5-1
Chapter 5
The EIS Review Process
DENR has developed a system to make the EIA review process as
systematic and as transparent as possible. The scheme adopted,
as enunciated under DAO 96-37, is a two-stage EIA review process.
The first stage is a procedural review to be conducted by the
receiving staff of DENR. The second stage is a substantive
review to be performed by an EIARC in the case of EIS, or the
EMPAS in the case of IEE.
1. Procedural Review
As per Sections 10 and 20 Article III of DAO 96-37, upon
receipt of the EIS or IEE submitted by the proponent, the
DENR shall determine the completeness of the documents. If
the documents are found to be incomplete or in need of
revision, the same shall be immediately returned to the
proponent for completion or revision.
The purpose of the first-stage procedural review is to
screen the EIA document (EIS or IEE) and determine whether
it complied with the required procedures and content.
DENR's examination of the EIA document at this stage is
based on the following criteria:
� Completeness of information
� Order of presentation of information
At this stage, full compliance with minimum requirements
shall be imposed before the EIA document can be reviewed
substantially.
2. Substantive Evaluation
DAO 96-37 provided that upon passing the procedural review,
the EIA documents is accepted for substantive evaluation by
the EIARC or the EMPAS in order to assess the quality of the
EIA. The reviewers are tasked to examine the document on
the basis of criteria such as:
� Clarity of presentation
� Balance in presentation and assessment
� Accuracy of information and assessment
� Precision of information and assessment
Clarity. The EIS document is intended to communicate the
results of the EIA to a wide range of stakeholders including
regulators, evaluators from various disciplines and professions,
decision makers, affected communities, and the general public.
It should therefore be written in such a way that it is easily
understood.
Balance. There are many ways by which balance can be
gauged. An EIS document is balanced if it is devoid of bias
in the presentation and analysis of data. It is not
supposed to provide justifications for pre-conceived
conclusions in favor of any interest group. Moreover, the
EIS document should demonstrate a balanced treatment of
descriptive and analytical discussion. Facts or data and
their meaning or interpretation should be presented in
tandem; one without the other will not withstand scientific
scrutiny.
Accuracy and Precision. These are universal criteria that
need to be satisfied in any form of scientific inquiry or
investigation. All analytical data presented in the EIS
should satisfy the prescribed levels of accuracy and
precision as derived from established statistical tools and
methods. Furthermore, all the baseline characterization
methods (such as sampling, survey and testing procedures),
as well as impact prediction tools and techniques (such
modeling techniques, field tests and laboratory experiments)
used in the EIA study will be scrutinized not only for
statistical, but also for scientific soundness.
Section 7.0 of Article III Submission of EIS
Upon Completion of the EIA Study, the proponent shall submit
at least ten (10) legible copies of the EIA and a complete
electronic file in computer diskettes to the EMB for review. The
EMB may require the proponent to submit additional copies as
necessary.
The proponent shall likewise furnish a copy of the EIS to
the Offices of the Undersecretary handling the environment, the
concerned Regional Executive Director, PENRO, CENRO and the
Municipal/City Mayor where the project is proposed to be located.
NOTES:
� The EIS should conform to the annotated EIS outline and
other prescribed procedural and substantive criteria. It should
also include informations and analyses as agreed upon in the
Agreed Scope under the Formal Scoping Report.
� Additional copies for the Office of the Undersecretary, RED,
PENRO, CENRO and LGUs shall be destributed only after the EIS
submissions had undergone and passed the procedural review.
� EIS submissions in diskette form must conform to the format
prescribed herein.
Upon approval of the Agreed Scope as contained in the Formal
Scoping Report, the next step is the preparation and writing
of the EIS document. The EIS should conform to the annotated
EIS outline (see Annex 5-A for the annotated outline) and
must satisfy prescribed procedural and substantive criteria
as listed in the review checklist (see discussions in
succeeding sections for details) It should also contain the
information and analyses identified in the final scope of
work under the approved Formal Scoping Report.
To avoid wasting papers, the proponent shall submit only one
(1) copy for procedural review. The proponent shall submit
the required number of copies only after passing the
procedural review.
