insights

were deployed in an iterative mode, forming the major rationale behind this intertwined

approach.

The initial discovery in the field, the burden of local governments with local climate planning

imposed by the national government, made it evident to move within the realms of

implementation theory from a multi-level governance perspective. Guided by theoretical

insights from these theories, the field research, then, revealed the key role of coordination in

the implementation processes and its effects on local climate planning. As a theoretical

implication, the focus of this thesis shifted from general implementation theory to

coordination theory.


In a further step, four relevant factors for the in-depth analysis of coordination of local

climate planning could be designated: (1) the policy framework, (2) the institutional

framework, (3) coordination mechanisms, and (4) the local planning framework. They are

reflected in the results part with a section for each factor.

As mentioned above, a relatively open data collection was carried out for this research. In

practice, this meant wide-ranging discussions on implementation processes of local climate

policy in a multi-level governance context. Though the range of discussions were segmented

into five topic area, emerged from theory and practice: (1) Priorities, (2) Tools and Training,

(3) Coordination and Communication, (4) Implementation and, (5) Monitoring, Reporting, and

Evaluation.

All in all, the use of the grounded theory method and iterative approach to research for

theory building was shaped by three aspects:

(1) The high degree of complexity of the chosen research topic: The theoretical approach

helped to identify the study focus, coordination, as well as relevant aspects that influence

coordination of local climate planning in the Philippines.

(2) The limited range of literature on the topic: The lack of literature on local climate planning

limited the approaches for hypothesizing and made it more necessary to develop own

theoretical thoughts.

(3) The acknowledgment of country-specific factors: The theoretical approach, and grounded

theory in particular, allowed to analyze specific factors of the Philippine climate landscape

and balanced possible bias that could have arisen due to a differing socio-cultural

background by the author.

To summarize, following these approaches to research, a theoretical framework could be

devised that assured to study a relevant topic and enabled an in-depth analysis of this topic.

2.2 Multi-level Governance Perspective

Both the national Philippine climate policy and the local climate planning framework are set

in a complex system, as the results part will demonstrate. Such systems and frameworks are

and will be produced through actions by a variety of authorities and actors at various levels.

In the case of the Philippines, this is anchored in a regime that has been established over


decades and consists of decision-making bodies at national and sub-national level. In order

to reflect this reality in the research and to understand such a complex system, multi-level

governance offers a useful analytical concept.

According to Enderlein et al. (2010:4), multi-level governance can be defined as follows: “[A]

set of general-purpose or functional jurisdictions that enjoy some degree of autonomy within

a common governance arrangement and whose actors claim to engage in an enduring

interaction in pursuit of a common good”. In the context of this study, local climate planning

is understood as such “common good” (Enderlein, Wälti & Zürn 2010) and, hence, the multi-

level governance perspective allows a more holistic examination of the research topic by

looking at the interaction between different levels. In doing this, the examination focuses on

the national and local level of government, which is supplemented by consideration of non-

state and non-governmental actors from civil society, academia, and international

cooperation. By this means, the horizontal same as the vertical dimension of multi-level

governance are investigated. This approach is affirmed by Marquardt (2015:88), who studied

the Philippine energy sector: “[M]ulti-level governance matters, because environmental or

energy issues are not left alone to national government planning, but are shaped by global

and subnational decisions.”

In the course of constructing the theoretical framework of this study, multi-level governance

served as the starting point, and relevant aspects of the theories of policy implementation

and coordination were worked into the framework subsequently. In this line, the research is

built upon multi-level governance in its broader sense as an analytical framework, not as a

coherent concept or a theory.

2.3 Policy Implementation Theory

"Implementation is no longer solely about getting what you once wanted but, instead, it is

about what you have since learned to prefer until, of course, you change your mind again" (

(Browne & Wildavsky 1984:234). With this definition of policy implementation, Browne &

Wildavsky clearly demonstrate its vast complexity by addressing the possible divide of initial

implementation intentions and intention that arise during implementation processes through

learning. Mazmanian & Sabatier (1983:20–21) provide another comprehensive, though not

less complex, definition:


Implementation is the carrying out of a basic policy decision, usually incorporated in a statute but

which can also take the form of important executive orders or court decisions. Ideally, that decision

identifies the problem(s) to be addressed, stipulates the objectivc(s) to be pursued, and, in a variety

of ways, "structures" the implementation process. The process normally runs through a number of

stages beginning with passage of the basic statute, followed by the policy outputs (decisions) of the

implementing agencies, the compliance of target groups with those decisions, the actual impacts of

agency decisions, and, finally, important revisions (or attempted revisions) in the basic statute.

Scholars, such as deLeon (2002), have identified three generations of policy implementation

research. The first generation, ranging from the early 1970s to the 1980s, generally

constituted case study analyses with a detailed evaluation of discrepancies between a defined

policy and its executed action. The second generation, referred to as top-down perspective,

went a great step further by offering a series of institutional and commitment-oriented

hypotheses that assumed a command and control orientation. The quest for sound

hypotheses that include top-down and bottom-up perspectives mainly shaped the scientific

discourse between the 1980s to the 1990s. The third generation of policy implementation

research, emerged in 1990 and onwards, strives to be more scientific and build

implementation theories. Critical scholars like Paudel do not see that this has been realized

yet (2009). (deLeon & deLeon 2002:468–473)

The definitions, as well as the history of implementation research, show the difficulty to

master implementation, practically as well as theoretically. Besides modest progress in theory

building, deLeon (2002:489) notes three key learnings from policy implementation theory:

If we have learned little else from past decades of policy implementation studies, we should have

learned that one size never fits all, that context matters, and that when we face an extremely

complex condition, we are better off if we try to understand the particular issues than if we propose

some form of generic metatheory.

Mazmanian & Sabatier (1983) see the key task of implementation analysis in the

identification of factors that affect the achievement of statutory objectives throughout the

entire process. Linking these insights to the given case of this study, the meaning of caring

out an in-depth analysis becomes strongly evident.

Further preliminary findings from field research gave rise to analyze the role of coordination,

as it influences the implementation processes in the Philippines. Hence, the following section

will discuss theoretical insights from coordination theory as a subtopic of implementation

theory.


2.4 Coordination Theory

Coordination is a crucial determining factor for success in the implementation of public

policies. According to Leite & Buainain (2013:137), the vast majority of public policies involve

the sharing of responsibility among different organizations for their implementation, such as

agencies of federal and state governments, private organizations, and civil society

organizations. This makes policy implementation a “fragmented process” and its

management requires and depends on coordination (Leite & Buainain 2013:136).

In the widespread notion, coordination is understood as rule-regulated and hierarchically

organized. A look at writings of Rogers et al. (1982) provides the definition that coordination

is a legitimating mechanism used by those involved to divide up the territory and mutually

work to prevent the entry of competition, and to dampen costly innovation.

Its nature, likewise to policy implementation, is very complex and demanding. In the context

of the given case, it is important to note that the management of policies like climate policy

pose particular, and moreover, new challenges for coordination to governments, due to their

highly cross-cutting nature. In response to the greater complexity of policy management,

Leite & Buainain (2013:137) recognize a demand for more flexible, inclusive and adaptable

mechanisms in the policy arena. In addition, Leite & Buainain notice an increased relevance

for coordination as changes and reforms in the public sphere significantly elevated the

complexity of public-sector actions (2013:137). In the same line, Cohen concludes (2007) on

recent developments stating that the state is no longer the only actor in public policy

management, and a complex set of organizations interact during the policy processes.

As coordination theory in itself contains extensive knowledge, the analysis of this research

focuses on two fundamental concepts: interdependence and institutions. In an effort to

contribute to the development of a “framework [that is] able to effectively explain and

prescribe the proper manner of program coordination”, Leite & Buainain (2013), identified

the two concepts. Hereafter, seminal contributions of the two concepts of coordination that

enriched the theoretical framework of this research are briefly cited.


Interdependence

The concept of interdependence as indicated by Leite & Buainain (2013) is helpful to

understand the complexity involving coordination in practice. As indicated above, policy

implementation is shaped by a magnitude of interdependences with specific levels of

complexity in the interaction between actors that raises very diverse claims on the processes

of coordination. Lindblom (1965) provides an apt description of the interdependence in

political processes:

Within the group, each decision maker is so related to every other decision maker that unless he

deliberately avoids doing so (which may or may not be possible), he interferes with or contributes

to the goal achievement of each other decision maker, either by direct impact, or through a chain of

effects that reach any given decision maker only through effects on others.

This description illustrates well how every actor involved, regardless their authority or level,

has the ability to influence each other’s choices and interests, and therewith to a certain

degree the entire process. Leite & Buainain (2013:152) conclude on this realization stating

that “if the actors can influence each other and if no single actor controls the choices made

by others, interdependence inevitably entails uncertainty“. Thus, the central idea behind the

concept of interdependence is to question how uncertainty can be reduced to an acceptable

level by means of structured coordination of the behaviors of the most relevant actors or

organizations (Alexander 1993).

Institutions

Institutions, as the second concept identified by Leite & Buainain (2013), is useful to

understand the consolidation of individual and organizational behavior that is decisive to

coordination. Institutions are here defined as social constructions that become sedimented in

processes and endow social life with stability and meaning (Berger & Luckmann 1966:53), and

as “socially shared patterns of behaviour and/or of thought” (Dequech 2009:70). Thus, the

central assumption of the concept is that “socially shared practices and interactions among

the individuals, groups and organizations involved in policy implementation influence the

level of coordination achieved” (Leite & Buainain 2013:153). In this context, the authors make

the following point that is relevant for this study:


[T]he organization’s formal and informal structures […] constitute an institutional framework (rules,

standards, and conventions) that gives rise to formal and informal coordination mechanisms which

shape the behaviour of implementation agents.5 (Leite & Buainain 2013:154)

Against this background, Gupta et al. (1994) highlight that coordination is more likely to

succeed if a “common logic” is shared among organizations. Thus, the authors conclude:

Thus, once the parties have become “accustomed” to interacting, their judgments, views and

behaviours become more standardized and this gives rise to interaction routines for liaison among

organizations. Through these routines, known problems are linked to known options for action and

choices are simplified. (Leite & Buainain 2013:154)

An additional emphasis in the concept of institutions is put on the circumstance that the

construction of an institutional foundation takes time:

[I]t is important to note that the construction of this institutional foundation through the

consolidation of standards and conventions is a slow process and also subject to institutional

changes. (Leite & Buainain 2013:154)

These two concepts originate from coordination theory are used to deepen the

understanding of coordination in the implementation of local climate planning. Looking

concretely at coordination and referring to the concepts for the in-depth analysis resulted

out of the interim evaluation guided by the analytical approach.

2.5 Deriving the Research Questions and Hypotheses

The angle from which coordination is analyzed in this study arose from the examination of

the critique of policy implementation theory and coordination theory. Despite the fact that

policy implementation can be judged as very general, a major criticism concerns its focus on

negative events.

[T]he "less than success" tattoo is pervasive […]. Even for those scholarly studies that purposely encompass a wide range of implementation activities, many of which were successful, the emphasis

is generally on the less successful. (deLeon & deLeon 2002:477)

Such focus on negative events can easily distort results, and it is open to debate if a “flood”

of evaluation of negative events breeds a high degree of motivation for improvement.

5 Formal mechanisms comprise of organization design, hierarchy; planning and formal contracts, and

informal mechanisms comprise of bargaining and accommodation, informal communication channels,

bargains, norms of reciprocity and informal agreements, as defined by Leite & Buainain (2013).


Beyond that, Gordon (2015)6 observes in policy evaluation a disproportionate focus on “why”

coordination turns into a success or failure, with largely overlooking “how” coordination is

actually practiced.

[S]uccessful coordination may […] depend on the way in which they are brought together, with the

capacity to sustain coordinated climate governance resting on the ability to hold them together

over time in a stable, if “uneasy,” equilibrium. (Gordon 2015:122)

In fact, Gordon (2015) considers coordination as the “ultimate goal” of climate governance

and suggests giving more attention to “the crucial questions of how coordination is

produced and sustained”. The insight into the theories of policy implementation and

coordination together with Gordon’s appeal, inspired to pose the following research

questions for this master’s thesis:

How is coordination of local climate planning produced and sustained? Why do coordination

issues occur and how can they be addressed?

The second research question stems from the rather traditional approach to policy

implementation theory that values the evaluation of programs as key to good

implementation (Mazmanian & Sabatier 1983; Browne & Wildavsky 1984). By evaluating they

expect to assess implemented programs that lead to the formulation of suggestion how they

can be improved, as deLeon summarized (2002:475).

In light of the above-stated considerations, coordination of local climate planning will be

assessed in order to develop theoretical and practical implications. This unfolds the grounded

theory and iterative approach to this research: Where on the one hand, the grounded theory

approach enabled to identify from empiricism one of the crucial factors that influences the

implementation processes of local climate policy – coordination. And on the other hand, a

more theory-based approach based on policy implementation theory and coordination

theory provides relevant arguments for a detailed analysis of the empirical results including

two concepts – interdependence and institutions. The results are drawn from both

approaches applied in an iterative manner. Multi-level governance provides, therefore, an

analytical framework by incorporating theoretical and empirical insights from different levels.

6 Gordon’s cited literature addresses coordination of climate governance in federated systems. The Philippines is a unitary state with some powers devolved to local governments under the terms of the Local

Government Code. Nevertheless, the cited arguments were found to be eligible and enriching by the author.


By means of this operation the following hypotheses for effective implementation of climate

policy at the local level and, consequently, for local climate planning were set out:

Hypothesis 1: A shared “common logic” among implementing institutions produced through

coordination leads to policy and planning coherence. Coherence in policy and planning enables

effective implementation, as it develops a unified approach.

The notion “common logic” by Gupta et al. (1994) traces back to the earlier cited insight that

Leite & Buainain (2013) used to elaborate on the concept of institutions. Based on Gupta et

al. (1994) they recap that “if a “common logic” is shared among organizations, coordination is

more likely to occur without interrupting their routines”. This hypothesis takes this thought a

step further, arguing that a “common logic” produced through coordination leads also to

coherence in policy and planning. In this context, a “common logic” is understood as a state

when the implementing institutions support only one approach to the implementation.

Effective implementation refers here to a planning reality on the ground that is marked by

less planning approaches and confusion. As pointed out by clarifying the used terms, this

hypothesis is derived from coordination theory perspective on climate policy implementation

and involves particularly central-central relations. It is based on the presumption of a lack of

coherence in policy and planning that hampers local climate planning.

Hypothesis 2: A more integrative and inclusive approach to policy and planning produced

through coordination lead to a simplification of the local climate planning system and build

understanding. Simplification and better understanding would stimulate local planning and

therewith improve implementation.

This hypothesis is derived from two observations in the field: For one, it appears that there is

a relatively large number of tools for local climate planning in place. These tools appear to be

partly duplicative and in some case not aligned, causing extra efforts for LGUs. New tools for

climate planning are often stimulated through development cooperation. Secondly, it looks

like there is a disconnect between the national and local level that appears to prevent mutual

understanding. Hence, this hypothesis concentrates on donors and local governments,

involving horizontal and vertical coordination. Both observations, if valid, entail potential to

improve local climate planning. This hypothesis is derived from the empirical data guided by

the grounded theory approach and can be classified as coordination theory from a multi-

level perspective.


3 Methodology and Research Design

This chapter gives a detailed explanation of the methodology that served as the basis to

elaborate and discuss the research questions and the hypotheses. First, the epistemological

positioning will be shared, consisting of an interpretative approach, and qualitative and

exploratory research. This is followed by discussing case study research and how this case

study was selected. It then introduces the research instruments used to collect data covering

the semi-structured expert interviews, a focus group session, and document review. In

addition, the qualitative data analysis behind this research will be presented, clarifying how

the data treatment was conducted including the coding. Afterward, an overview of the

research process intends to provide additional transparency on the research. Finally, the

research design will be compiled.

