Situationer on the Philippine EIS System

1
Situationer on the Philippine EIS System
2
The EA system as a Planning Tool

• EA more as a regulatory rather than a planning
  tool
• EA done per project/ project specific
• Very limited use of programmatic and other EA
  tools and approaches
• DENR-EMB input to the ICC evaluation of proposed
  projects is not maximized.
• There is separate requirements by donor agencies

3
The Universe (Scope) of Environmental Regulation

• EMBs industrial data base is 25,000. This is
  assumed to be the universe of industries under
  some form of environmental regulation. This is
  3 of the total number of registered industries
  (826,783) in the country in 1999
• The universe of the regulated establishments has
  not been established
• The EMB has no record pertaining to the total
  number of industries/undertakings deemed as ECPs
  or projects under ECA, the percentage of
  industries issued with ECCs, and those which are
  not covered.

4
Screening and Scoping

• There are screening and scoping criteria
  developed and well employed by the EMB CO and
  ROs. The scoping guidelines, however, are
  limited only to ECPs.
• Guidelines encourage the conduct of scoping at
  the earliest possible stage, or at FS phase

5
EIS Review, Evaluation and Processing

• EIA review is a long and bureaucratic process
• Review and evaluation system varies from one RO
  to another (all 16 regions)
• There are no guidelines in the evaluation of
  institutional framework and training requirements
  of implementing the EMPs of proposed projects.

6
EIS Review, Evaluation and Processing

• In 2003 and 2004 (after DAO 03-30) fourteen (14)
  of the 16 EMB ROs were able to process CNC
  applications within the prescribed 15 days
  processing time.
• All 16 ROs were able to process all non-ECP
  applications within the prescribed 60 day period.

7
Public Participation and Disclosure

• Public participation is required in category A
  projects only, lenient on requiring stakeholder
  involvement and participation for Category B
  projects.
• The requirement for public participation and
  disclosure in projects under category B and C are
  at the discretion of EMB

8
Environmental Management Planning

• Requirements on the preparation of EMPs and EMoPs
  are relaxed in projects under category B, C and
  D.
• Poor implementation of the EMP

9
Certificates issued by DENR (EMB CO ROs) 1980
to 2003
10
No. of reported projects monitored by EMB and
MMTs as of 2002
EMBCO EIS 0.20 EMB RO IEE-17.60 MMT EIS
0.20 MMT IEE 0.01
11
(No Transcript)
12
Monitoring

• Selection of samples for monitoring is by
  convenience, until SEPMES project in 2004
• Project Evaluation and Monitoring Prioritization
  Scheme (PEMAPS) has been initiated

13
General Findings of the Agency Assessment

• DA, DEP-ED, DSWD, DAR dont have EUs
• EA functions on most agencies are add-on
  functions
• Majority of agencies rely on EMB to monitor
  except for projects with PMOs which perform these
  monitoring functions ( most agencies have no
  budget for monitoring of environmental and social
  safeguards and have no guidelines related)
• The establishment of a MENRO in LGU is optional
  thus the implementation and monitoring of
  environmental safeguards in local projects is
  inadequate

14
The DENR-EMB as an Oversight Agency

• DENR-EMB input to the ICC evaluation of proposed
  projects is not maximized.
• DENR-EMB which serves as the national and
  regional focal point of the envtl. impact
  assessment has inadequate manpower to implement
  all the related functions
• Lacks capacity to undertake legal and
  institutional adequacy assessment for proposed
  projects

15
The DENR-EMB as an Oversight Agency

• Despite fast turn over of administration, the
  core staff who are knowledgeable and competent on
  the EIS system, remains intact.
• Academic preparation of EMB case handlers lean
  more toward biophysical expertise and less on
  socio-cultural discipline

16
The DENR-EMB as an Oversight Agency

• EMB has own website, the information provided are
  very limited. It does not provide opportunities
  for the public to comment on an ECC application
  neither on a draft EA guideline.