Under Section 7, Article III of DAO 96-37, the proponent
shall submit ten (10) copies of the EIS. EMB may require
the proponent to submit additional copies as necessary.
In addition, the proponent shall furnish the following
offices with a copy of the EIS as required under the DAO:
� Office of the Undersecretary for the Environment and
Programs Development (2/f DENR Building, Visayas Ave., Quezon
City);
� DENR Regional Executive Director - the proponent shall
provide the DENR RED who has jurisdiction over the project site
with a copy of the EIS. In case the project site covers several
regions, then the DENR REDs of these regions shall each be
provided with a copy of the EIS;
� Office of the PENRO - the proponent shall provide the PENRO
who has jurisdiction over the project site with a copy of the
EIS. When the project site covers several provinces, then the
PENROs of these provinces shall each be provided with a copy of
the EIS;
� Office of the CENRO - the proponent shall provide the CENRO
who has jurisdiction over the project site with a copy of the
EIS. When the project site covers several districts or areas,
then the CENROs of these districts or areas shall each be
provided with a copy of the EIS; and
� Office of the Municipal or City Mayor - - the proponent
shall provide the Mayor of the municipality or city who has
jurisdiction over the project site with a copy of the EIS. When
the project site covers several municipalities or cities, then
the Mayors of these municipalities or cities shall each be
provided with a copy of the EIS. The copy shall be submitted to
the respective MPDO or Planning Officer. Likewise, for project
covering several municipalities, the Provincial Governor shall be
provided a copy of the EIS through the PPDO.
In order to ensure that the copy that will be received by
these offices had passed the procedural review, the copies
intended for these recipient should bear the �RECEIVE� stamp
of EMB or DENR RO concerned before they are distributed to
the appropriate office or person. Copies of proofs of
receipt or acknowledgment receipts shall be submitted to EMB
or DENR RO within fifteen (15) days of the acceptance or
receipt of the EIS submissions by EMB or DENR RO concerned.
The proponent shall also submit to EMB or DENR RO, along
with the hard copy reports, two (2) sets of a complete
electronic file of the EIS in computer diskettes. The
following are required for the computer file:
� file to be copied in 3.5 high density diskettes formatted in
DOS Version 5.0 or Window-based and readable using IBM or
equivalent compatible PCs;
� a written listing of filenames and their contents;
� indicate computer software and versions used for word
processing (such as Word Perfect Version 3, Microsoft Word
version 3 or later version) and quantitative analyses or tables
(such as Lotus 123 release 3, Excel or Quattro Pro).
Section 9.0 of Article III Contents of the EIS
Subject to the agreed-upon scope described in Section 5.0,
Article III and the Procedural Manual, an EIS shall at least
contain the following basic items:
a. Project Description, including data on project location,
specifically describing the primary and secondary impact zones,
project rationale, alternatives, including alternative sites or
actions, no action alternatives, and project phases;
b. Scoping Report;
c. Baseline Environmental Conditions for land, air, and people;
d. Impact Assessment, including a discussion of the impact of
the project or undertaking on the environment and public health;
e. Environmental Risk Assessment, when appropriate;
f. Environmental Management Plan;
g. Proposals for Environmental Monitoring and Guarantee Funds
when required;
h. Supporting Documents, such as documents on social
acceptability, process of public participation, technical and
socio-economic data used, gathered, or generated; and
i. Accountability Statements of the preparer and the proponent.
j. For projects located in ancestral lands or domains, as
defined under DAO No. 2, series of 1993, or subsequently by law,
of indigenous communities, a specific chapter in the socio-
economic impact assessment shall be devoted to a discussion of
indigenous peoples' concerns and possible socio-economic,
political and cultural impacts of the proposed project on such
people.
k. For projects or undertakings with significant impact on
women, a specific chapter in the socio-economic impact assessment
shall be devoted to a discussion and consideration of gender
issues.
l. For projects or undertakings with significant impact on
population, a specific chapter on the socio-economic impact
assessment shall be devoted to a discussion of the relationship
among population, development, and the environment.