3.1 Interpretative Approach

The basis of the methodological framework developed for this master’s thesis stems from

interpretative research philosophy. The interpretative approach to research builds on the

assumption of the existence of intrinsic links between objects and their interpretation by

“meaningful actors” (Della Porta & Keating 2008:24). Based on this assumption, Della Porta &

Keating (2008:24) encourage scholars to “aim at discovering the meaning that motivate[s] [...]

actions rather than relying on universal laws external to the actors”.

Applied to this study, it implies that the topic – the implementation processes of local climate

policy – needs to be understood contextually, and in doing this, the actors involved need to

be examined. By dealing with this topic, it is argued that the implementation processes are

influenced by coordination deficits. Looking at the actors and their actions, for example, it is

assumed that none of the actors discussed here are dealing inefficiently and/or

uncooperatively on purpose. The applied interpretative approach acknowledges that their

actions are mainly influenced by complex social conditions that need to be illuminated in

order to understand the topic. For the given case, this demands qualitative data and detailed

contextual examinations. Such have been generated through semi-structured expert

interviews, a focus group and document review and analysis, as section 3.4 details.


This was combined with the iterative approach to research (section 2.1), where the conceptual

framework and empirical research “are interlinked with continuous feedback” (Della Porta

& Keating 2008:29). Studying a phenomenon from an interpretative perspective is contrary to

strictly positivistic and constructivist approaches. Also acknowledged is the subjectivity of the

author, and generalization that may contribute to social science research are formulated

cautiously.

3.2 Qualitative and Exploratory Research

In response to the interpretive perspective applied to this research, the methodological

framework comprises of qualitative and explorative research to gain an understanding of the

role of coordination in the implementation processes of climate policy at the local level.

Given the complex nature of this topic, it needs in-depth insights to explore it. Studying such

phenomena only by observation and literature most likely fails to grasp the whole picture

and to develop explanatory power. Quantitative research approaches have the power to pick

out central themes and stress certain relations, but in order to explain a social or political

phenomenon, quantitative research alone is not appropriate. Yet “neither quantitative nor

qualitative research is superior to the other” (King, Keohane & Verba 1994:5). Social scientists

are largely united in the view that both scientific approaches can greatly benefit from each

other.

The scholars King, Keohane & Verba (1994:4) share the notion that “qualitative researchers

generally unearth enormous amounts of information from their studies”, even if they deal

with a small number cases or just one case only. Thus, they conclude, “to be discursive in

method, and to be concerned with a rounded or comprehensive account of some event or

unit” one or a small number of cases tend to be used (King, Keohane & Verba 1994:4). Major

shortcoming of qualitative research is the difficulty to replicate it by other researchers in

contrast to quantitative measurements and statistics. This constraint accounts also for this

study. To balance this characteristic of qualitative research, this chapter tries to increase the

transparency by specifying the methodology that was developed and applied.

In addition, this study makes use of an exploratory research approach in line with the

grounded theory approach as well as the interpretive approach to research. This exploratory

research approach is often applied in the situation of limited knowledge, preventing to make

conceptual distinctions or posit an explanatory relationship (Shields & Rangarajan 2013).


Such was the case for this research, which formed the rationale behind the use of exploratory

research. Explorative research intends to discover a theory from the data rather from pre-

defined hypotheses. This is also true for this research and was supported by the approached

ground theory method. Thus, definitive conclusions are certainly drawn very cautiously. In

this line, the selection of the theories employed, policy implementation theory and

coordination theory together with insights from multi-level governance resulted out of the

empirical data. The set of hypotheses emerged out of the reflection of both theory and data,

guided by the iterative approach to research.

Applying these epistemologies, the study aims at discovering conditions for effective

coordination of climate policy implementation that stimulates theoretical and practical

reflections, along with methodological findings. To obtain the data that meet the criteria

mentioned above, the research instruments in-depth expert interviews, focus group, and

document review were used. Therefore rather unquantifiable data stands at the forefront of

attention. However, some quantitative data are been used to strengthen the argumentation.

3.3 Case Study Research and Selection

Case studies, as a qualitative method (Yin 2009), can look back on a long tradition and

provide the frame for empirical research in this study. The case of this study is the Philippine,

specifically, the country’s policy networks dealing with the coordination of local climate

planning. This categorization builds on Ragin’s discussion of what a case actually is (Ragin

& Becker 1992:4–5). To be more concise, the case will be referred simply as „Philippines“.

Addressing specifically the topic coordination of local climate planning resulted from the

findings in the field, guided by the grounded theory approach (section 2.1). In doing this, the

case study research is used to understand the complex system of its implementation. Taking

this a step further by using local climate planning in the Philippines as a case study, the

research analyzes vertical (central-central relations) and horizontal (central-local relations)

coordination for (climate) policy implementation at the local level in the Philippines.

According to Yin (2009:1), case studies shall be the preferred method when

“(a) ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are being posed,

(b) the investigator has little control over events, and

(c) the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context.”


All these factors account for this research, even though the research questions was not

defined when the decision to use a case study was made. However, the generalization of

findings from case studies must be seen critically. The high number of variables that are

specific to every single case makes it difficult to derive valid hypotheses for other cases. For

this reason, generalizations were formulated with great caution.

The selection of this country roots in the interest of the author to undertake research in

Southeast Asia. This region is already significantly affected by climate change as the rise of

the sea demonstrates: “Globally, sea levels have risen faster than at any time during the

previous two millennia – and the effects are felt in South Asia” (IPCC 2014). Following the

United Nations climate meetings over the last decade, the Philippines stood out several times

for their strong leadership and ambitious position on climate protection.

As one of the most vulnerable nations to the adverse effects of climate change, the Philippines is

considered a moral leader on the issues and has been calling for swift, ambitious action at

international level for many years. (Gore 2016)

Another criterion for the selection of the case was that a certain amount of data on the

broader topic is available on which this study can build. In recent years a small number of

studies on climate policy in the Philippines have been prepared, providing a foundation for

further research. However, as this number of studies is proportionally small, gave more

reason to select the Philippines for research. Furthermore, second to Tagalog, English is the

most widely used language in the country, diminishing the communication barrier. Lastly,

during a conference on climate action in Hanover7 a personal connection made the contact

to members of the UN-HABITAT Philippines. The contact opened up exchange about possible

research and led to an official affiliation. The affiliation held out the prospect of access to the

field that constituted the most important criterion for the selection of this case study.

3.4 Research Instruments: Data Collection

As mentioned above, case study research constitutes the frame for empirical research in this

study to understand and discuss Philippine local climate planning. To do this in an

appropriate manner, it needs case specific research instruments that have the power to

develop validity. This is seen in the following three qualitative methods: The main sources of

information stemmed from a series of semi-structured expert interviews and a focus group,

7 International Conference on Climate Action (ICCA) 2015, 1./2. October, Hanover


both carried out during field research in the Philippines in the period from January to April

2016. Further sources of information were derived through analysis of documents like laws

and handbooks. This data were collected and treated with theoretical insights from policy

implementation theory and coordination theory based on the grounded theory approach and

iterative approach to research.

The research project was embedded in the project Vertical Integration and Learning for Low-

Emission Development in Africa and Southeast Asia (V-LED), run by the German public policy

consultancy adelphi and one of the implementing partners, the United Nations Human

Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) in the Philippines in Manila. During the course of

research, a fruitful working relationship with the UN-HABITAT and adelphi has been

established. This relation, however, was limited, and the research was conducted

independently. As such, all interviews were conducted by the author only.

The following sections will illuminate the research instruments in more detail by presenting

the three methods, describing how they were applied for this research, and which limitations

they have.

3.4.1 Semi-structured Expert Interviews

The core of the data collection for this study is made of a series of twenty semi-structured

expert interviews. These interviews were conducted in the Philippines during field research in

the period from January to April 2016. The objective of the interviews was to gain an

understanding of the complex implementation processes of climate policy and in particular

the coordination of local climate planning.

The interviewees represent relevant stakeholders of the implementation processes of local

climate policy and/or local climate planning. Based on the multi-level governance perspective

that was applied to this research, the interviewees embody positions of the national, regional

and local governments of the Philippines, together with voices from local and international

non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, and academia. The

following table 1 provides an overview of the different levels and stakeholder groups

approached, along with the quantity. Despite the level, the majority of the national

institutions work also on sub-national levels.


Table 1: Levels of Operation or Groups of Actors

Based on the results of the interviews, the majority of the most important institutions for the

implementation of climate policy at the local level and the coordination of local climate

planning are covered with the interviews. However, the representation from municipal local

governments and less financially sound local governments is deficient. In addition, the results

of the research stressed to discuss the role of development cooperation in the coordination

of the local climate planning, but no interview was conducted with an aid agency

representative, apart from the UN-HABITAT that can function similarly, being an

intergovernmental organization.

The selection of the experts for the interviews was mainly based on recommendations and

contacts of the UN-HABITAT as well as snowball system with recommendations from the

already interviewed experts. The appendix contains an extensive list of the interview partners

(appendix I). The semi-structured expert interviews were carried out by means of interview

guides. Appendix II contains exemplary one interview guide used for the national level, and

another interview guide used for the local level. To reflect the different backgrounds of the


interview partners along with different perspectives, each interview was complemented with

questions specific to the stakeholder group. The interview length averaged one and a half to

two hours. The interviews were recorded, coded, and assessed by means of qualitative data

analysis, as section 3.3 explains.

Apart from the conducted interviews, informative consultations with UN-HABITAT and

adelphi were regularly undertaken throughout the whole project time frame from January to

December 2016. These were used to further understand the complex research topic and to

develop a suitable research design to scientifically address the problem. In addition, for the

latter, constant exchange with the first supervisor Prof. Dr. Miranda Schreurs was crucial,

together with input from the second supervisor Prof. Dr. Weidner.

In this study, every statement of the interviewees is cited with the respective institution they

belong to, indicated in parentheses behind the comment. In the case of a number of

institutions the reference refers to more than one person, as the interview was conducted

with more than one person from this institution. This is the case for CCC, DILG Region IV-A,

HLURB, ICLEI, iCSC, LGA, NEDA and Santa Rosa City. Beyond that with CCC, iCSC, Santa Rosa

City and UN-HABITAT two interviews were conducted.

Overall, it can be stated, that the qualitative expert interviews provided profound insights into

local climate planning in the Philippines. However, interviews involve the difficulty of

potential selection bias. Just as difficult are biases stemming from the author’s own personal

reflections on the data.

3.4.2 Focus Group

Besides the series of expert interviews, one focus group was conducted to extend the data

collection. A focus group is a frequently utilized method in qualitative research, accomplished

by forming a group of individuals that engage in a guided discussion of some topic. Lindlof

& Taylor (2002:182) describe that within focus groups, members participate in “a kind of

‘chaining’ or ‘cascading’ effect; talk links to, or tumbles out of, the topics and expressions

preceding it”, known as the group effect.

The focus group for this study was conducted, the same way as the interviews, during field

research in the Philippines. Held in the City of Santa Rosa (Laguna) on 16 March 2016, it took


one and a half hours. The session took place in the course of a dialogue event8 organized by

the UN-HABITAT and adelphi, under the title “5 x 5 x 5 Challenge: Improving Local Climate

Change Planning”. The participants involved approximately 40 persons, predominantly

representatives from LGUs in the region of Laguna along with some national government

representatives and actors from civil society and development cooperation. Pursuant to

stakeholder groups of the interviewees, the composition of the participants followed the

multi-level governance approach. Though, the participants were selected and invited by the

organizers of the event and not by the author. A copy of the attendance list can be found in

the appendix (appendix VI).

The focus group stood in the middle of the data collection and, at this stage, served to widen

the insight into challenges and opportunities that actors in the field experience with local

climate planning. The decision to design the session in the format of a ‘challenge’ was made

in consultation with UN-HABITAT, aiming to engage the participants as much as possible.

Overall, the focus group was set up to develop concrete approaches to tackle identified

issues in order to strengthen local climate planning. Based on preliminary results from the

interviews and theory review, five thematic fields were compiled: (1) priorities, (2) tools and

training, (3) coordination and communication, (4) implementation, and (5) monitoring,

reporting, and evaluation.

These fields were presented to the participants with the task to formulate respective

challenges, opportunities, and improvement measures. The work on the thematic fields took

place in working groups. Before presenting the results to the audience of the focus group,

they were collected in templates. For more detailed information, the templates can be found

in the appendix (appendix IV), together with a report about the focus group workshop

(appendix III). The design of the focus group followed the dual moderator approach where

one moderator was occupied to ensure a frictionless progress while another, in this case the

author, was focused on covering the topics (Kitzinger 1995). In addition to the outcome

templates and the report, the procedure of this focus group can be understood by studying

the guide that was developed to carry out the session (appendix V).

8 “Good Practice Exchange: Localizing National Climate Change Action Targets Through Implementation of

Mitigation Actions” (V-LED project)


Reflecting on the positive aspects of this focus group, extensive data in a relatively short

period of time have been compiled, and it can be assumed that the participants encouraged

each other in the generation of this data. Conversely, as with most focus groups, negative

aspects, such as possible generalizability and social desirability bias, must be acknowledged.

Similar to the qualitative research method interviews, focus groups involve the difficulty of

observer dependency that needs to be considered. This focus group session, nevertheless,

complemented the interviews as the collected data covered a wider range of LGUs and

representatives from aid agencies like the GIZ.

3.4.3 Document Review

Supplemental to the series of expert interviews and focus group, a range of documents were

reviewed. This review is comprised of relevant republic acts, memorandums of understanding

and guidebooks for local climate planning, among some other documents like newspaper

articles. This was absolutely required as some collected data from the interviews and the

focus group needed verification and completion.

In addition, diverse papers, studies, and reports were studied to develop the research design

and explain the context of the research topic. As envisaged by the iterative approach to

research, the document analysis was carried out throughout the research process at various

points. For example, certain documents were used during the preparation phase of the

interview and focus group guide, while others were used at a later stage, during the

evaluation of the collected data to open up further information.

3.3 Qualitative Data Analysis: Data Treatment

Qualitative data analysis was conducted to assess the data of this study. Followed in an

iterative mode (section 2.1), this continued throughout the entire process from reading over

the data collection until the interpretation of the generated data. In the course of this,

gaining an understanding of local climate planning and critical aspects of coordination was

the constant aim. The data analysis was done in a prudent interpretative manner, as

explained above in section 3.1.


Guided by Yin’s (2009:97) approach to elude biased results during qualitative data analysis,

this thesis followed the three basic principles:

(1) consideration of multiple sources of evidence;

(2) creation of a case study database to better compare various case studies; and

(3) maintenance of a chain of evidence to pursue particular arguments.

Regarding the first principle, the sources used for this thesis originate from a fairly wide array

and comprise of a series of expert interviews, one focus group event, a number of

documents, and various notes taken during the fieldwork. The second principle was

considered, but ultimately not appropriate as it goes beyond the scope. The study focuses on

one case study only, but analyzes multiple stakeholders within the case and deals with

qualitative and comparable information. Regarding the third principle, building arguments

from the empirical information and discussing them in the elaborated context was also

attempted, albeit very challenging.

The analysis of the qualitative data foresees three process steps, consisting of (1) writing, (2)

coding, and (3) interpretation. Writing included the compilation of interview transcripts, note

taking of the focus group, and document analysis, together with the preparation of certain

notes to record data during the fieldwork. Coding covered the evaluation of the interview

transcripts, focus group notes, and field notes by manually categorizing relevant information

into themes based on the developed research design. Interpretation contained the analysis of

patterns and arguments that have been captured by the previous step and their evaluation

and discussion in order to transform data into findings.

