Introduction to the Phil. EIS System


Introduction


The 1987 Philippine Constitution lays down the basicframework for our policy on the environment. Section 16,Article II states that �The State shall protect and advancethe right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecologyin accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.� Section15 of the same Article also mandates the State �to protectand promote the people�s right to health.�

To implement this policy, Executive Order No. 192designated the Department of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR) as the �primary government agencyresponsible for the conservation, management, developmentand proper use of the country�s environment and naturalresources�. Its Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) isspecifically tasked �to recommend rules and regulations forenvironmental impact assessments and provide technicalassistance for their implementation and monitoring�.



The Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System


Presidential Decree No. 1151, otherwise known as the�Philippine Environmental Policy�, is the first policyissuance on Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System inthe Philippines. Effective since 1977, section 4 thereofexplicitly requires �all agencies and instrumentalities ofthe national government, including government-owned andcontrolled corporations, as well as private corporations,firms and entities to prepare an environmental impact system(EIS) for every action, project or undertaking whichsignificantly affects the quality of the environment.�

The Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)System was formally established in 1978 by virtue ofPresidential Decree (PD) No. 1586. Reiterating the policystatement under PD 1151, it introduced the concept ofenvironmentally critical projects (ECPs) and projects withinenvironmentally critical areas (ECAs) as projects whichrequire the submission of an environmental impact statement(EIS). It provides that �no person, partnership orcorporation shall undertake or operate any such declared ECPor project within an ECA without first securing anEnvironmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).� PD 1586 alsoidentified the lead agency for the implementation of the EISSystem and provided sanctions for its violation.

The major categories of ECPs and ECAs were pronouncedby the President through Proclamation No. 2146, series of1981. The categories were clarified by EMB�s predecessoragency, the National Environmental Protection Council(NEPC), through NEPC Office Circular No. 3, series of 1983.

Since the issuance of the foregoing, the EIS system hasundergone several refinements to make it a more effectiveplanning, management, and regulatory tool in addressingenvironmental problems in the country. The DENR hasconsistently endeavored to strengthen and tighten thesystem, by continuously introducing new features andrequirements in response to changing economic realities andthe growing environmental consciousness of the Philippinepopulace.

The latest of this effort is DENR Administrative Order(DAO) No. 37, series of 1996 or DAO 96-37, which expresslysupersedes DAO 21, series of 1992. DAO 96-37 is an attemptto further streamline the EIS system and to strengthen theprocesses for its implementation.

The basic DENR policy governing the implementation ofthe Philippine EIS system is articulated in Section 1.0,Article I of DAO 96-37, to wit:


"It is the policy of the DENR to attain and maintain a rational and orderly balance between socio-economic growth and environmental protection through the sustainable use, development, management, renewal and conservation of the country�s natural resources, including the protection and enhancement of the quality of the environment, not only for the present generation but for the future generations as well."


In consonance with this basic policy, DAO 96-37 seeks to address the following objectives:

  1. Ensure that environmental considerations are incorporated at the earliest possible stage of project development.

  2. Further streamline the current procedures in the conduct of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in order to improve its effectiveness as a planning, regulatory and management tool.

  3. Enhance maximum public participation in the EIA process to validate the social acceptability of the project or undertaking so as to ensure the fullest consideration of the environmental impact of such project or undertaking. (Section 2.0, Article I)


Procedural Manual for DAO 96 - 37

This Procedural Manual is designed to serve as aprimary reference for the DENR staff/personnel, projectproponents, EIA preparers and practicioners, environmentalunits of government agencies, local government officials,non-governmental or people�s organization, and otherstakeholders in the smooth implementation of the EIS system.It aims to clarify the steps and procedures required toimplement the various provisions and sections of the newDAO. The manual dwells on the processes rather than thetechnical aspects of the EIA which are provided in othervarious documents, such as __________________________.

The manual is organized following essentially the orderof presentation in DAO 96-37. All the provisions are cited,along with the implementing procedures.

It should be noted however, that the issuance of an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) pursuant to DAO96-37 does not preclude a project proponent from securingrelated permits, such as sanitary, conversion, water, andbuilding permits, from concerned government agencies underother existing laws, rules and regulations.

The Procedural Manual for DAO 96-37 is couched in thecontext of the planning, regulatory and management aspectsof the entire EIS system. As will be explained in thefollowing chapters, an issued ECC, not being an ordinary government permit, does not stop the proponent from takingresponsibility for further initiating project complianceand monitoring activities.

Among the main features of DAO 96-37 discussed in theProcedural Manual are the following:

  • Scoping as a new requirement. In an effort to strengthen the system as a planning tool, proponents are now required to initiate formal scoping prior to the submission of its environmental impact statement (EIS). This is undertaken by the proponent with the DENR and other stakeholders in order to define the range of issues, actions, alternatives and impacts that should be included in the EIS. It is hoped that at this earliest stage of project development, all environmental considerations will be incorporated to facilitate a thorough but time-bound review process.

  • Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and Initial Environmental Examinations (IEEs). Proponents of ECPs are required to submit an EIS with the EMB. On the other hand, proponents of projects within ECAs are generally required to submit an IEE to the concerned Regional Office. However, at the option of the proponent in certain cases, or upon order of the Regional Executive Director, an EIS may however be prepared in lieu of an IEE for proposed projects within ECAs.

  • Timetable for review of EIS/IEE. In fulfillment of its objective to streamline the EIS System, DAO 96-37 sets forth specific periods for review of an EIS and IEE. The appropriate review committee is expected to accomplish the review process within 120 and 75 days after submission of the complete EISs and IEEs, respectively. Unless circumstances warrant a longer period of time, proponents can now expect a decision from the Secretary or the Regional Executive Director , as the case may be, within the same period.

  • Accreditation of preparers. In order to maintain the integrity of the EIS system, EISs and IEEs can only be prepared by individuals or groups accredited by the DENR. The Manual sets forth the qualifications and procedures for accreditation. It also outlines the procedure for suspension or withdrawal of such accreditation.

  • Accountability of proponents and preparers. As an accompanying measure of accreditation and to strengthen the regulatory aspect of the EIS system, the new DAO ensures that all data or information submitted by proponents are true, and that all proposed projects are objectively and thoroughly assessed by its preparers. It thus requires both proponents and preparers to attach accountability statements binding themselves jointly and solidarily liable for any misrepresentation or failure to state material information in the EIS or IEE.

  • Public participation and social acceptability. Considering that the review of the environmental impact of a proposed project is not limited to the bio-physical elements, but likewise includes the socio-economic environment, the role and concerns of the affected communities in the EIA process are given primary consideration. DAO 96-37 expressly gives importance to meaningful public participation and transparency of the EIS process as a gauge to fully determine the acceptability of the proposed project. In various ways and in different phases of the EIS process, the new DAO ensures that the concerns of the stakeholders, particularly the affected communities, are fully considered. Special focus or emphasis is given for impacts of the proposed project on women, indigenous people, and population issues.

  • Environmental Monitoring and Guarantee Fund. In order to strengthen the effectivity of the EIS System as a management tool, DAO 96-37 requires proponents to establish certain funds. The Environmental Monitoring Fund (EMF) shall be used primarily to monitor the operation of the project after ECC issuance. The Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF), on the other hand, will be used for rehabilitation and compensation for damages caused by projects that pose significant public risk. EGF is not limited for this purpose only but may include research works, environmental education, programs to promote social equity, and others. In both cases, multi-sectoral committees will be formed to specifically accomplish the purposes of the funds.




Back to Phil. EIS Table of Contents
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1