NOTES:
The EIS must conform to the annotated outline as povided in Annex
5-A. Likewise, the contents of an EIS must include the required
information and analyses as contained in the agreed scope. The
procedural and substantive review checklist (Annexes 4-B and 4-C)
may also be used as reference in the preparation of the EIS. The
general format of the annotated outline is presented below:
1. Table of Contents
2. Executive Summary
A. Brief introduction
B. Brief description of methodology and profile of EIA Team
C. Scope and limitation of the EIA Study
D. Brief project description
E. Brief description of baseline environmental conditions
F. Matrix of issues and impacts raised during the scoping and
consultations
G. Matrix of major Impacts, and mitigation/enhancement measures
with summary discussion
H. Matrix of environmental management plan with summary
discussion
I. Matrix of environmental monitoring plan with summary
discussion
J. Proposal of environmental guarantee and monitoring fund
scheme (when applicable)
K. Summary of process documentation report, and
L. Summary of commitments, agreements, or both, and proofs of
social acceptability
3. Introduction
A. Project background
B. EIA Approach and Methodology
C. EIA Process Documentation
D. EIA Team
E. EIA Study Schedule
4. Project Description
A. Project Rationale
B. Project Alternatives
C. Project Location
D. Project Information
E. Description of Project Phases
i. Pre-Construction/Operational Phase
ii. Construction Phase
iii. Operational Phase
iv. Abandonment Phase
5. Baseline Environmental Conditions
A. Physical Environment
i. Geology and geomorphology
ii. Hydrology and hydrogeology
iii. Pedology and land use
iv. Water Quality and limnology
v. Meteorology
vi. Air and noise quality
vii. Oceanography
B. Biological Environment
i. Terrestial flora and fauna
ii. Marine biology
C. Socio-Cultural, Economic and Political Environment
6. Future Environmental Conditions without the Project
7. Impact Assessment and Mitigation
A. Physical/Chemical Effects
i. Land
ii. Water
iii. Air
B. Biological/Ecological Effects
i. Terrestial flora and fauna
ii. Aquatic flora and fauna
C. Aesthetic and Visual Effects
D. Socio-Cultural and Economic Effects
i. Population
ii. Labor and Employment
iii. Housing and Social Services
iv. Infrastructure and Public Utilities
v. Health and Education
vi. Culture and Lifestyle
vii. Livelihood and Income
viii. Archeological/Anthropological/Historical Sites
E. Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
F. Residual and Unavoidable Impacts
8. Environmental Risk Assessment (when applicable)
9. Environmental Management Plan
A. Construction/Contractors Environmental Program
B. Social Development Program
C. Contingency/emergency Response Plan
D. Risk Management Program
E. Abandonment Plan (when applicable)
F. Environmental Monitoring Plan
10. Environmental Guarantee and Monitoring Fund Proposal
11. Commitments and Agreements
12. Bibliography/References
Attachments or Annexes
� List of EIS Preparers with specified field of expertise
� Original Sworn Accountability Statement of Key EIS
Consultants (Annex 4-E)
� Original Sworn Accountability Statement of Proponent (Annex
4-F)
� Photos or plates of proposed project site, impact areas and
affected areas and communities
� Process Documentation Report
� Formal Scoping Report
� Summary of Proof of Social Acceptability
� Maps/photos/plates/diagrams/sketches
Section 10.0 of Article III. Initial Review of EIS Document
Upon receipt of the EIS, the EMB shall immediately determine
the completeness of the documents submitted by the proponents.
If the documents are found to be incomplete or in need of
revision, the same shall be immediately returned to the proponent
for completion or revision.
NOTES:
� The Initial Review of the EIS documents, otherwise known as
Procedural Review, determines the completeness and order of
presentation of information contained in the EIS. The review is
based on the results of the scoping activities conducted, DENR
scoping guidelines for that particular project, and the
Procedural Review Checklist.
� The Screening Officer of the DENR shall be responsible for
the procedural review of the EIS submitted by the proponent and
for making recommendations on the acceptance and non-acceptance
of the document.
The EIA Review Process is a critical component of the EIA
process since this is the activity upon which the decision
to grant or deny the issuance of an ECC to a particular
project, is determined. It is here where the fate of a
project lies. Hence, it is very important that the process
observes proper procedures and is conducted with utmost
proficiency.