To sum up, it must be acknowledged that generalizing results from a qualitative, exploratory,

and interpretive study entails the risk of producing inaccuracy and interdependence through

personal perspectives. As mentioned several times above, constant attention was paid by the

author to deal with this issue but it cannot be fully excluded.

3.3.1 Coding

In order to extract valid arguments from the information collected, the qualitative data were

analyzed and coded according to specific categories and codes. These categories comprised

of five topics that, under the lenses of policy implementation theory and coordination theory,

appeared to have a special relevance for the implementation of local climate policy.


Each category consists of codes used to manage the mass of data and develop discussion

points. Due to the large number of codes only a few are listed in parentheses. These five

categories are also reflected in the results chapter, each of them representing one section.

Table 2: Categories and Codes

The coding has been carried out by means of the qualitative software program MaxQDA. In

the course of coding a two-step procedure were used, grounded coding and priori coding

(Saldaña 2015). First, grounded coding was applied to enable the emergence of salient

themes and patterns from the data themselves. And second, priori coding was used, which

arranged the generated codes according to the preexisting theoretical framework. In doing

so, a thorough evaluation could be guaranteed. And pursuant to the analytical approach, the

theoretical framework could be further specified and categories and subcategories could be

produced.

3.4 Research Process

The research process of this study has not been totally structured; rather a “linear, but

iterative process” as defined by Yin (2009) was applied. Following the grounded theory

approach and the iterative approach to research (section 2.1), the research process comprised


of phases of conceptualization and reconceptualization, together with operationalization and

theorization. This was shaped by a continuous process of acquiring knowledge through the

data collection and their respective treatment. The following list provides an overview of the

single steps of the research process.

Table 3: Research Steps


In respect of the hypotheses, this approach implied that tentative hypotheses were

formulated after the first review of implementation theory and multi-level governance

literature, which then were revised based on experiences in the field and an examination of

coordination theory, that led to a redefinition and finally a discussion and testing of the

hypotheses based on the specific coordination literature and data from field research. A

similar progress was the case for the research questions and the linked research design. In

response to the findings, changes have been made continuously to approach the

implementation of climate policy at the local level in the realm of the policy implementation

theory and coordination theory.

As mentioned above, the process was accompanied by consultations with the supervisors of

this master’s thesis and experts from the UN-HABITAT and adelphi, as this research was

affiliated with the project V-LED9.

3.5 Compiling the Research Design

Illuminating the research design behind this master’s thesis and summarizing the sections of

this chapter, a qualitative, exploratory, and interpretive research design has been compiled

for the in-depth case study on implementation processes of local climate policy. Moreover, in

order to develop a theoretical framework, a grounded theory approach that is strongly

intertwined with the iterative approach were applied, enabling reflection between empiricism

and theory. Studying the implementation processes based on policy implementation theory

and multi-level governance as an analytical framework, the explorative research revealed that

local climate planning is significantly influenced by the extent of coordination that is applied

for implementation, both horizontally and vertically. In consequence, the topic was studied

in-depth through the lenses of policy implementation theory, and in particular coordination

theory with a multi-level governance perspective. This approach led to the following research

questions and hypotheses that are embedded in the research design:



9 The project V-LED stands for Vertical Integration and Learning for Low-Emission Development in Africa

and Southeast Asia (V-LED). This project is run by the German public policy consultancy adelphi research

and the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) in the Philippines in Manila as one

of the implementing partners.









The dependent variable of this research design is the extent of local climate planning, thus,

the ‘performance’ of the local implementation of climate policy. Four independent variables

were identified as influential factors of local climate policy and planning, each variable

understood in its extent of coordination: the policy framework, institutional framework,

coordination mechanisms, and the planning framework. These factors are particularly

explored with insights from the concepts of interdependence and institutions, as indicated by

Leite & Buainain (2013).

In essence, this master’s thesis analyzes the role of coordination in local climate policy

implementation by means of the outlined theoretical framework. Its theoretical basis lies in

policy implementation, coordination, and multi-level governance, and it is been practically

tested on climate policy implementation processes in the Philippines in a qualitative,

exploratory, and interpretive research method.


4 Empirical Results

“Every time we go out to share the Philippine experience, they always say that we have the best laws, we have the best plans, but

you know honestly, it’s very sad that the problem comes in every time we implement. That’s where the problem comes in.” (CCC)

This chapter presents the empirical findings on the local implementation of Philippine climate

policy with special focus on coordination. The first section will provide contextual information

by introducing the country, its climate policy agenda, and the status of local climate planning.

Afterward, four influential factors will be analyzed through the lenses of coordination theory.

These four are: the policy framework, the institutional framework, coordination

mechanisms, and the planning framework of climate planning. Each topic will elaborate

relevant aspects of the complex framework and how it is shaped by coordination. In

presenting the local climate planning framework, there is no claim for completeness. Based

on the study results, it rather sheds light on the most essential and controversial constituent

parts of the framework. Each section will be introduced by a guiding question that,

eventually, approaches the overall research questions of this study.

4.1 Context

As mentioned above, this section aims at explaining the context of local climate planning in

the Philippines. The following questions are to be answered:

What is the historical, political and geographical context of climate policy in the Philippines?

What is the countries' climate policy agenda? And, what is the status of local climate planning?

Addressing these questions will help to better contextualize the sections to come.

4.1.1 The Philippines

The Philippines is an archipelagic country in Southeast Asia, composed of 81 provinces, 145

cities and 1,489 municipalities. At present, it has a population of nearly 101 million

inhabitants (Philippine Statistics Authority 2015), and accounts of one of the fastest


population growth rates in the world (World Bank 2013). In 2016, the country’s gross

domestic product (GDP) amounted about 310 billion USD (IMF 2016).

The Philippines is a unitary state, which stems from the constitution from 1987. Ever since it is

constituted as a presidential republic with a parliamentary system that resembles the US

constitution (Pilny 2008). Given the Local Government Code (LGC) from 1991, Local

Government Units (LGUs) dispose about a high degree of discretion. There are free and

democratic elections held regularly, yet the political and economy system is dominated by a

few traditionally influential families (Kreuzer 2009). Analogous to this, political parties exist

but with very limited power and competition. Prevalent corruption and nepotism is part of

the Philippine history and present (Marquardt 2015). In this line, it has been referenced to a

poorly evolved and mostly symbolic democracy together with often corrupt political elites,

causing a fundamental lack of good governance structures (Reese 2007). The reasons for this

are manifold, ranging from colonialism, to capitalism, to culture over to poverty. Bello (2005)

criticized mainly the local elite and international actors that often worked in tandem to

plunder the state. Yet, or precisely because of that, an active civil society scene has been

established in the Philippines. One interviewee described the Philippine Civil Society

Organizations (CSO) and NGOs as very mature, especially in the climate change discussion

(CPBRD).

As an island state located in the northern and eastern hemisphere, it consists of over 7,100

islands and an estimated 36,289 kilometers of coastline, with more than 60 percent of the

Filipino population residing within coastal areas (World Bank 2005). Its significant coastal

exposure in conjunction with fast-growing environmental deterioration, and unsustainable

development practices combined with high levels of poverty (World Bank 2013) make the

country one of the world’s most vulnerable to changing climate. For the year 2013, the

Philippines were identified as the country most affected by climate change (Germanwatch

2012). In Southeast Asia, sixteen Filipino provinces are considered among the top 50 most

vulnerable regions (Yusuf & Francisco 2010), and the four cities San Jose, Manila, Roxas, and

Cataboato were listed among the ten most vulnerable cities to climate-related impacts

(World Bank 2009). As a consequence, coping with climate change is a top priority in the

political arena of the Philippines.


4.1.2 The Climate Policy Agenda

In face of adverse effects of climate change, the Philippine government has established a

pioneering comprehensive and progressive national framework legislation.

The backbone of this framework legislation is the Climate Change Act (CCA) that was enacted

in 2009. The CCA requires the systematic integration of climate change in policy formulation,

development plans, as well as other development tools and approaches by all government

institutions. Moreover, it called for the creation of the National Framework Strategy on

Climate Change (NFSCC) and the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP). The stated

long-term goals are low-carbon and sustainable development. The mainstay of the NCCAP is

resilience while emphasizing the importance of adaptation. Mitigation activities are

envisioned to be undertaken by the private sector, with the provision of an enabling

environment by this sector. According to the CPEIR review (World Bank 2013), recent reforms

have tackled the scope and visibility of the NCCAP by including all agencies of the

Government at national and local level. In addition, there have been efforts aiming at

oversight agencies to integrate CCAM into the development planning processes (World Bank

2013). Within this framework, the Philippines strives to strengthen its adaptation capabilities

to climate change and contribute to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. The

central coordination institution responsible for pursuing these efforts is the Climate Change

Commission (CCC) that is under the chairmanship of the President.

With similar ambitions, the Philippines pursues international affairs on climate. As part of its

Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) under the UNFCCC Paris Agreement of

December 2015, the country pledged to reduce at least 70 percent of greenhouse gas GHG

(CO2e)emissions by 2030 relative to its “business as usual” scenario of 2000-2030 (INDC

Philippines 2015). This aspirational goal, however, is conditioned on the extent of financial

resources, including technology development and transfer, and capacity building that will be

made available to the Philippines. Hence, development cooperation has been, and also will

be, crucial for climate efforts.


4.1.3 Status of Local Climate Planning

Climate planning is a rather new and challenging task to the local governments and

competing with other planning priorities. In fact, there are almost 30 plans that are locally

mandated10; and only very few LGUs are able to comply with all mandated plans. It has to be

accounted that the climate planning framework is still in its infancy and entails some barriers

for effective planning and implementation, as the following sections will point out. LGUs,

however, often lack technical and financial capacity to formulate and implement climate plans

(World Bank 2013).

To date, only a rather moderate number of LGUs active on climate planning can be recorded.

Table 4: Status LCCAP

(DILG/LGA 2016)

10 These plans include: an Agriculture and Fisheries Management Plan, including the Strategic Agriculture

and Fisheries Development Zone (SAFDZ); a Forest Management Plan or Forest Land Use Plan (FLUP); a

Sustainable Integrated Area Development Plan (SIADP); an Integrated Watershed Management Plan (IWMP);

an Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP); a Protected Area

Management Plan (PAMP); a Coastal Resources Management Plan (CRMP).


Table 4 gives an overview of LGUs that received orientation on the Local Climate Change

Action Plan (LCCAP) by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and

through the Local Government Academy (LGA). Furthermore, table 4 presents the numbers of

formulated LCCAPs since 2013, in the respective administrative regions.

The current status of formulated LCCAP is 167 that constitute 10,3 percent of the LGUs with

an LCCAP, considering a total number of 1,622 LGUs. This number, however, must be viewed

with caution; for one reason because further LCCAPs are potentially prepared beyond the

oversight of the DILG/LGA, and for another reason because climate planning can also be

done through CCAM mainstreaming of the local plans CLUP and CDP (section 4.5.1).

Nonetheless, this table contains some insightful findings. The administrative region

SOCCSKSARGEN with 48 LCCAPs and Ilocos Region with 35 LCCAPs stand out considerably.

According to the LGA, these regions prioritized the roll out of the training and combined it

with additional coaching sessions on funding, together with direct support to the LGUs in

acquiring funds. There are ten regions without or less than two formulated LCCAPs. These

regions are spread over the whole country, account diverse income classes and various

numbers of trainings. The highest number of orientation were given in the northern part of

the Philippines, in Region Cagayan Valley, whereas the lowest numbers of trainings were

recorded in the Metropolitan Manila Area and the South of the Philippines, Davao Region

and Autonomous and Region Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The LGA cited time constraints and

limited funds as the main reason for the current state of reach out.

Taking the other locally mandated plans in consideration, recent figures state that 49 percent

of the LGUs prepared a Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP), and only 29 percent

prepared a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). Unfortunately, there are no numbers

available for the plans that already incorporated CCAM concerns that prevent a solid

overview. One of the interviewed experts assumed an activity rate of about 30 percent of the

LGUs (LCP), and the LGA estimates that approximately another 100 LGUs are in the process of

the LCCAP formulation (LGA).

One observation that was frequently raised during the interviews was that having a plan

prepared does not say much about its quality: “You can have the best plan in the world but

implementation is another thing about planning” (CPBRD). Some critics doubt the quality of

the prepared climate plans (CPBRD, UN-HABITAT). Often, plans are prepared by specialists


because of their complexity and lack of local capacity: If the planning process is not done in

an inclusive manner with the local staff, the plan remains only a good plan on paper and no

one knows how to implement the plan once the specialist is gone (UN-HABITAT).

A number of interviewees shared also that it is widespread under local governments to “copy

and paste” plans from another; this is a common practice used for a variety of concerns

(DILG, CCC, iCSC, Marikina City, UN-HABITAT). Since there are various incentives by the

government to prepare plans, as for instance the Seal of Good Local Governance by the DILG,

the level of motivation is high but the incentive fails on a largely undeveloped review system.

So far, there have not been introduced any sanctions to enforce compliance (CCC).

Giving an extensive status report on local climate planning is almost impossible due to the

absence of a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system. Yet, these numbers and facts,

albeit not absolute, clearly demonstrate the need to intensify the local implementation of

climate policy and increase the reach out. After giving a rough overview of the state of local

climate planning in the Philippines, the next four sections pursue to discuss factors that

significantly influence the implementation processes. In addition, the appendix includes a

summary report about the conducted focus group event (appendix III) and templates

(appendix IV), providing deeper insight into local challenges, opportunities, and needed

actions to strengthen local climate planning.

4.2 Policy Framework

In this section, the policy framework of local climate planning in the Philippines will be

presented and in view of coordination discussed. The following questions are to be answered:

What are the major policies for local climate planning? Which major coordination challenges

and opportunities can be identified in the policy framework?

The first stage of policy implementation is the adoption of basic statute, providing the basis

of further implementation stages. This makes it absolutely crucial to analyze underlying

statute and allows understanding how they influence the implementation processes. In this

light, the following key policies are critically examined: Climate Change Act, the National

Climate Change Action Plan, and the Local Government Code.


4.2.1 Climate Change Act

In 2009, the Philippine government passed the Climate Change Act (CCA), also known as the

Republic Act 9729, one of the few of its like adopted in the world. This law mandates the

LGUs to address climate change adaptation as one of the regular functions of municipal and

city governments. Mitigation of climate change plays only a tangential role in the law, and is

not indicated as a national priority as is adaptation. However, mitigation is gaining attention

in climate planning and will be promoted by additional guidelines in order to implement

more mitigation action.

The CCA acknowledges LGUs as the frontline agencies in the formulation, planning, and

implementation of climate change action plans (CCA, Section 14). In doing this, consistency

with the provisions of the LGC, the Framework, and the NCCAP shall be ensured (CCA,

Section 14). Pursuant to the law, local governments are required to plan for climate. The form

of climate planning, however, is not clear and causing debates. The debate is whether

preparing a stand-alone climate plan in accordance with the Local Climate Change Action

Plan (LCCAP) or only incorporating CCAM concerns in the development plans, the

Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). A

representative from CCC expressed that the open interpretation of the form constitutes “one

of the loopholes of the law”. Section 4.5.2 will deepen the discussion on this issue.

In addition to this, another gap in the law is recognized in the absence of specification what

an LCCAP entails, how the national government is supposed to provide support to LGUs, and

how such plans are supposed to be funded (World Bank 2013). The law only states “[it] shall

be the responsibility of the national government to extend technical and financial assistance

to LGUs for the accomplishment of their Local Climate Change Action Plans” (CCA, Section

14). Yet, as pointed out by the CPEIR review (World Bank 2013) as well as by the majority of

the interviewees, there is a lack of technical assistance to the LGUs.

The interviewees cited a few recommendations refereeing to the Disaster Risk Reduction law.

