United Nations Environment Programme

environment for development

 
Division of Environmental Law and Conventions
Manual on Compliance with and Enforcement of Multilateral Environmental Agreements
Alert someone to this resource Leave Feedback Home > Enforcement > Institutional Frameworks > Economic Instruments > Case Study
Philippines’ Integrated Protected Area Fund

The Integrated Protected Area Fund (IPAF) is a trust fund established to promote the sustained financing of the Philippines’ National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS). The fund is derived from revenues generated within protected areas, donations, endowments, grants in the form of contributions, and all other income generated from the operation of the NIPAS. The IPAF consists of a Central Fund and a Sub-Fund. The Central Fund retains 75 percent of the collection and is intended to finance the operations of the protected area that generated the monies. The remaining 25 percent is remitted to the Sub-Fund, which is set aside to finance the activities of other protected areas that do not receive sufficient funds to sustain its operations. Disbursements from the Funds are made solely for the protection, maintenance, administration, and management of the NIPAS, as well as duly approved projects endorsed by the Protected Area Management Board.

An IPAF Governing Board administers the Fund and decides on fund allocation among the protected areas. The Board is chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and is composed of two representatives from other concerned government agencies, two from duly accredited NGOs with a proven track record in conservation and, two from indigenous communities, To date, the total IPAF collection amounts to PhP 66,314,122 (approximately US$1,185,200), which was generated from a total of 82 protected areas.

For more information, contact Ms. Meriden Maranan at planning@pawb.gov.ph or see the case study on “Participatory Management and Monitoring of Protected Areas in the Philippines” following Guideline 41(a)(ii).

A A Print this page
Search the Manual
Guidelines Search
Case Studies Search
» More Search Tools
Resources for
Guideline 41(g)
Case Studies
Equitable Distribution of Funds from Mining in Sierra Leone
Economic Mechanisms in Asia
Gambia’s Environmental Awards
Demand-Side Management in the Power Sector in Thailand
Ecotourism in Kenya
Economic Instruments in Barbados
Financing Conservation Efforts by Selling the Naming Rights of New Species
USEPA’s Economic Instrument Providing Incentives to Exceed Compliance
Environmental Compensation in Brazil
Georgia’s Renewable Energy Revolving Fund
The Green Fund of Trinidad & Tobago
Uganda’s National Environment Fund
Ghana’s Environmental Fund
Environmental Funds in Bulgaria
EECCA Environmental Funds and Good Practices of Public Environmental Expenditure Management
The Polluter-Pays Principle and the Ecological Fund in Uzbekistan
Philippines’ Integrated Protected Area Fund
Zimbabwe’s Carbon Tax and Environmental Fund
Environment Funds in the Kyrgyz Republic
Developing and Enhancing Green Taxes in Norway
The Gambia’s Environmental Taxes
Ecological Goods and Services Tax at the Sub-National Level in Brazil
Tax Provisions to Implement MEAs in St. Lucia
Tax Exemptions for Private Natural Heritage Reserves in Brazil
Additional Resources
Additional Resources On Economic Instruments
© UNEP | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Site Map