The steps for Procedural Review are as follows:
1. Upon completion of the EIS study, the proponent shall submit
one (1) set of EIS document for procedural review by EMB or the
DENR RO concerned. The EIS submission shall be accompanied by a
Procedural Review Checklist (Annex 5-B) duly accomplished by the
preparer or proponent.
2. The Procedural Review Checklist shall be modified or revised
to incorporate the requirements as identified in the agreed scope
of the Formal Scoping Report.
3. Upon receipt of the EIS documents, the Screening Officer
shall immediately determine its completeness and order of
presentation of information. The Screening Officer shall use the
Procedural Review Checklist as the basis of screening. To
facilitate the process, the checklist accomplished by the
proponent may be used by the Screening Officer as a reference.
Immediate determination shall mean completion of
Procedural Review not later than three (3) working days
after submission.
4. The Screening Officer shall accomplish three (3) sets of the
Procedural Review Checklist. One copy shall be given to the
proponent, one copy shall be retained by the Screening Officer,
and one copy shall be kept as File Copy of the EIA
Division/Unit/Section concerned.
� The receiving officer shall indicate, through a check/tick
mark under the YES, NO or NOT APPLICABLE column, the presence or
absence of a particular information required. For check/tick
mark under the NOT APPLICABLE column, the basis or justification
shall be cited under the REMARKS column.
� If the EIS documents are complete, they will be formally
accepted. The proponent will be notified of the acceptance by
furnishing him a copy of the procedural form duly signed by the
Screening Officer.
� If they are incomplete, the EIS documents shall be returned
to the proponent for revision or submission of the missing
requirement. The reason for non-acceptance shall be stated in
writing at the appropriate place in the form.
The Screening Officer shall determine the completeness
of the submitted document. Preliminary judgment may be
made on the presentation or adequacy of the information
contained in the EIS. No final judgement shall be made
on the accuracy or adequacy of the information in the
EIS.
5. If the EIS document has complied with all the requirements
prescribed in the checklist, the proponent shall submit ten (10)
copies of the documents (20 copies for golf course projects).
The proponent shall pay the necessary amount (see
Chater 11) before submitting the required number of
copies to the Record Section of EMB. In the case of
DENR-RO, submissions shall be made to the EIA
Division/Section/Unit Head after payment of the
appropriate fee.
All EIS submissions not going thorugh the said standard
procedures shall not be considered as applications and,
therefore, shall not be used as basis for
recommendation on the issuance or denial of the
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC).
Section 11.0 of Article II: Convening of, and Endorsement to,
the EIARC
Within 15 days from the date of submission of the EIS, the
EMB shall convene the EIARC and endorse the EIS to the said body
for substantive review
NOTES:
DENR shall convene an independent review group of
professionals from the academe, EIA practitioners, and
national government agencies to constitute the EIA Review
Committee (EIARC) for each submitted EIS. The EIARC will be
responsible for undertaking the substantive review of the
EIS submitted by the proponent.
Since the review process is a crucial point in the EIA
process, it requires the participation of qualified
individuals with proven probity to conduct the review
objectively and professionally. Below are the general
criteria in selecting members of the Review Committee:
1. The person must preferably be recommended by an
institution that has been tasked by DENR to identify
potential EIARC members, such as the Department of
Science and Technology or the Development Academny of
the Philippines.
2. The person is not a part of the EIA team or firm that
prepared the EIS under review, or is not involved, in
any way, in the preparation of the study.
3. The person's field of expertise is relevant to the
project being reviewed.
4. The person is not a staff or employee of the concerned
national government agency. For example, an energy
project should not be reviewed by a person from the
Department of Energy. The person, however, may be
invited as a resource person in the Review Committee.
5. The person is neither a present nor previous employee
of the proponent of the project. As a previous
employee, the person must not be connected with the
company of the proponent for the past 1 year or more.
6. The person is neither a known staunch advocate or
oppositor to the project.