Better local planning is only possible with more staff (CPBRD). Thus, a mandatory position of

an Environment and Natural Resources Officer (ENRO) to tackle CCAM concerns at the local

level, as required for DRR, is seen as a major enhancement (DILG Region IV-A, ICLEI, Makati

City, LCP, UN-HABITAT). The DRR law provides a list that identifies officials and offices


(members of the DRRM Council) that need to be included in climate planning processes; such

a list would also be helpful in the CCA (Marikina City).

Besides that, it was raised to anchor in the law a validation period for the LCCAP of six years

as well as for the filling of the office position (CCC). In the past, changes of the Local Chief

Executives led to changes in plans and staff that prevented progress.

Finally, it was cited that having two laws and consequently two processes for CCAM and DRR

in place is problematic; but local practitioners did not confirm this concern.

4.2.2 National Climate Change Action Plan

Central to the Philippine climate policy is the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP);

a strategically established long-term climate agenda from 2011 to 2028 that is considered

the Government’s Road Map for climate action.

In accordance with the terms of the administration and the Philippine Development Plan

(PDP), the NCCAP is divided into three 6-year phases. Formulated by the Climate Change

Commission, the NCCAP is a solid framework document that includes targets for all levels of

government and specifies seven thematic priorities11. The thematic priorities have several

aims including enhancing the adaptive capacity of communities, building the resilience of

natural ecosystems, increasing the sustainability of built environment, and paving the way

towards climate smart development. The activities resulting out of the targets and priorities

are envisioned to be implemented by the sectoral agencies. Since the priorities are defined

along themes rather than sectors, coordination between departments is essential for the

successful implementation of the NCCAP (World Bank 2013). The first phase (2011-2016)

focused on establishing readiness for the entire climate agenda and on beginning to

operationalize the NCCAP at sectoral and local levels (World Bank 2013).

An effective implementation at the sub-national levels is still limited. One of the reasons is

that there are still no clear guidelines available on how to translate the national plans of the

NCCAP into local-appropriate climate plans. In this context, a City Environmental

Management Officer from Marikina shared during an interview the following statement:

11 The seven thematic priorities are: Food Security; Water Sufficiency; Ecosystems and Environmental

Stability; Human Security; Climate Smart Industries and Services; Sustainable Energy; Knowledge and

Capacity Development.


If there would be national strategic activities identified by the national level, and brought down to

the local levels, and then let the local level assume what will be doable in their city; at least you’re doing, you’re singing the same song. (Marikina City)

Furthermore, due to variations in the definitions of what constitutes a climate change activity,

the national, departmental and local development plans are only partially aligned with the

NCCAP (World Bank 2013). This applies also for differences in outputs, outcomes, and goals.

Hence, there is a need for improved coordination across the sectors in planning and policy

development. The CPEIR review (World Bank 2013) indicates three approaches to align the

department work programs with the NCCAP priorities. These are: (1) increased convergence

across department work programs; (2) reformed sector policy; and (3) improved design,

execution, and monitoring of programs, activities, and projects.

4.2.3 Local Government Code

The Local Government Code (LGC) is the basis of local autonomy and decentralization

regulation in the Philippines and provides local governments with discretion. Passed by the

Congress in 1991 as Republic Act 7160, it grants LGUs with powers, authority, responsibilities,

and resources. Thus, it significantly shapes the vertical relations including coordination

between the national government and LGUs.

The Code also determines local climate planning. The enactment of the LGC transferred the

responsibility of environment-related services from the national government to the local

level. The LGC mandates the LGUs to develop Comprehensive Development Plans (CDP) and

Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP) that are crucial to climate planning. Apart from

preparing a Local Climate Change Action Plan (LCCAP), the CDP and CLUP planning

documents are supposed to be reviewed with incorporation of CCAM, and also DRR,

concerns. The code mandates participatory planning and budget processes up to the district

level, namely the barangays. The LGC automatically allocates 40 percent of the national taxes

to the LGUs also that are partly supposed to be used for climate planning.

Upon talking with climate planning experts from various levels, the LGC surfaced almost in

every discussion. Surprisingly, the interviewees shared, LGC has not been reviewed in 25 years

despite provisions of the law demanding all republic acts to undergo a review every five years

after implementation. According to the interviewees, there is already a long list of provisions

that are absolutely due for amendment (LGA, NEDA, UN-HABITAT). A representative from the

NEDA shared that amendments have been formulated and submitted to the Office of the


President some time ago, but there has been no progress so far. A crucial amendment is the

mandate to create an Environment Office or rather the position of an Environment and

Natural Resources Officer (ENRO) (DILG Region IV-A, ICLEI, Makati City, LCP, UN-HABITAT).

Such a mandatory position is already adopted for DRR concerns through the DRR law, the

Republic Act 10121. In fact, recognizing the danger of climate change, many LGUs have

already set up an Environment Office but still have complications to fund it. The problem is

that LGUs are obliged by the LGC to spend maximum 45 percent on personnel services and in

many cases, this does not suffice to create a new office (UN-HABITAT). There was no

additional provision of funds to set up a DRR office so the ceiling is, according to a

representative from UN-HABITAT, already up to the maximum. In addition to that, a

representative form the LGA recommends a mandate in the law that specifies provisions:

Based on the existing provisions of the Local Government Code, […] there are only two provisions,

general statements on the general welfare, 16 and 17. However, if we want to strengthen climate

change and disaster, then we should include that in the different provisions, especially in the role of

local governments. […] In Book 3, there should be provisions on the role of the provinces, and then,

let’s have a specific definition or specific provisions under the roles and functions of the Local Chief Executives that concerns climate change and disaster. (LGA)

Further recommendations are to incorporate funds in the provisions, indicating how many

percent are budgeted for development activities (LGA), and to composite Local Development

Council (UN-HABITAT). Given these facts, experts highly recommend the review of the LGC

(iCSC, UN-HABITAT, LCP, LGA, ICLEI, NEDA, Makati City).

4.3 Institutional Framework

This section will present the institutional framework of climate planning in the Philippines

with a particular focus on national institutions. The following questions are to be answered:

What is the institutional structure of climate policy? Which are the major implementing

institutions for local climate planning? Which major coordination challenges and opportunities

can be identified in the institutional framework?

Here the special interest lies in the interdependences and institutional characteristics of the

implementing institutions in order to understand how they influence the implementation

processes.


4.3.1 Institutional Structure

Over the last decade, an extensive institutional structure for climate policy has been

established in the Philippines. Figure 2 displays the large number of institutions and its

interdependences. It comprises of the Climate Change Commission (CCC) on top, followed by

a range of national departments on one side, and local bodies on the other side, together

with sectoral representatives on the bottom. Besides, coordination bodies and programs are

displayed, which will be discussed in more detail in section 4.4.

Recent reforms of the institutional set-up aimed to strengthen coherence and horizontal and

vertical coordination by establishing centralized national institutions (World Bank 2013).

Obviously, not all institutions illustrated in figure 2 play a major role in the implementation of

local climate policy but are to some extent interrelated.

Figure 2: Institutional Structure

(illustration extract from ‘The Philippines’ Climate Change Commission and Peoples’ Survival Fund [adelphi;

internal document]) (Llanos Dee 2016)


4.3.2 Institutions

The most crucial institutions for local climate policy and planning are the Climate Change

Commission, the National Economic Development Authority, the Department of Interior and

Local Government and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. In the following these

institutions will be briefly introduced by pointing out special coordination functions and

current challenges. Since development cooperation plays a special role in the Philippine

climate landscape, there are also briefly discussed.

Climate Change Commission

As evident in the illustration of the institutional structure (figure 2), the Climate Change

Commission, the CCC, is the main institution in the Philippine climate regime. The CCC is an

independent, autonomous body, chaired by the President. It pursues the Climate Change Act

of 2009 and started its operations in 2011. In coordination with other major stakeholders, the

CCC ensures the coherent implementation of climate policy at national and sub-national

levels and is, thus, the lead policy-making and -coordinating body. A further is the

development of the international climate change regime.

In respect of local climate planning, the CCC is responsible for ensuring the mainstreaming of

climate change, in synergy with disaster reduction and management, into local development

plans. Therefore, the CCC is mandated to provide assistance to LGUs for the formulation of

their respective local climate change action plan.

Reflecting on current challenges, interviewees from various levels and backgrounds see a

clear lack of executive support that hinders the CCC to fulfill its mandates (CPBRD, DILG

Region IV-A, iCSC, LGA). This concerns especially the allocated budget by the national

government with severe effect on the number of employees and the structure to reach out.

The CCC was envisioned much bigger. According to a representative from the CPBRD, the

CCC is institutionally very small in relation to its tasks and highly understaffed. A CCC

representative shared during an interview that presently about 40 employees are working for

CCC and approximately 15 new positions are being planned. The current mandate of the CCC

allows room for speculation if this number of additional employees will stabilize the situation.


From the interview series, it can be stated that there is a clear demand to strengthen the CCC

in terms of staff, resources, capacities to reach stronger leadership, and effective climate

policy implementation (CPBRD, DILG Region IV-A, iCSC, LGA). This demand is partly

contrasted by the CPEIR report (World Bank 2013) that critiques the scope of responsibilities:

The Climate Change Commission's broad scope of responsibilities limits its effectiveness as a

policy coordinating body if steps are not taken to formalize, prioritize and streamline these

roles.

The review on the Philippine climate policy reported also criticism from national government

agencies and Civil Society Organizations that CCC does not focus on its policy-making

mandates (World Bank 2013). It is further stated that formalizing the specific roles of the CCC

in relation to the other institutions would increase efficiency in integrating the climate

agenda (World Bank 2013).

In addition, some experts observe disagreements within the CCC. A representative from iCSC

speaks of “no clear objects”. Apparently, the change of CCC’s Secretary from Mary Ann Lucille

Sering to Emmanuel De Guzman should have led to changes in direction that are causing

internal discrepancies: At present, the CCC seems like two different groups, with one group

promoting the mainstreaming of climate change into the CLUP and CDP according to the

intention of the former Secretary Sering, and another group is promoting the LCCAP

according to the strategy of the new Secretary De Guzman as a stand-alone plan

(anonymous) (section 4.5.2). A reason for that discrepancy could be incorrect information

about the state of the LCCAP (anonymous).

National Economic Development Authority

Tackling the implementation of climate policy in the Philippines, another key institution is the

National Economic Development Authority, the NEDA. Established in 1972, it can look back

on a long tradition of operation and is known as a well-established agency set up. The

agency’s main function is the coordination of the development agenda across all

departments. The primary development planning tool is the Philippines Development Plan

(PDP)12, which formulation is coordinated by the NEDA on a six-year cycle.

12 Aims of the PDP comprise of attaining sustained economic growth that provides productive employment

opportunities; equalizing access to development opportunities across different geographic, income and

social spectra; and formulation and implementation effectively and responsive social safety nets.


The CPEIR report on Philippine climate policy comes to the clear assessment that the PDP is

only partially aligned with the NCCAP and identifies scope for further alignment:

It provides broad sector-based strategies, outcomes, and indicators for measuring results, including

for climate change, but does not include specific activities or actions to be undertaken. […] Standardized institutional processes do not yet exist for aligning the NCCAP outcomes and

activities to national and sector plans. (World Bank 2013)

This assessment is combined with the recommendation that the CCC needs to agree with the

NEDA on the mechanisms that function best for updating the PDP in the interim, and to

establish a permanent mechanism for updates in the future (World Bank 2013). In a similar

context, the CPEIR review concludes: “The first step along this path is to initiate discussions

between the NEDA and the CCC at the higher levels.”

Looking at implications of national policy at the local level, a similar recommendation was

raised during the interviews concerning policy guidelines for the preparation of the Medium-

Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP). The NEDA is mandated to prepare guidelines

for the mainstreaming of CCAM and DRR into the Provincial Physical Framework Plan (PPFP)

and Provincial Development and Physical Framework Plan (PDPFP). Since the NEDA planning

guidelines are based on priorities identified in the PDP, they provide the basis for planning

from national department and agency, investment programming, budgetary appropriations,

and other funding decisions. Therefore, the NEDA is understood as “the planning body of the

whole national government” (LGA). It is for this reason, that the NEDA plays a highly relevant

role for sub-national climate planning and an update of the national planning guideline is

seen as crucial:

Coming up with a national agenda, national planning guidelines wherein every initiative of the

various government agencies should be in harmony with the national planning guidelines of NEDA,

rather than each government agency coming up with their own. (LGA)

An update of the national policy guidelines for planning concerning CCA, and also DRR,

would enable to better align subordinate plans to the NCCAP, and therewith ensure

consistency. Stated as an unofficial position, a NEDA representative agreed on the need to

revisit the MTPDP, and identified enhancement in terms of identification of projects,

challenges, and climate change projections amongst others.


Department of Interior and Local Government

The Department of the Interior and Local Government, abbreviated as DILG, is responsible for

promoting peace and order, ensuring public safety, and strengthening local government

capability aimed towards the effective delivery of basic services to the public. In this mandate,

the DILG facilitates also local planning processes, including climate planning. Therefore

important plans are the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) and the Local Climate

Change Action Plan (LCCAPs) that the DILG is overseeing (section 4.5.1). In this context, the

DILG facilitates the development and provision of a training program for LGUs on CCAM with

support of their “training arm”, the Local Government Academy (LGA). The LGA is the lead

agency for building local capacity under the DILG.

The DILG operates through a network of offices covering all 18 provinces and the majorities

of LGUs. They have developed a comprehensive support structure for assistance to the LGUs

and are in constant contact with them. The DILG is called Primus Inter Pares, the first among

equals, as it is the only institution in the country that has oversight function over Local

Government Units and offices down to the municipalities (UN-HABITAT). In this function, it

has great scope for involvement and strong linkages to the sub-national level. It operates

through the Ombudsman or the Offices of the Ombudsman and can provide advisories to

local governments. For vertical coordination in climate planning, UN-HABITAT representative

says, the DILG is the essential player. Playing such crucial role goes along with a variety of

tasks. Interviewees from local governments shared their impression that capacities at the

DILG are absolutely exhausted (Marikina City, Santa Rosa City). This concerns in particular

efforts in relation to climate change: “DILG is missing a full-time consultant for the CCA

matters like the development of a mainstreaming guide” (UN-HABITAT).

The CCC and the DILG established a close working relationship, even though they are

following distinct approaches for the promotion of the LCCAP that is causing conflicts at the

local level (section 4.5.2). However, their relationship is fundamental and gives the CCC the

opportunity to operate through the DILG to deliver support for local climate planning

processes.


Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board

The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, referred to as HLURB, has the assignment to

promulgate and enforce policies on land use, housing and homeowners associations. Within

the framework of climate planning, the HLURB oversees the generation and execution of the

Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). Besides the CDP, the CLUP is also foreseen to

incorporate climate change, and also disaster risk reduction, making both locally mandatory

plans very important for local climate planning (4.5.1).

The HLURB is a firm coordination partner of the CCC. Collaboration between the CCC and

HLURB is especially precious regarding the formulation of supplemental guidelines on

mainstreaming CCAM and DRR for the CLUPs. The HLURB has also vertical coordination

linkages to the local level but not nearly as extensive as the DILG.

Critique that has been raised during the interviews concerns the sharing of technology with

LGUs for planning: “The HLURB should be more open to give the technology to local

governments, to teach local governments how to formulate their CLUPs” (LGA). One or

possibly the main reason for limited support to LGUs is the financial provision. A

representative from the HLURB shared during that they wish to have the resources to reach

out more to the LGUs, and assist them technically and materially in the planning processes.