7. The person is not a DENR employee.
In order to fulfill the intention of Section 11 of Article
III, EMB or the DENR RO concerned should ideally be able to
accomplish the following tasks during the 15 days timeframe:
� Convene the members of the EIARC
The selection of the members of the EIARC may be
initiated as early as the submission of the EIS
document by the preparer or proponent for procedural
review. This will allow the receiving office ample
time to convene the EIARC.
As a general rule, the EIARC shall be composed of
the Chair, a Co-chair, a DENR Case Officer, and
several members. Depending on the magnitude of the
project, the EIARC shall have a total of 5 to 7
members. However, under exceptional circumstances,
like controversial projects, the number of EIARC
members may be increased as deemed appropriate.
� Distribute the copy of the EIS documents to each member of
the EIARC.
As a general rule, the distribution of the EIS
documents shall be done within the fifteen (15) days
and, preferably, a week before the scheduled first
EIARC meeting.
� Schedule the first meeting of the EIARC
In convening the EIARC, the memorandum shall include
the schedule of the first meeting. Under ideal
conditions, the first meeting should coincide with
the end of the 15-day period provided under DAO 96-
37 for convening the EIARC.
Section 12.0 of Article III: Substantive Review by the EIARC
After proper endorsement, the EIARC shall evaluate the EIS
in accordance with the review criteria set forth in the EIS
Procedural Manual. The EIARC shall validate the EIS through
methods deemed appropriate such as, but not limited to, ocular,
inspections/site visits and technical studies conducted by
experts and relevant institutions. The EIARC shall consider the
process documentation report in the validation of the EIS. The
EIARC shall endeavor to complete the substantive review of the
EIS within 60 days from receipt thereof.
NOTES:
The EIARC members shall evaluate the EIS document based on
its compliance with the review criterion contained in the
Substantial Review Checklist (Annex 5-C). The Substantial
Review Checklist shall be modified or revised to incorporate
the requirements as identified in the agreed scope of the
Formal Scoping Report. The EIARC shall evaluate the EIS in
terms of the following general criteria:
� completeness of information - the documents should provide
the required level of detail in accordance with the information
identified in the scoping matrix or report and other appropriate
guidelines such as the scoping guidelines.
� clarity of presentation - the document should be easily
understood by the reviewers and comprehensible for decision-
making
� appropriateness - this will be measured in terms of
conformity of the EIS document to technical standards or
mechanisms of implementation
� accuracy and precision in information or assessment - this
will be gauged in terms of the adherence of the EIS document to
the standard method of data gathering, modelling and analysis
selected and mutually agreed on during the scoping session
� degree of consistency - the document should be entirely
consistent in terms of its findings, assessment or analysis and
recommendations such that no statement in the EIS will contradict
another statement within the study
� responsiveness - this will be measured in terms of how the
document addressed valid issues and concerns of stakeholders and
other interested parties
The EIARC, in the course of substantial review, may employ
the following methods:
� Public Hearing or Public Consultation (see Chapter 7 for
more details)
� Site visits or occular inspections including walk-throughs
� Technical studies or special researches to be undertaken by
research institutions or academe
Other methods may be employed depending on the magnitude and
complexity of the project.
Based on Section 12 of Article III, the EIARC should
endeavor to complete the substantive review within sixty
(60) days. In order to fulfill the intention of this
section, the following highly recommended approaches or mode
of implementations shall be adopted whenever practical and
appropriate:
EIARC meetings should serve as a venue or opportunity
for discussing issues and findings on the EIS. This is
why a quorum, or preferably a perfect attendance, is
required.
� First EIARC Meeting - Ideally, the first EIARC meeting
should be scheduled during the first few days of the 60-day
period alloted for substantive review. This is the preferred
option in order to avoid exceeding the alloted timeframe.
The first EIARC meeting may be divided into four parts as
follows:
1. The EIARC members, including the resource persons when
applicable, meet to discuss protocols and review parameters. This
is also an opportunity for the EIARC members and resource persons
to get acquainted. During this time, the proponent(s) and
preparer(s) are excluded from the meeting.
The EIARC Chair (or the co-chair) and the DENR Case
Officer must be present in all EIARC meetings. The
DENR Case Officer shall be responsible for
documenting the entire review process. The meetings
should be recorded on tape for later transcription.