Development Cooperation

Development cooperation plays an important role in the Philippine climate policy and

planning landscape, as they significantly shape the framework through diverse activities

across all level. The support of international agencies is crucial for local climate policy and

planning, shared a large number of interviewees (CPBRD, ICLEI, iCSC, Marikina City, LCP,

Santa Rosa City, UP-SURP). One LGU representative even perceives that “all the policies or the

regulations are being a joined effort with national and international agencies. So without

their help, we wouldn’t be coming into that.” (Santa Rosa City). At this place, development

cooperation also includes international NGOs that were often referred to during the

interviews, because of their great support to LGUs in the planning efforts. A quote from an

NGO representative validates that and highlights, in addition, the support of academia:

I think in the Philippines, support from the NGO partners really helped. For example, a lot of areas

who are doing really good have a good track record of working with NGOs, and even with the state

universities and colleges, in coming up with their plans. (iCSC)


The primary functions of donor activities in local climate planning are seen in funding and

capacity building; and it is expected that their support will be relevant in the future as the

national government is lacking financial means and capacity (CPBRD). A number of LGU

received direct support from development partners in the preparation of local climate plans

(Marikina City, Santa Rosa City). Here, the critical question can arise, how the international

support is aligned with national priorities and plans. Apart from the essential support that

development partners are giving, experts observe a friction in donor interventions that cause

problems. “Different partners […] carr[y] different agenda” (LGA). A representative from the

LGA reports that it is challenging to harmonize all agendas.

World Bank carries their own tool. And the GIZ has their own tool. UN-HABITAT has its own tool. So

the challenge for the LGA and DILG is to harmonize all these tools to come up with one, so not to

confuse local governments. (LGA)

This paradox between support and hindrance is widely reflected in literature. Marquardt

(2015:8) reflects on development cooperation as follows: “In times of global ecological crises

like climate change, cooperation in efforts to achieve a sustainable future are needed more

than ever before.” On a rather negative side Marquardt (2015:162) notice in turn that “higher

transaction costs are likely due to increasing competition among donors and incoherent

advice concerning policy mechanisms that might be not compatible for the national context”.

Summing-up

Going through the landscape of key institutions and actors for local climate planning at the

national level, potentials and barriers can be recognized. As a potential, can be classified the

existence of such a comprehensive institutional framework and its inherent functions. Given

the very few years since the enactment of the CCA, this is a considerable achievement.

Regarding barriers, this section demonstrated the need for action in the three matters: (1) to

develop agreement on certain concerns, within and between institutions, (2) to revisit

guidelines, and (3) to integrate donor interventions according to national and local

requirements. These needs pose significant barriers and influence the local implementation

processes.

Overall, coordination between the major implementing institutions is not fully practiced and

uncertainties irritate the implementation processes, as the following statement illuminates: “If

things are not clear on the national [level], how can it be clear on the local level?”(CPBRD).


4.4 Coordination Mechanisms

This section will give an overview of the coordination mechanisms in place for local climate

planning in the Philippines. The following questions are to be answered:

Which are the major coordination mechanisms for local climate planning, and how do they

function? Which major coordination challenges and opportunities can be identified looking at

coordination mechanisms?

Coordination mechanisms constitute the avenues that are in use to practically manage

coordination, making them a further important factor in the attempt to understand

coordination of local climate planning. In this course, the coordination mechanisms have to

be understood in conjunction with the institutions presented the former section. Some of the

institutions form part of the mechanisms, and even more importantly, are to a certain extent

coordination mechanisms in themselves. In this analysis, a distinction is made between

horizontal and vertical coordination. Beyond that, a compilation of further coordination

mechanisms and entry points for intensified coordination is offered.

4.4.1 Horizontal Coordination Mechanisms

Cabinet Cluster on Climate Change on Adaptation and Mitigation

Created in 2011 with the objective to foster greater cooperation on climate change at the

highest levels of government, the Cabinet Cluster on Climate Change Adaptation and

Mitigation (CCCC) is key to coordination. In this function, a strong affiliation with the local

level is intended as the executive order states as first objective:

Adopting climate change adaptation and mitigation measures by local government units and their

respective communities, national government agencies, and the general public; and ensure that

these are incorporated in their annual work plans and budgets, where applicable. (Executive Order

43 2011)

The CCCC is chaired by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

Secretary and comprises of all climate-related national government agencies13. The CCC is

responsible for the coordination of the policy discourse as secretariat to the CCCC. Within the

13 Representing the housing, science and technology, local government, public works, social development,

agriculture, agrarian reform, energy, and defense departments.


cluster, only the Chair and Head of secretariat has decision-making power, conversely to the

rest of the cluster members14.

Several interviewees valued the CCCC in terms of the coordination function as very important

(CCC, CPBRD, LGA, UN-HABITAT), and as a “powerful tool” (UN-HABITAT). “It’s a very good

avenue for us to discuss all these things and draw up a mechanism on how to harmonize all

the efforts of the government to support LGUs to climate change and disaster” (LGA).

The CCCC’s operation involves monthly meetings where mainly ad hoc concerns are been

dealt, proposed by its members; in contrast of working on a long-term program (World Bank

2013). Its function, though, is impaired due to frequent non-attendance of members. In this

line, experts recommend ensured participation of various members for regular updates (LGA).

Furthermore, the CPEIR review (World Bank 2013) assessed the CCCC has not been fully

effective due to fragmented support and limited decision making opportunities. In addition,

competing demands on the CCC staff has occasionally limited their ability to support to the

CCCC appropriately; and the constellation of the DENR as Chair and the CCC as Secretary has

led to duplication of secretariat services (World Bank 2013). Nevertheless, experts plead to

enhance the coordination mechanism for the special ability:

When you use the cabinet cluster, plus from that structure, you’re able to branch out to other ministries much faster. And using the regional arms, they’re able to engage at the local level, reach

the broadest coverage at the shortest time possible. I think at the moment, in terms of the

institutional structure, given the limitations of the Climate Change Commission, it’s something that they should try to use more. (CPBRD)

The future, however, of the CCCC is uncertain due to the newly elected President. Until

December 2016 was the convocation of the cluster on climate change still open. According to

an expert, there is no clear signal from the new government to react the CCCC (CPBRD).

4.4.2 Vertical Coordination Mechanisms

CCC Offices on the ground?

There is much debate if the CCC should establish regional offices to reach out to the LGUs

and respond to the demanded presence of the CCC on the ground. A representative from the

CCC commented: “An office at the regional level is the most ideal, because it’s really, really 14 This does not account for decisions by the CCCC to define the climate change Program Approach around

the 18 major river basins, nor the initiative for desilting four islets/sandbars in the middle of the Cagayan de

Oro River (World Bank 2013).


hard to coordinate for 7,100 plus islands in the Philippines and you just have one office. We

have 40 plus staff”. This recommendation is shared and supported by a number of

interviewees (CPDRD, DILG, Marikina City, Santa Rosa City), albeit accompanied by realism:

That’s not doable at this point, maybe in the long term, but maybe it would be more on linking [the

LGUs] with experts on the ground, giving them the required information and the expertise so that

they will not be dependent on the national. (DILG)

The CPEIR report (World Bank 2013) concludes similarly on this concern by recommending to

establish coordination between the CCC and the National- and Local DRRM Councils, and

also the PSF Board concerning climate funding.

Leagues

Another indicated platform for coordination and communication between the national

government and sub-national authorities are the Leagues. In the Philippines, three leagues

have been established: the League of Municipalities, Cities, and Provinces. Created on the

basis of the Local Government Code, the vision of the League of Cities (LCP) is to be “[a]n

organization of cities united and committed to genuine and effective local autonomy and

development, with democratic access to all available resources”. In practice, they are

advocacy groups, wherein Local Chief Executives are given the opportunity to raise problems

up to the national level and vice versa. Experts attribute vital functions to the Leagues:

The Leagues are good avenues for better communication channels or for improving the

communication between the national and the Local Government Units. In a way, it supplements the

coordination between the regional units and the LGUs. (CPDRD)

At the same time critics object that many league members are too “self-serving” and often

rather following their own agendas; and therewith giving away an opportunity to be a great

"mouthpiece" for the LGUs (iCSC).

Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Councils

One option to compensate the missing local presence of the CCC is seen in the expansion of

the role of the Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council (LDRRMC) (World Bank

2013). In doing so, the implementation of broader CCA activities could be enhanced besides

DRR activities. This measure is also supported by the NEDA and the LGA, especially as it

would prevent to establish an additional council. “[CCA] should form part of that council. […]

Because the more council, as they say, the more—it […] spoils the broth” (LGA).


Based on the DRRM law, Local -, Provincial-, and National Disaster Risk Reduction

Management Councils have been installed, underlying the Office of Civil Defense. The

NDRRMC counts on an established organizational structure that cascades from the national

level down to the local level. Climate change concerns are incorporated into the DRRM

Councils on multiple levels. During the interviews, criticism was directed towards the

institutional structure. An interviewee described that the importance of the LDRRMC as a

council is insignificant and recommends forming a department out of it to increase its power

(LCP). The CCC is already coordinating and cooperating with the NDRRMC based on a

memorandum of understanding (MOU). However, there is seen scope for improvement as

the CPEIR report states:

The MOU between the NDRRMC and the CCC is not fully effective, and will need to be revised and

expanded to include operational guidelines that better reflect the policy convergence with a clear

focus on the specific responsibilities on climate-related disaster risk prevention. (World Bank 2013)

Local Development Councils

In the Philippine local planning framework, the Development Councils have the direct

mandate, either on the regional or provincial level. This, together with the emanating

Councils, provide a strong central-local linkage that was assessed as crucial for

mainstreaming CCAM/DRR into local development planning (LGA, NEDA, UN-HABITAT). The

Local Development Councils are mandated by law to formulate development plans and

policies (LGC Paragraph 109, Point 1). Chaired by the Mayor, or respectively the Governor in

the province, their function regarding coordination is to “[c]oordinate, monitor, and evaluate

the implementation of development programs and projects” (LGC Paragraph 109, Point 5).

According to a representative from UN-HABITAT, the importance of the LDC is their authority

to mainstream climate- and disaster-related concerns in the formulation of long term,

medium-term, and short-term plans and investments: “The planning function of the LDC is

multi-sectoral. Therefore all sectoral/thematic/area plans must be discussed through the LDC.

CCAM and DRR are thematic concerns, so they must go through the LDC”.

The DILG together with other oversight agencies are proposing to amend the Local

Government Code (Section 109), to make the LDC as an umbrella "special body" for multi-

sectoral planning. The proposed amendments are still up for discussion in Congress (section

4.2.3).


4.4.3 Further Coordination Mechanisms

Regional level: Several times highlighted during the interviews were the regional and

provincial level to intensify coordination between the national and the local level (CPDRD,

DILG, LGA, Santa Rosa City). There is a range of established offices, for instance through the

NEDA and the DILG, that could be stronger involved into local climate planning processes.

“The closest to the LGUs to the ministry is […] the regional unit, but even the coordination

between the regional unit and the LGU is not well defined. There is no clear cut directive

coming from a law” (CPDRD). Especially crucial, nevertheless, is their oversight function when

it comes to transboundary climate activities (Santa Rosa City). In addition, an increased

involvement is considered promising concerning monitoring, evaluation, and review of local

plans (DILG Region IV-A, LGA, Marikina City).

National Economic Development Authority’s Board Committees: The NEDA has a number of

Committees at the national level. These Committees provide strong channels for vertical

coordination through the Regional Development Committee. In particular tackled by the

Committees is the integration of climate change into infrastructure development, national

land use, and social development. As such, they form a vital coordination medium.

Congressmen: When it comes to the implementation of climate activities and the need to

fund local climate plans, Congressmen are of great importance and functions as coordinative

mechanisms (CPDRD, ICLEI). Congressmen serve as a focal person for resources. In this

context, it is important to note that a LGU can spend only 20 percent of their Internal

Revenue Allotment for development expenditures that includes climate activities. Considering

the low amount, LGUs will are in need of additional financial support. Such a proposal for

support from the national level can be requested to the Congress through the Congressman

and the Congress, known as “power of the purse” has great power: “National funds such as

the PSF will need to be allocated by the national government to LGUs, but Congress

approves the budget and has oversight mandate over how funds are being spent” (CPDRD).

Direct contact: LGUs have the possibility to contact national or regional offices directly, which

is anchored in the Local Government Code and proved to be effective. At the same time, the

national government organizes programs for direct exchange as for instance the so called

“roll-on, roll-off highways”, where specific issues are been discussed directly. So far, there has

no roll-on/roll-off highway taking place on climate planning.


Local and international organizations: There are a number of very active organizations, on the

international and local level that facilitate vertical exchanges and provide support for climate

planning on the ground.

State universities and colleges: Another vital avenue forms the state universities and colleges,

providing direct support to LGUs in climate planning and information disseminating.

Forums: Further venues are seen in local forums. There are regular forums taking place on

DDRM that have proven their worth (DILG, DILG Region IV-A, LGA). There has been no forum

established on CCA yet. However, potentially CCAM matters could be merged with DRR. The

particular value of such local forums lies in the information of the public that, reversely,

makes the public better supporting their political leaders (LGA, Santa Rosa City).

Finally, the People’s Survival Fund Board and the Philippine Development Forum Climate

Change working group provide scope for coordination, but are not discussed here in detail as

their focus is on climate financing.

Summing-up

Studying the array of coordination mechanisms, an extensive coordination infrastructure can

be identified. “I think mechanisms are in place, overall. […] The system is there. It’s working.

It’s not perfect, but it’s working. Rather than developing or identifying a new system, we

might as well concentrate on this one and try to improve it further” (NEDA).

The efficiency of the coordination mechanisms for CCAM remains contested. Regarding

horizontal coordination, the CCCC seems to be indispensable but is at risk of not been

activated. From the section Institutions (section 4.3.2) we could learn that the CCC is the

major coordination body for climate concerns, but is poorly equipped to fulfill its duties. The

NEDA, the DILG, and partly also the HLURB, have developed strong linkages between the

national and sub-national levels. These vertical coordination channels could be further

strengthened, mainly through provision of resources. The Leagues are especially valuable for

the bottom up function and there is high potential seen in the expansion of the role of the

Local Disaster Risk Reduction Management Councils for supplementary linkages. The list of

further coordination mechanisms compiles a series of entry points.


4.5 Planning Framework

The fifth section of the empirical results will look at the planning framework of climate

planning in the Philippines. The following questions are to be answered:

Which are the major plans for local climate planning? Which major coordination challenges

and opportunities can be identified in the local climate planning framework?

This section sheds light on the local climate planning framework and discusses the issue of

conflicting implementation approaches. In addition, a compilation of further critical issues is

presented.

4.5.1 Local Climate Plans

In recent years, approaches for a planning framework for CCAM, and also DRRM, have been

developed in the face of current climate challenges. In a relatively short period of time

(around six years), enormous efforts have been directed towards the development of a

climate planning system.

This framework is composed out of four plans, whereas two local plans are directly linked to

either CCAM, the Local Climate Change Action Plan (LCCAP), or DRR, the Local Disaster Risk

Reduction and Management Plan (LDRRMP), and another two local plans that are been made

climate-proof, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), and Comprehensive Development

Plan (CDP). The Climate Change Act and National Climate Change Action Plan mandate the

local government to formulate and implement LCCAP and LDRRMP. These are, once they are

prepared, to be integrated into the locally mandated plans, CLUP and CDP. This research,

however, concentrates on climate-related plans. As background information: In the aspiration

to rationalize the general local planning system, the CLUP and the CLUP were determined as

the two major mandated plans. The CLUP focuses on the management of local territories,

whereas the CDP rather deals with development within the territory. The development under

the CDP is of multi-sectoral nature and covers such as social, economic, infrastructure,

environmental, and institutional. Figure 3 specifies the respective implementing institutions of

each plan and contains further technical data.


Figure 3: Local Climate Plans

(illustration by the author)

An exercise on a greening program illuminates the interplay of the three climate plans:

We have a greening program. The CLUP identifies the land where you will plant the trees. The CDP

will provide the phasing and the guidelines on how you will plant those trees. And, the LCCAP will

somehow rationalize the effects of planting those trees in terms of climate change. The CLUP is the

broadest plan and provides the guide. Then the CDP, that is a multi-sectoral plan, relates it with the

people, socially, environmentally, and economically. The LCCAP is a pure environmental plan that

relates all to the GHGs. (Santa Rosa City)

The formulation of the LCCAP considers an assessment of climate change impacts that makes

it science and risk-based. Furthermore, the formulation process must be participatory and

consultative in order to create ownership and cooperation of the constituents. Again, to fully

reflect indicated CCAM activities into local planning, it is envisaged to mainstream contents

of the LCCAP in the CLUP and CDP.

There are different ways to prepare the plans. The LCCAP Guidebook (2014) speaks of two

approaches for local climate planning. First, the conventional approach that involves the

integration of a finished plan into another finished plan document, or Council adoption

through resolution. Secondly, the alternative approach that intends the integration into all

components of the local planning system, including the CLUP and CDP. During the research,

a third approach became evident, a kind of a reverse approach where the mainstreaming of

CCAM in the CLUP and/or CDP was carried out first before the identified activities were

extracted and used to formulate the LCCAP.


Responsible for ensuring the mainstreaming of CCAM, in synergy with DRR, into local

development plans is the Climate Change Commission (CCC). To ensure effective

implementation, the CCC is mandated to provide assistance to the LGUs for their Local

Climate Change Action Plans (CCA, Section 14 & NCCAP). This, however, forms a gap since

climate policy does not clearly define the content of an LCCAP and does not identify any

mechanisms by which the national government would provide support or how the

development of such a plan would be funded (World Bank 2013).

To stimulate local climate planning processes, two major programs have been launched by

the CCC, the Ecotown Framework with the support from the Asian Development Bank (ADB),

and the CORE, Communities for Resilience with support from the Global Green Growth

Institute (GGGI). The main objective of the Ecotown Framework is to build adaptive capacities

of communities and ecosystems. The CORE aims to build climate change and disaster risk

resiliency of communities and ecosystems. Both programs are designed to work on selected

areas, although CORE involves a much higher number of LGUs (241 LGUs) as Ecotown (18

LGUs). Apparently, the CORE functions as a follow-up program of the Ecotown but no clear

communication is given. It is uncertain if the Ecotown Framework will be further pursued.

4.5.2 One Plan – Two Approaches

As outlined in the former sections, the LCCAP stands in the center of the planning framework

for climate. The implementation of the LCCAP is a joint effort by the CCC and the DILG/LGA.

This effort, however, follows two contradictory processes (ICLEI, iCSC, LGA, DILG Region IV-A,

UN-HABITAT). The CCC and the DILG/LGA developed two different understandings of the

LCCAP and, hence, produced two different processes for its implementation. This is causing

confusion at the local level, as one quote by the iCSC illustrates: “It’s irritating for some of the

municipalities who got the chance to seek on two different orientations about LCCAP and

requiring them to make two different versions of LCCAP.”

In consideration of the LGUs that already face difficulties in dealing the vast number of locally

mandated plans, the CCC encouraged them to incorporate CCAM and DRR in their existing

local plans (the CLUP and CDP); instead of preparing a separate, stand-alone LCCAP, or rather

LDRRMP (iCSC). In contrast, the DILG that has been providing direct technical support to the

LGUs through the LGA did not see themselves able to assist without any material, and hence

developed guidelines and trained trainers of the DILG how to prepare a LCCAP (LGA).


In terms of outcome, it actually does not matter, as long the integration of CCAM into the

CLUP and CDP is done well, everything is already there (UN-HABITAT). However, there are at

least two advantages of having a stand-alone LCCAP. These are: 1) the possibility to present a

comprehensive plan that contains all climate-related activities in one document for instance

to investors (CCC, DILG), and 2) the possibility to access the People’s Survival Fund that

requires a LCCAP (CCC, iCSC, UN-HABITAT).

Experts cited coordination and a lack of communication as the main reasons for the

circumstance of having two implementation approaches for the LCCAP in place.

Unfortunately, there have been difficulties in ensuring uniformity in the approach. There are a lot of

tools available. […] At the level of the national government agencies, I think the challenge is the

coordination because there are a lot of approaches in climate change and in the mainstreaming of

the frameworks into the plans of the LGUs. (CCC)

[A]t some instance, lack of communication among the stakeholders. There’s a lack of communication between and among the major stakeholders. (LGA)

There are two different agencies who are trying to roll out the LCCAP [CCC and DILG/LGA] and they

don’t talk to each other. (iCSC)

The questions thus arises, what were the conditions that produced this particular

coordination problem and how has it been tackled? A number of critical conditions could be

identified, namely ambiguity in the law, overlapping mandates, and limited personnel

resources:

Ambiguity in the law: The Climate Change Act speaks of “climate change action plans” (CCA, Section

14) without any clarification on what such a plan entails. Interestingly, the National Climate Change

Action Plan also refers to the Section 14 of this law but states the plan slightly differently as “Local Climate Change Action Plan” (NCCAP, Legal Mandate). We can learn from the legislation that LGUs are required to prepare a LCCAP, but it does not give any details on the form of the LCCAP; if it

shall be in the form of a stand-alone LCCAP or only mainstreamed into the CLUP and CDP. The

DILG, however, issued a memorandum circular on the concerns of the LCCAP (No. 2014-135) in

2014, expressing that the LGUs can decide to create a stand-alone plan on CCA (Section 3.3.10).

Overlapping mandates: The CCC is mandated to do capacity building for local adaptation planning,

implementation and monitoring of climate change initiatives in vulnerable communities and areas

(CCA, Section 9n), while the DILG and LGA are tasked to facilitate the development and provision of

a training program for LGUs in climate change (CCA, Section 15b). We can learn from that, the CCC

and the DILG/LGA have overlapping mandates in building local capacity on climate-related issues.

Limited personnel resources: The CCC has the responsibility to develop guidelines for local climate

planning. When the LGA, however, started their training program for the LGUs in 2013 there were

no guiding material available. Most likely because the CCC were lacking personnel resources to

comply their mandate. The same holds true for the DILG that also lacks staff focusing on climate

change matters. In addition to that, the LGA faced a strong demand on guiding material for the

LCCAP from the local governments, as a series of extreme weather event occurred that put the LGA

under pressure to act (LGA).


In fact, the development of a variety of approaches and tools can also be observed for other

cases in the field of local climate planning. Contrarily to the intention, a new approach can

rather mean a burden to the LGUs than a relief, as its introduction involves demanding

learning processes:

For an example, a few days ago, we were in Rizal, and I talked to the Disaster Risk Reduction

Management Officer of Angono. They already submitted their LCCAP, using the risk assessment

that we trained them. But he mentioned to us that the LGU is planning to update the plan using the

Ecotown approach because CCC is partnering with them. Some of the challenges are that there are

so many agencies and organizations that are trying to help out the LGUs but they use different

approaches. It’s confusing for the LGUs because they do not know what to follow or what they

should comply. (DILG Region IV-A)

There are a lot of frameworks available that the LGUs can use to make sure that their plans are

climate and disaster risk-proof. And with that said, the LGUs have difficulties in figuring out what

framework to use for them to mainstream their plans. Especially now that there are a lot of projects

producing tools that can help LGUs. But still with that, they have difficulties because it is mainly just

too much available. […] Whenever we introduce new approaches for the LGUs, they feel like they

have to learn again. (CCC)

Opportunities and Solutions

The coordination problems pertaining to local climate planning are widely recognized among

the implementing institutions. In fact, they are met with openness and solution-oriented

approaches.

At this point, there is really confusion to our LGUs, but I must also tell you that we have plans of

convening all the relevant agencies to finally decide what we really want. […] We should agree as

the national government to decide what we really want. Do you have a separate plan for the

LCCAP? Or, do we just want to make sure that climate change is mainstreamed? (CCC)

There should be recognition of mandate between these agencies of our local governments. If the

DILG has a supervision mandate of our local governments, then other national government

agencies should recognize such mandate as far as planning is concerned. What we’re trying to drive

at is if an agency within the national government is already working on one agenda, then this

agency should support this agenda, not necessarily coming in with one reinventing the will. (LGA)

Even the guidelines of these agencies, the various agencies - there should be transparent

consultations between and among these agencies because there are instances that department A

gives its own guidelines, which is inconsistent with the guidelines of department B. (LGA)

There are also attempts to strengthen the mainstreaming processes of the CLUP and CDP.

According to a CCC representative, the CCC is trying to convene the HLURB and the DILG to

come up with harmonized guidelines or a harmonized plan (CCC).


4.5.3 Further Critical Issues

The previous sections discussed various approaches to climate planning and identified a

number of gaps. The following section will highlight further critical issues of local climate

planning, which also require coordinated efforts.

Monitoring and Evaluation system: The LGUs are required to submit their LCCAPs to the CCC,

but, in fact, the CCC has not developed a review system yet. So far, there is only self-

monitoring by the LGU, but this lacks capacity and guidance (iCSC). An effective review

system would need clarification on the form of the LCCAPs by the CCC and the DILG/LGA.

The absence of a review system applies also for the climate-proofed CLUP and CDP. This

prevents lessons learned and the ability to track progress. Given the current equipment of the

CCC, it remains unclear how an effective monitoring and evaluation system can be run.

Continuity: Frequent changes related to legislative periods often impede local climate

planning. The introduction of further mechanisms that lead to more continuity may

strengthen climate planning. Examples of such mechanisms could include an extended period

of the LCCAP that is legally binding (DILG Region IV-A), non-changing career service officers

(DILG Region IV-A, UN-HABITAT), and/or intensified participation during the formulation

processes to create ownership (Santa Rosa City).

Guidelines: Comprehensive guidelines have been generated to support the formulation of the

LCCAP, and the mainstreaming of climate change into the CLUP and CDP (in progress).

Nonetheless, there is criticism about the complexity of the guidelines and difficulties in using

them at local level. Furthermore, a number of overlaps are recognized. To ease the guidelines

and enhance their applicability, recommendations such as developing a toolkit (Marikina City)

and preparing case studies with visuals (UP-SURP) were brought up. Another idea is to

develop adjusted guidelines that reflect the variations of LGUs in terms of geography and

economy that partly require different planning approaches.

Climate data: A lack of climate data (e.g. hazard maps) and software also impacts the quality

of climate planning. Climate data is substantial for adequate planning. To overcome this

issue, the DILG recommended strengthening the linkages of experts on the ground to the

LGUs. Furthermore, the idea was raised, to develop vulnerability indexes that indicate the

stage of local preparedness although it rather relates to DRR planning (LCP).


Tools: Standardized climate screening tools to facilitate the integration of climate change

considerations in policy and financial management have already been developed, namely

Vulnerability Assessments (VA) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). There is some

criticism that certain elements of the VA are too technical for use at local level, and the EIA

frequently fall short in quality and timing (World Bank 2013). Despite these deficiencies,

however, both tools have the potential to be scaled up and developed.

Technical capacity: Climate planning is a fairly new task to the local governments and there is

often a lack of technical capacity at the LGU level to carry it out. Measures to capacitate LGUs

comprised of the intensification of pools of trainers and experts at regional and local level

(DILG), online media such as an online help desk and a website hub for climate planning and

e-learning program (LCP), and Mailings, Newsletter and Social Media.

Public awareness: Local governments lack public support. A higher public awareness of

climate change would support LGUs in their local climate planning endeavors (LGA, Santa

Rosa City).

Funding: Last but not least, funding and the generation of funds remains a big gap for local

climate planning. In addition, the absence of clear definition for adaptation and mitigation

projects hampers financing activities (CPBRD).

Summing-up

Local climate planning, at this stage, constitutes a rather fragmented framework. It involves

three major plans, each of which has own regulations and guidelines, making climate

planning very laborious for the local governments. There is no orientation which approach

shall be followed and what order is the most practical one to keep administrative pressures

low. Consequently, there is no overarching framework evident that ensures an integrated

implementation process for climate change. In combination with other deficiencies, like

limited technical and financial capacity of LGUs, this forms a significant obstacle to

implementation of climate policy.

In addition, the study discussed the problematic situation that divergent implementing

approaches for the LCCAP have been developed. It revealed three conditions that

complicated the coordination processes: (1) an absence of clear legislation regarding the

form of the LCCAP, (2) overlapping mandates between the CCC and the DILG/LGA in terms of


capacity building, and (3) limited personnel resources of the CCC. The plethora of

approaches, and especially contradictory approaches, pose a significant barrier to local

climate planning and is most likely one of the major factors for the relatively low status of

local climate plans. Without doubt, clarifications and hence coordination on the disparate

processes are needed among the implementing institutions. Especially, as further activities

are progressing, as for instance the development of additional guidelines for enhanced

mitigation actions. These developments may broaden the divide in the implementation

approaches and increases the confusion of the LGUs.

The compilation of further critical issues gives further insight in the local planning and with

that widens the discussion.


5 Discussion

This chapter picks up on the hypotheses and discusses them in light of the empirical findings

presented in the last chapter. In doing so, linkages will be made to the research questions.

Reflections on the methodological and theoretical frameworks will round off the discussion.

5.1 Connecting the Dots: Hypotheses and Empirical Findings

The empirical findings of this study showed that the local implementation of climate policy is

affected by coordination, involving horizontal and vertical coordination deficits. Given the

implications of this on the local climate planning processes, this master’s thesis sought to

understand the role of coordination. The following questions guided this mission:



In the course of exploring the role of coordination in the implementation processes, two

hypotheses were formulated that will be discussed in the following.




The analysis of the implementation processes of climate policy leads to the argument that

intensified horizontal coordination potentially develops a common implementation approach

that would streamline and therewith simplify local climate planning. This argument is based

on the observation that different approaches for the implementation of the LCCAP have been

developed and promoted by different institutions. These different approaches are partly

contradictory and involve different procedures. Having two implementing approaches of the

LCCAP causes confusion at the local level and can mean additional expenditure for the local

governments if an LGU gets involved with different approaches. This situation prevents an

effective implementation of climate policy. Here, theoretical insights are not gained from the

case of a prevailing “common logic”, but from the contrary of having a divergent approach,

providing the possibility to study the factors that led to this situation.


Studying the implementation processes, approaches can be recognized that work well

towards the goal of developing a unified approach. This applies in particular to the CCC as

the central actor for climate change concerns, the CCCC as a powerful coordination

mechanism, and regular exchanges that are taking place. Also, a good relationship and

openness for collaboration between the major implementing institutions be recognized.

Thus, the coarse structure for effective coordination seems to be in place but is somehow

hampered. Looking at the generated data, a number of conditions can be identified that

prevented and/or made it difficult to develop such a “common logic”:

Ambiguity in the law: The Climate Change Act does not give clear orientation in the form of the

LCCAP nor what it exactly entails, leaving room for interpretation.

Overlapping mandates: There are a number of shared mandates and tasks among the

implementing institutions, such as the CCC and the DILG, both being responsible for the

implementation of the LCCAP without clear delineation.

Turnover of staff: There have been a number of changes of staff in the implementing institutions,

most notably the CCC’s Secretary that led to discrepancies.

Limited personnel resources: At least in two of the major implementing institutions, CCC and DILG,

a limited number of staff working on climate policy and planning were recorded, combined with a

relatively high workload and low capacity for coordination.

Absence of formalized coordination: There seems to be no formalized coordination for the

implementing institutions such as compulsory participation for meetings.

Lack of information: An information gap between the CCC and the LGA concerning the LCCAP was

expressed.

Time pressure: The demand for orientation by local governments, boosted through occurring

extreme weather events, put institutions under pressure to respond quickly.