2. The second part of the meeting is a briefing on the EIA
study by the preparers or proponent. The briefing shall
concentrate on the highlights of the results of the EIA study, in
particular, on how the EIA study addressed environmental issues
and other concerns raised during the various scoping activities.
At the discretion of the EIARC, the proponent or preparer may be
given a time limit for their presentation. On the other hand,
the proponent or preparer should utilize this opportunity to
anticipate the concerns of the EIARC and minimize the need for
additional informations.
Additional informations requirement are intended to
provide elaborations or clarifications of some
aspects of the EIA Study. Normally, it should not
require the conduct of new studies or collection of
field data that are outside the agreed scope.
Should such additional activities be necessary, the
EIARC should first obtain the concurrence of the EMB
Director or RED, as the case may be.
3. The third part of the meeting, among the EIARC members and
resource persons only, will be devoted to discussion of
preliminary findings. Among matters that may be discussed are:
timetables or schedules (of the next EIARC meeting(s) and other
activities), the need of additional informations, the schedule of
public hearing or public consultations, the need for site
inspections, and other additional inputs required for the
substantial review.
4. The last part of the meeting will be with the proponent or
preparer. They shall be informed of any additional information
requirements and other inputs (such as requirement for Public
Hearing or Public Consultation, site inspections or visits,
etc.). The opportunity should be utilized to clarify the
additional information requirements among others.
� Conduct of field works - In order to minimize the number of
EIARC meeting, field works such as public hearing, public
consultations, site inspections or ocular visits may be scheduled
at this time before the next EIARC meeting.
A visit to the project site may be conducted by the EIARC
under the following conditions:
� when none of the EIARC members is familiar with the site;
� when one or more EIARC member has a particular concern or
interest that he or she wants to investigate; or
� when one or more EIARC member has a particular concern or
issue that he or she wants to verify or validate.
� Second EIARC Meeting - Ideally, the second EIARC meeting
should be utilized to discuss and evaluate the additional
information submissions of the proponents, the findings during
the public hearing or consultation(s), and other additional
inputs. If possible, a decision may be made on the
recommendation to issue or deny the application for an ECC.
Should there be a need for additional informations at
this time, the next EIARC Meeting should be held in such
a way as to allow panel discussion. The proponent or
preparer should present the additional information, and
if necessary, defend, clarify and elaborate on issues
raised by the EIARC. Written submissions may be made at
a later date for documentation purposes; to provide
adequate safeguards, the proceedings may be taped by
video tape if necessary.
Ideally, there should be no need for a
third request for additional information.
� Third EIARC Meeting - Ideally, the third EIARC meeting shall
be the last meeting of the substantive review phase. However,
under exceptional circumstances, additional EIARC meeting may be
scheduled. The EIARC should nonetheless endeavor to complete the
substantive review within the sixty (60) days timeframe.
During the course of the entire review process, the EMB
or DENR-RO concerned should regularly inform the
proponent in writing about the status of the ECC
application, regardless of whether a decision has been
reached or not.
Section 13.0 of Article III: EIARC Report
Within 15 days from completion of review, including
public consultations and hearings, the EIARC shall submit a
report to the EMB Director containing the results of its
review/evaluation and its recommendations with respect to
the issuance/non-issuance of the ECC. Said report, which
shall begin with a brief description of the project or
undertaking, shall discuss:
a. environmental impacts and corresponding costed mitigation
and enhancement measures of the project or undertaking;
b. key issues/concerns;
c. proponent�s response to issues;
d. compliance with review criteria, technical/substantive
content and social acceptability requirements, and
e. the acceptability of the proposed EMP.
NOTES:
Within 15 days from the completion of the review, the EIARC
submits an EIARC report to the EMB Director. The report
shall contain the results of the review or evaluation and
the committee's recommendation with respect to the issuance
or non-issuance of an ECC including the appropriate
conditions.
The EIARC Chairman, on behalf of and in concurrence with the
rest of the committee members, signs the report. The
presumption of concurrence shall be the signatures of the
EIARC members in the Substantive Review Checklist.