Actors from different levels and backgrounds expressed the need for more horizontal

coordination in order to develop a stronger working relation between the major

implementing institutions to harmonize the local climate planning system. Thus, based on the

above-mentioned conditions this study identifies potentials to intensify coordination. And as

this rather low extent of coordination led to a divergent approach, it is assumed that tapping

the full potential leads to a unified approach. It further argues based on empirical insights,

that a unified implementation approach provides clearer orientation and precludes excess

work that boosts local action and, hence, the local implementation.

Whereas the first hypothesis focused on national institutions that implicate horizontal

coordination, the second hypothesis deals with international donors and local governments,

involving horizontal and vertical coordination.






Looking at local climate policy and planning two observations stand out: Firstly, there is a

large number of tools for local climate planning, such as programs and guidelines. Yet

oftentimes, tools are duplicated and do not align with one another. Secondly, there is often

little to none local involvement in the development of climate policy and planning at the

national level. This hypothesis argues that if planning tools are developed in a more

integrative way, and if the policy and planning processes increases local involvement, local

climate planning can be improved.

A number of interviewees describe that having many tools in place and the introduction of

constantly new tools complicate the planning processes rather than ease it. As mentioned

during the interviews, international donors often stimulate the development of tools for

climate planning. Two such example are the Ecotown Framework, developed in support from

the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the CORE, Communities for Resilience, developed in

support from the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI). The Ecotown Framework, for

instance, demonstrates the paradox between support and hindrance. On the one hand, the

Ecotown tool has been very supportive in the planning efforts of a number of LGUs, such as

for Marikina City. This holds especially true as only little support for local climate planning is

offered by the national government through the DILG/LGA. Yet, one the other hand, the tool

can be destructive by involving an individual procedure that demands additional efforts, as it

happened to cited case Rizal. On top of that, the future of the Ecotown Framework is unsure

and dependent on donors. Given the interviews, this seems to be a recurring case for other

such programs. Given the fact, that a high number of LGUs suffer financial, professional, and

informational capacities for climate planning, it can be assumed that expenses for planning

should be kept as low as possible, contrasting to the current situation. Here, it is assumed

that intensified coordination with donors leads to the development of tools that are more

integrative to the existing planning system. Despite the vital function of donor activities, they

are also face criticism for overlooking “recipient country’s and the donor community’s

broader programmatic context” (Marquardt 2015). In the context of renewables in the


Philippines, Marquardt (2015) observed a rather quick introduction of new projects rather

than building on existing ones.

The second issue tackled by this hypothesis is the lack of inclusion of the local level in

national efforts for climate policy and planning. This point was raised by interviewees who

described a prevailing disconnection between the local and national levels. Therefore the

study argues that a stronger involvement of the local level can promote better understanding

at both levels. Such inclusion can have multiple benefits, most notably a better recognition of

local conditions on the national side and a feeling of working in concert on the local side.

Sabatier (1986) highlights that top-down planning can often create policies with plans and

objectives that are disconnected from realities and needs on the ground. Limited

engagement during the policy and planning development entail the danger that they are not

appropriate translated at the local level. However, the criticism that the national level is not

aware of the local struggles for climate planning cannot be supported by the findings of this

study. Instead, there seems to be a lack of further coordination mechanisms to involve local

governments stronger. The need for more vertical coordination is demanded by actors at

different levels and backgrounds. As this situation is described as an obstacle to effective

implementation, the study argues that more vertical coordination enables further potential

for improved local climate planning.

Analyzing both hypotheses provides manifold answers to the central research questions. The

conditions identified for the first hypothesis give practical answers to the question, whereas

the second hypothesis underlines the theoretical standpoint from Leite & Buainain (2013),

that coordination is becoming more complex with increasing actors such as donors. Leite &

Buainain (2013:137), therefore, recognize a demand for more flexible, inclusive and adaptable

mechanisms in the policy arena. Coordination alone, certainly, does not consolidate the local

climate framework and can also mean a significant amount of additional work. It can only

bear fruits if other barriers and obstacles are mastered, such as the lack of support for local

climate planning or the further indicated critical issues in section 4.5.3. A starting point,

however, for a more integrative and inclusive approach could be the integration of local

opinions regarding the form of the LCCAP as well as critical checking’s of future donor

activities in this field.


5.2 Reflecting on the Methodological and Theoretical Framework

The methodological and theoretical framework developed for this study provides a research

concept to examine horizontal and vertical coordination in the field of climate policy

implementation. Particularly vital to the developed research concept is the explorative and

qualitative research approach that enables the consideration of country-specific and

contextual conditions, and provides the possibility to learn about factors for a given

condition. This approach, however, makes the results specific, limiting the possibility to

generalize findings. This holds generally true for case study research, as the high number of

variables that are unique to each case make it difficult to derive valid hypotheses for other

cases. For this research, however, the qualitative research method case study analysis was

critical for gaining an in-depth understanding of the complex phenomenon of coordination

for local climate policy implementation and planning. The further applied qualitative research

methods semi-structured expert interviews, focus group, and document review also proved

useful to elaborate empirical data. Their combination balanced out individual shortcomings.

The focus group turned out to be particularly effective in elaborating sophisticated

information and appears to be especially suitable in advanced research stage.

A further fruitful component of the developed research concept was the intertwining of the

grounded theory method and the iterative approach to research. The grounded theory

approach allowed addressing the research issue, while the iterative approach ensured to do

this with strong theoretical considerations. By this means, a balance between practice and

theory was created that enhanced practical and theoretical implications. The theoretical

framework, comprising of knowledge from policy implementation theory and coordination

theory together with perspectives from multi-level governance, proved valuable as well.

Insights from these theories provided a sound basis for analysis and the examination of local

climate planning coordination benefited from well-established theoretical reflection on policy

implementation and coordination. In doing so, the study contributes to the theoretical

debate and includes the Philippines as a new case study in the research sphere of climate

policy. When selecting the literature, attention was given to a gender balance and to include

perspectives from the global South and North.

The key task of implementation analysis to identify factors that affect the implementation as

defined by Mazmanian & Sabatier (1983) was fulfilled. Also the importance of evaluation “as


a key to good implementation” (Mazmanian & Sabatier 1983; Browne & Wildavsky 1984)

stressed in policy implementation, can be affirmed with this study. Considering the study

findings, a number of critical aspects of the local implementation of climate policy were

assessed and discussed, which provide input for a more profound evaluation. In this line,

basic information about the complex topic of local climate planning is vital for its further

development.

Yet, to unfold detailed issues of implementation, it was helpful to work with coordination

theory that offered more tangible insights. To deal with the research topic, policy

implementation theory appeared to be rather broad and descriptive. This research came also

to the shared notion in the theories of policy implementation and coordination that

coordination is a crucial factor determining for success in policy implementation (Gordon

2015; Leite & Buainain 2013; Pressman & Wildavsky 1984). With this, it reconfirms the need

for research. In addition, the two concepts from coordination theory, interdependence and

institution, as indicated by Leite & Buainain (2013) indeed served to better understand

coordination and provided essential input for the hypotheses. In this context, guided by the

grounded theory approach, the research raised the need to give special attention to four

factors in order to develop an in-depth understanding of coordination in the Philippine case.

These four factors are: the policy framework, the institutional framework, coordination

mechanisms, and the planning framework of local climate planning. It can be assumed that

these factors, the hypotheses as well as further findings of this study entail insights for other

countries with similar political and economic situation.

The combined approach of coordination theory with a multi-level governance perspective

worked particularly well. Multi-level governance offers substantial considerations of the

interplay of actors and institutions at different levels. Together with the categorization of

horizontal (central-central) and vertical (central-local) coordination, that stemmed from the

multi-level perspective, this combined approach appears to be very fruitful and supplemental

to understand and discuss coordination in implementation processes of local climate policy.

Finally, following the recommendation from Gordon (2015) to concentrate on “how”

coordination is produced and sustained, that inspired the research questions, turned out to

be enlightening; but if not done with a very narrow scope, bears the risk to get lost in details.


6 Conclusions

“It will not be the government role alone. It will be a joint effort

between the government, the CSOs, NGOs, LGUs to put all these

things together. And I’m confident enough to do this.” (CPBRD)

Aiming at understanding coordination of local climate planning, this study explored

implementation processes of climate policy in the Philippines. The empirical relevance of this

study lies in the demonstration of coordination as an influential factor for climate policy

implementation, and in the derivation of starting points to improve the Philippine climate

planning system. In this context, the Philippine case study presented here contributes to the

stream of literature on implementation and coordination, which constitutes the theoretical

relevance of this study. Embedded in a theoretical framework consisting of policy

implementation theory and coordination theory combined with a multi-level governance

perspective to capture the different levels involved, the implementation processes of local

climate policy in the Philippines were examined in form of an in-depth case study research.

The implementation of policies poses a highly complex task to governments, in particular if

they involve cross-cutting issues such as climate policy. One of the key determinants for

successful policy implementation is coordination (Leite & Buainain 2013; Pressman

& Wildavsky 1984; Gordon 2015). This holds also true for the Philippine case, given the

empirical results of this study that stresses a lack of coordination as a major obstacle to

effective implementation. Dismantling this broad term coordination into small pieces, as this

research did, four factors turned out to matter for coordination of local climate planning in

the Philippines: policies, institutions, coordination mechanisms, and the climate planning

framework. Insights from the examination of these four factors provide evidence to answer

the research questions.

This master’s thesis posed the questions of how coordination is produced and sustained, why

coordination issues occur, and how are they addressed.


The Philippine local climate planning is based on a comprehensive overall framework

including the major policies CCA, NCCAP, and LGC; the major implementing institutions CCC,

NEDA, DILG/LGA, and HLURB; the major coordination mechanisms CCCC, CCC, DILG/LGA,

and Leagues; as well as the local climate plans, LCCAP, and CLUP, CDP. This framework

represents an essential achievement and forms a solid basis for the local implementation of

climate policy. Nevertheless, a number of deficits are making it a fragmented framework. In

this framework, coordination is only partially structural produced and not fully exploited,

resulting in a restricted implementation as the relatively low rate indicates. This becomes

particularly apparent by looking at the CCC that is designed as coordination body but lacks

resources to function as one. In addition, the production of coordination is characterized by a

large number of additional non-state actors, as from donor organizations or NGOs,

increasing significantly the complexity of policy management.

The political system in which the framework is embedded challenges the sustainability of

coordination. Frequent changes in staff and strategies mainly due to legislative periods make

it difficult to develop customs and routines that potentially ease efforts. Further

disadvantageously changes are often created through donor activities. Development

cooperation contributes greatly to the development of the existing policy and planning

framework. Yet, due to their culture of promotion, they provide timely limited support and

tend to develop rather new components instead of improving existing ones. In addition, the

absence of effective review mechanisms prevents lessons learned that can further sustain

coordination.

The main reasons for coordination deficits are reflected in the identified factors mentioned

above and studied in-depth at the current issue of having divergent implementation

processes developed and promoted by different implementation institutions. The following

conditions could be identified that led to this coordination gap: ambiguity in the law,

overlapping mandates, turnover of staff, limited personnel resources, absence of formalized

coordination, lack of information, and time pressure.

Looking at how coordination issues are addressed and referring to the issue of the

implementation of the LCCAP, general awareness and openness of the involved institutions

stand out, being potentially a success factor for solving the issue. Also programs and projects

that tackle coordination between groups of actors can be observed, initiated by civil society


groups, intergovernmental organizations, and donors amongst others. Something that was

not found but is conducive for coordination are programs that aim at strengthening

capacities to coordinate.

On the whole, it is important to note that the creation of successful coordination is a slow

process and the development and implementation of local climate policy including its

coordination is a fairly new undertaking. Systematic further development, however, can join

forces.

Recommendations

Finally, findings of this study implicate two recommendations for a more effective

implementation of climate policy at the local level. These recommendations are mainly

derived from the hypotheses of this research.

(1) The implementing institutions should develop a “common logic” that aims at

developing a unified implementation approach for local climate policy and planning.

The current implementation process is marked by different approaches that hamper climate

planning at the local level, preventing an effective implementation of climate policy. This

concerns, in particular, the LCCAP, for which divergent implementation approaches are

followed. A common approach to implementation can be produced through intensified

horizontal coordination among the implementing institutions, namely CCC, NEDA, DILG/LGA,

and HLURB. Intensified coordination requires improved conditions that can be produced

through staffing capacity and capacity building for coordination, among others. Especially

vital to harmonization processes are the CCC, as central coordination body, and the CCCC, as

a powerful horizontal coordination mechanism. Through both face strong obstacles. While

the CCC lacks resources, personnel, and capacities to reach stronger leadership, the future of

the CCCC is uncertain, as the newly elected government led open to convened the cluster on

climate change to date. Following a unified implementation approach enables to streamline

local climate planning that can generate positive momentum for local action through a

simplification of the system.


(2) The implementation approach for local climate policy and planning needs to be

more integrative and inclusive. The local climate planning framework is shaped by a

relatively large number of tools for planning, and little to none involvement of local

governments in the development of climate policy and planning. The large number of such

tools widely increases the complexity of local climate planning, in particular as some are

duplicated and not in concert to the system. The perceived disconnect between the national

and the local leads to a limited understanding and difficulties in translating goals. Stronger

leadership and coordination in the management of planning approaches, ideally through the

CCC, on the one hand, and increased involvement of local governments through the DILG, on

the other hand, can tackle these issues. The management of planning approaches concerns,

particularly, the collaboration with donors that appear to have a tendency to develop new

tools rather than building on existing ones. In light of the dependency on local governments

and international donors to reach the ambitious climate goals, such as the intended 70

percent Paris goal (Philippine's INDC 2015), a more integrative and inclusive approach is

crucial. Therefore, the development of more flexible and inclusive coordination mechanisms

or better the enhancement of existing mechanisms is needed.

This master’s thesis ascertained not only that coordination deficits affect the implementation

of climate policy in the Philippines, but also showed the existence of a comprehensive

framework for local climate planning and highly motivated actors. Strengthened coordination

of local climate planning can unfold its potential and pay off the great efforts, by enabling a

more effective implementation of climate policy.

Limitations and further research

As a matter of course, this master’s thesis needs to acknowledge a number of inherent

limitations. First of all, this research studied a “snapshot” of the implementation processes of

local climate policy. The field of climate policy is in actuality steadily evolving. This holds

especially true given the recent elections and change of the Philippine government in 2016.

The study also simplified certain aspects for the sake of manageability. This applies in

particular to the presented overview of local climate planning that neglects numerous

important aspects of an even more complex reality, such as DRR, funding or power

structures. A further limitation stems from the developed research design and concerns the


generalizability and bias of results. Qualitative, explorative and interpretive research

approaches carry the risk of incorrectness and interdependence due to their singularity and

preferences of the researcher. This risk cannot be ruled out, even if attempted by the author.

Yet, it allowed identifying some crucial issues that affect the whole climate planning system

and poses a solid basis for possible further research on Philippine climate policy

implementation.

In order to deepen the understanding of coordination for climate policy implementation in

the Philippines, looking also at communication can provide further insights. Also the debate

about the involvement of the local level and donors shows potential to be broadened.

Further research could benefit from comparative approaches through mutual learning

between countries. In addition, a comparative analysis of efforts in the field of DRR and

CCAM in the Philippines shows great potential, as the implementation of the DRRM law is

more advanced. Further research on the role of the regional and provincial level for climate

policy implementation in the Philippines also seems very promising. The stronger

involvement bears positive effects for the overall local climate planning system, especially for

multi-level coordination, and monitoring, evaluation, and review of local plans. A further

emerging field of action and research for local climate planning is the adequate incorporation

of low emission development strategies to further promote mitigation. In respect of

coordination theory, research that expands on the effects of integrating insights from multi-

level governance and vice versa seems auspicious.


Appendix

Appendix I – List of Interview Partners


Appendix II – Exemplary Interview Guides

Example 1: National Level

Interview “Philippine Local Climate Planning”

Mr. Belver, Climate Change Commission (CCC)

San Miguel, April 19, 2016

Introduction

current position, current duties, years in the institution

Topics/Guiding questions

1. Three challenges: As an introduction, could you please name three challenges for the

work of the CCC regarding local climate planning?

2. Local climate planning approaches: LCCAP, Ecotown Framework, mainstreaming of

the CLUP and CDP: Functions? Order? Timeline? Interplay and integrity?

3. LCCAP: Mandatory in the future? Guidelines? Review mechanism?

4. Eco-Town approach: First résumé? Future strategy? Outreach and integration?

5. CCA/DRR: Will CCA and DRR remain separate planning processes? Do you see any

benefits to merging the planning processes?

6. Communication and coordination: Which mechanisms exist between the national

government and the LGUs to communicate and coordinate? How well do they

function?

7. Cluster cabinet on climate change: Functions? Future?

8. Goals: Which mechanisms are in place to align national and local priorities? How

aligned do you see national and local priorities? Were any LGUs representatives’ involved in the goal setting processes of the national goals/INDC?

9. Harmonization: What are your thoughts about the harmonization of the climate

planning system? What is needed and feasible in their opinion?

10. Role of actors: Academia? International agents? Private sector?

11. Continuity: Which possibilities do you see to strengthen the continuity of local climate

action planning?

12. Monitoring, reporting, and evaluation: Future strategies?

13. Implementation: Future strategies?

14. Future: Future outreach strategy? Any regional offices planned? Any awareness

building of the public planned to strengthen local efforts?

15. Three actions: As a final conclusion, which three major actions to you conclude to

strengthen the local climate planning?


Example 2: Local Level

Interview “Philippine Local Climate Planning”

Mr. Ermin Lucino, City Planning and Development Coordinator

Santa Rosa, April 15, 2016

Introduction

Introduction: current position, current duties, years in the institution

Guiding questions

1. What motivates the city to do CCA/DRR planning?

2. What are your experiences with the mainstreaming of CCA in the CLUP and CDP

regarding the processes and challenges?

3. What are your experiences with the formulation of the LCCAP regarding the process

and challenges?

4. Does it cause any problems in practice having two laws and plans in place for CCA

and DRR?

5. When it comes to implementation of the plans, what are the most challenging issues

for your city? How feasible are your set priorities and plans?

6. What role did the national priorities play in the development of the plans? Do you see

your plans aligned with the national climate priorities?

7. Which communication and coordination mechanisms between the national, regional,

and local level do you see in place? How well do they work for you?

8. What are your thoughts about the institutional structure regarding the implementing

institutions (CCC, DILG/LGA, HLURB, NEDA)?

9. What are your thoughts about the Local Government Code?

10. What are your experiences with monitoring, reporting, and evaluation of the plans?

How do you ensure the quality of the plans?

11. The CALABARZON area seems to be very strong on cooperation/collaboration. How

come?

12. As a final conclusion, what would be the three most important things for future

CCA/DRR planning for Santa Rosa?


Appendix III – Focus Group Report

5 x 5 x 5 Challenge: Improving Local Climate Change Planning

In the form of a special challenge, the participants of the Focus Group were asked to develop

recommendations for action to stregthen the Philippine local climate planning system. The

therefore discussed fields for actions to improve local climate action planning comprised of

(1) Priorities, (2) Tools and Training, (3) Coordination and Communication, (4)

Implementation, and (5) Monitoring, Reporting, and Evaluation.

In accordance with the name of the session “5 x 5 x 5 Challenge: Improving Local Climate

Change Actions”, the participants had the target to develop sound recommendations for

actions within a short period of time. In order to achieve that, groups were formed according

to the five different fields for actions. In these working groups posters were filled out,

indicating challenges and opportunities of the field of action, on the one hand, and stating

five actions together with a prioritization of these actions, on the other hand. After presenting

the posters to the audience, all participates were invited to mark their favorite set of actions

and flag which three actions are the most important for their individual work.

© UN-HABITAT: Participants of the workshop filling out one of the five posters to develop

recommendations for action to strengthen the Philippine local climate action planning system.


The outcome of the workshop was a long list with recommendations for action, whereas the

experts from different fields evaluted 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 LGUs;

2. Conduct of GHG inventories by the LGUs;

3. Capacity building on climate action planning to be initiated by national agencies

(HLURB, DENR, DILG) to LGUs;

4. Strengthening local government’s cluster approach for cohesive climate 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.

© UN-HABITAT: Participants of the workshop mark their favorite set of actions and flag which three

actions are the most important for their personal work.


Appendix IV – Focus Group Templates


Appendix V – Focus Group Guide

Workshop “The 5 x 5 x 5 Challenge: Improving Local CCA Planning” March 16 2016 – 1:30-3:00pm – Venue: Sta. Rosa, Laguna

The idea is to bring out participant’s best ideas of how to improve local CCA planning through a little challenge. Local CCA is broken down in 5 (tables) x 5 (topics) x 5 (priorities). The

participants at each table are asked (in very little time) to identify the main challenges and

opportunities within each topic and come up with a prioritized list of approaches and solutions.

Therefore a poster will be provided to collect the findings.

After a brief presentation of the findings, the participants are kindly asked to a) indicate their

favorite presentation based on content (stickers in red) and b) indicate three actions that are

relevant for their current/future work (stickers colored in yellow). The group’s poster with the most stickers in red wins the challenge and receives an extra award. The awards are sweets.

Moderation: Marcus Andreas, PhD; Kora Rösler

Participants: approximately 40 participants; mainly representatives from LGUs in the region;

a few representatives from regional, national, international level, civil society

and development cooperations

Bring

• Pens

• Paper for agenda + tape

• Templates for findings

• List to collect email addresses

• Handouts with questions

• Bell

• Recorder

• Camera

• Stickers (two colors)

• Sweets for awards

Prep

• Write down agenda

• 5 table rounds a 6 person

• Handouts, pens on the table

Agenda

1:30 – 1:40 INTRODUCTION AND FRAMING

1:40 – 2:10 ROUND TABLE

2:10 – 2:30 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS (4 min each table)

2:30 – 2:50 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

2:50 – 2:55 5 x 5 x 5 CHALLENGE AWARD

2:55 – 3:00 Picture

Goals

I. Learn about the challenges and opportunities that LGUs confront in local CAA planning

II. Develop ideas to strengthen local CAA planning


1:30 – 1:40 INTRODUCTION AND

FRAMING

- welcome

- session outline/agenda: 90 min

- goals and framing for the session

- background of the session, information about

recording, ask for permission

- handing out list for contact details

- presentation of the method

- presentation of the topics/tables

- choice of topics/tables by each participant

- questions?

1:40 – 2:10 ROUND TABLE

Phase 1: Indicate the challenges and problems

(10 min)

Phase 2: Develop solutions to deal the

challenges (15 min)

Phase 3: Preparation of presentation/filling out

poster templates (5 min)

- offer of support

2:10 – 2:30 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

- presentation of findings/poster, 4 min each

table

2:30 – 2:50 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

- sticker awarding

a) indicate your favorite topic presentation

based on content (stickers in red)

b) indicate three actions that are relevant for

your current/future work (stickers colored in

yellow)

- discussion of results: opinion about the

findings

- further thoughts on challenges and

opportunities, actions to strengthen local CCA

planning

2:50 – 2:55 5 x 5 x 5 CHALLENGE

AWARD

- handover award

- huge thank you for taking the challenge

Thematic Fields

Table 1: Priorities

Phase 1: Identify challenges and opportunities to

align national and local CCA priorities.

Phase 2: What could we do to align national

and local CCA priorities?

Table 2: Tools & Training

Phase 1: Identify challenges and opportunities of

tools and trainings for local CCA planning.

Phase 2: What could we do to further develop

tools and trainings for local CCA planning?

Which further tools and trainings could support

local CCA planning?

Table 3: Coordination & Communication


coordination and communication for local CCA

planning, considering the dialogue between the

actors involved at all levels (local, regional,

national, international levels).

Phase 2: What could we do to strengthen and

further develop the coordination and

communication for local CCA planning,

considering the dialogue between the actors

involved at all levels (local, regional, national,

international levels)?

Table 4: Implementation


implementing local CCA.


the implementation of local CCA?

Table 5: Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation


monitoring, reporting and evaluation local CCA.


monitoring, reporting and evaluation of local

CCA?

Declaration of Authorship

Author’s Declaration of Originality

by

Kora Rösler

I hereby assert that my master’s thesis was independently composed and authored by myself,

using the referred sources and support.

I additionally assert that this thesis has not been part of another examination process.

I agree that a copy of my master’s thesis can be borrowed from the library.

Berlin, 16.12.2016 _______________________________

(Signature)

Correspondence: Kora Rösler l Political Scientist, Berlin, Germany l e-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

References

Alexander, Ernest R. 1993. Interorganizational Coordination: Theory and Practice. Journal of

Planning Literature (7(4)), 328–343.

Bello, Walden F. 2005. The Anti-development State: The Political Economy of Permanent Crisis

in the Philippines. London, New York: Zed Books.

Berger, Peter L. & Luckmann, Thomas 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in

the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday.

Browne, Angela & Wildavsky, Aaron 1984. Implementation as Exploration, in Pressman,

Jeffrey L. & Wildavsky, Aaron: Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press,

232–256.

Climate Action Tracker 2016. Tracking (I)NDCs. URL:

http://climateactiontracker.org/indcs.html. [Accessed 3 December 2016]

Cohen, Jean L. 2007. Civil Society and Globalization: Rethinking the Categories: State and Civil

Society in Northern Europe: The Swedish Model Reconsidered. New York: Berghahn Books.

deLeon, Peter. & deLeon, Linda 2002. What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An

Alternative Approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Vol. 12(4),

467–492.

Della Porta, Donatella & Keating, Michael 2008. Approaches and Methodologies in the Social

Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dequech, David 2009. Institutions, Social Norms, and Decision-theoretic Norms. Journal of

Economic Behavior and Organization 72(1), 70–78.

Enderlein, Henrik, Wälti, Sonja & Zürn, Michael 2010. Handbook on Multi-Level Governance.

Cheltenham, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Esterberg, Kristin G. 2002. Qualitative Research Methods in Social Research. International ed.

Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill.

Germanwatch 2012. Global Climate Risk Index 2013. Bonn, Berlin: Germanwatch.

Glaser, Barney G. & Strauss, Anselm L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Research. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.

Gordon, David J. 2015. An Uneasy Equilibrium: The Coordination of Climate Governance in

Federated Systems. Global Environmental Politics (Vol. 15, No. 2), 121–141.

Gore, Al 2016. Climate Reality Leadership Corps. Manila.

Gupta, Parveen P., Dirsmith, Mark W. & Fogarty, Timothy J. 1994. Coordination and Control in

a Government Agency: Contingency and Institutional Theory Perspectives on GAO Audits.

Administrative Science Quarterly 39(2), 264–284.

International Monetary Fund 2016. Philippines: Gross domestic product. URL:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=58&pr.y=

10&sy=2014&ey=2021&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=566&s=NGDPD

%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a=. [Accessed 3 December 2016]

IPCC 2014. Climate Change 2014: What’s in it for South Asia? Executive Summary. Cambridge,

United Kingdom and New York.

Jänicke, Martin, Schreurs, Miranda & Töpfer, Klaus 2015. The Potential of Multi-Level Global

Climate Governance. IASS Policy Brief 2/2015. Potsdam.

King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O. & Verba, Sidney 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific

Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kitzinger, Jenny 1995. Qualitative Research. Introducing Focus Groups. BMJ 311 (7000).

Kreuzer, Peter 2009. Philippine Governance: Merging Politics and Crime. Frankfurt am Main:

Peace Research Institute Frankfurt. (PRIF reports, 93). URL:

http://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2011/2997/. [Accessed 3 December 2016]

Leite, Juliana P. & Buainain, Antonio M. 2013. Organizational Coordination in Public Policy

Implementation: Practical Dimensions and Conceptual Elements. Central European Journal

of Public Policy (Vol. 7 No. 2), 136–159.

Lindblom, Charles E. 1965. The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision-making through Mutual

Adjustment. New York: Free Press.

Lindlof, Thomas R. & Taylor, Bryan C. 2002. Qualitative Communication Research Methods. .

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Llanos Dee, Desiree 2016. The Philippines’ Climate Change Commission and Peoples’ Survival

Fund [internal document]. Berlin.

Local Government Academy 2014. LGU Guidebook on the Formulation of Local Climate

Change Action Plan (LCCAP). Book 2.

Marquardt, Jens 2015. The Power to Change? How Multi-level Governance Structures Affect

Renewable Energy Development in Southeast Asia. Freie Universität Berlin.

Marrakech Action Proclamation 2016. URL: http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-

newsroom/marrakech-action-proclamation-expresses-irreversible-momentum-on-

climate/. [Accessed 3 December 2016]

Mazmanian, Daniel A. & Sabatier, Paul A. 1983. Implementation and Public Policy. Glenville:

Scott, Foresman.

Ostrom, Elinor 2010. Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex

Economic Systems. American Economic Review (Vol. 100 (3)), 641–672.

Paudel, Narendra R. 2009. A critical account of the policy implementation theories: status and

reconsideration. Napalese Journal of Public Policy and Governance (2), 36–54.

Philippine Statistics Authority 2015. Highlights of the Philippine Population 2015 Census of

Population. URL: http://psa.gov.ph/content/highlights-philippine-population-2015-

census-population. [Accessed 3 December 2016]

2015. Philippine's Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. Republic of the Philippines.

URL:http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Philippines/1/Ph

ilippines%20-%20Final%20INDC%20submission.pdf. [Accessed 3 December 2016]

Pilny, Karl 2008. Tiger auf dem Sprung. Politik, Macht und Märkte in Südostasien. Frankfurt am

Main: Campus Verlag.

Pressman, Jeffrey L. & Wildavsky, Aaron 1984. Implementation: How Great Expectations in

Washington Are Dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ragin, Charles C. & Becker, Howard S. 1992. What is a case? Exploring the foundations of

social inquiry. 9. print. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Reese, Niklas 2007. Potentanten und widerspenstige Untertanen – das politische System in

Theorie und Praxis: Handbuch Philippinen. Gesellschaft, Politik, Wirtschaft, Kultur. Bad

Honnef: Horlemann Verlag.

Reichertz, Jo 2007. Qualitative Sozialforschung - Ansprüche, Prämissen, Probleme. Erwägen -

Wissen - Ethik 18(2), 244–245.

Rogers Marshall, Dale & Leonard, David K. 1982. Institutions of Rural Development for the

Poor: Decentralization and Organizational Linkages. University of California.

Sabatier, Paul A. 1986. Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a

Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis. Journal of Public Policy Vol. 6(1), 21–48.

Saldaña, Johnny 2015. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.

Shields, Patricia M. & Rangarajan, Nandhini 2013. A Playbook for Research Methods:

Integrating Conceptual Frameworks and Project Management. Stillwater, OK: New Forum

Press.

Sovacool, Benjamin K. 2011. An International Comparison of Four Polycentric Approaches to

Climate and Energy Governance. Energy Policy (Vol. 39 (6)), 3832–3844.

World Bank 2005. Philippines Environment Monitor 2005: Coastal and Marine Resource

Management. Washington D.C.

World Bank 2009. Sea-Level Rise and Storm Surges: A Comparative Analysis of Impacts in

Developing Countries.

World Bank 2013. Getting a Grip on Climate Change in the Philippines: Extended Technical

Report. Washington D.C..

Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Los Angeles: Sage.

Yusuf, Arief A. & Francisco, Herminia 2010. Hotspots! Mapping Climate Change Vulnerability

in Southeast Asia. Singapore.