At the minimum, the EIARC report hall contain the following
information:
� a brief project description;
� summary matrix of significant project impacts and mitigation
enhancement measures;
� summary of key issues or concerns plus the proponent=s
response to the issue(s) raised;
� EIARC evaluation to the proponent=s response to the
different issue(s) raised;
� a review summary based on the technical and substantive
review criteria;
� report on compliance with social acceptability requirements;
� over-all findings of the review or evaluation;
� recommendations; and
� necessary conditions to be attached to the ECC
The EIARC Report should include the recommended conditions
that shall be included in the ECC. Basic conditions that
are standard for all ECC are the following:
� scope of the operations (limitations)
� construction or installation of an adequate waste treatment
facility
� emissions or discharges conforming with DENR standards
� monitoring measures
� demonstration of social acceptability
� all other permits should be secured before beginning
operation
� applicability of the ECC in case of transfer of ownership.
Additional conditions may be attached to the ECC depending
on its appropriateness and relevance. Examples of these
conditions are the following:
� specific mitigating measures
� safety measures including appropriate emergency response and
contingency plans
� additional environmental studies (if necessary)
� employment preference for local residents
The 15-day timeframe for the EIARC Report submission include
the time necessary for the EIA Division/Unit/Section Head of
EMB or DENR RO concerned to review and evaluate the EIARC
Report and other supporting or pertinent documents. Such
report shall be endorsed by the EIA Division/Unit/ Section
Head to the EMB Director or RTD for EMPAS, as the case may
be, with the appropriate recommendations or comments.
Section 14.0 of Article III: Recommendation of the EMB Director
Within 15 days from the receipt of the EIARC report, the EMB
Director shall make his or her own recommendation to the Office
of the Secretary for final decision. Copies of the EIARC report
and other pertinent documents shall be attached to the EMB
Director�s recommentations.
NOTES:
The 15-days timeframe for the recommendations of the EMB
Director or RTD-EMPAS of the DENR RO concerned includes the
time necessary for the requisites staff works.
Section 15.0 of Article III: Issuance of ECC
Within 15 days from the receipt of the report of the EMB
Director, unless circumstances warrant a longer period of time,
the Secretary shall either grant or deny the issuance of ECC. In
granting or denying the issuance of the ECC, the Secretary shall
take into account the social and environmental cost implications
relative to the judicious utilization, development and
conservation of the country�s natural resources.
NOTES:
The 15-days timeframe for the decision of the DENR Secretary
or RED of the DENR-RO concerned includes the time necessary
for the requisite staff works.
In order to ensure higher rate of compliance with ECC
conditions, the proponent may be advised by the office
concerned to initiate activities for compliance with these
conditions. For example, the proponent may initiate the
finalization and execution of the MOA for the establishment
of the EGF. The proponent may also be required to obtain
some permits at this stage to allow for compliance with some
specific ECC conditions.
Section 16.0 of Article III: Transmittal of EIS Records and ECCs
In the event that an ECC is issued, the Secretary shall
cause the transmittal of pertinent records and documents, and the
ECC to the EMB within 10 days from the date of such issuance.
The offices of the concerned Regional Executive Director, PENRO,
CENRO, the Municipality/City Mayor and the proponent shall also
be furnished a copy of the ECC within the same period.
NOTES:
The ECC and other pertinent documents shall be transmitted
to EMB or the RTD-EMPAS of the DENR RO concerned by the
issuing authorities within the prescribed timeframe.
Some of the conditions may be required for compliance before
the release of the ECC. Examples of such cases would be the
submission of the signed and notarized MOA establishing the
MMT and EMF before the release of the ECC.
Before the release of any ECC, the EMB or the RTD-EMPAS of
DENR-RO concerned shall number the ECC in accordance with
the prescribed format. (see Chapter 8 for more details)
ECC without the requisite numbers of EMB or the DENR RO
concerned shall not be considered valid.
The following offices shall be provided copies of the
numbered ECC within 10 days from the date the ECC is
available for release to the proponent:
� DENR Regional Office(s) concerned: RED and RTD for EMPAS
� PENRO(s) concerned
� CENRO(s) concerned
� LGU/s concerned (Municipality/City Mayors and Provincial
Governnor, whenever applicable)