Philippines' 20+ Report

8/13/2019 Philippines' 20+ Report

1/69


2/69

2

executive summary

The Philippine Agenda 21 (PA21): A NationalAgenda for Sustainable Development for the21th Century served as a blueprint of the

countrys collective vision for sustainable de-velopment (SD). Two decades after the 1992Rio Conference and the establishment of thePhilippine Council for Sustainable Develop-ment (PCSD), an assessment of its implemen-tation would help identify the gaps that havestalled the countrys movement towards SD.With this assessment and an articulation ofthe institutional framework for sustainabledevelopment (IFSD), the future directions

towards a Green Economy (GE) and SD canthen be charted.

A log frame of identied interventions foreach ecosystem or sector (forest, biodiver-sity, coastal/marine, agriculture, freshwater,mining and urban cities) was employed inorder to assess the impact of interventionson four selected sustainability criteria: 1)natural capital/ resource stock, environmen-tal quality and carrying capacity; 2) efciency

of production or economic activity; 3) equityin access to natural and environmental re-sources and in the distribution of benets;and 4) poverty alleviation or eradication.A set of indicators, together with a scoringprocedure, was used to determine qualita-tively the effect of identied interventionsfor each criterion. With a zero (0) score forthe baseline state of an ecosystem criterionand a maximum score of four (4) for theattainment of sustainability, the assessed

contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Part 1:An Assessment Report of the PhilippineAgenda 21 and UNCED

I. Methodology for anObjective AssessmentII. The LimitationsIII. The Adjusted Assesment Methodology

Part 2: Rio+20 Country Strategy andPositions on the Green Economy (GE) andthe Institution Framework for SustainableDevelopment (IFSD)

I. Green Economy (GE)Prospects in the Context ofSD and Poverty EradicationII. Denition of GE and theReality of a Non Green Phil-ippine EconomyIII. Indicators for the Transi-tion to a GEIV. Requirements for the GE

Transition and the Role ofthe Government and theStakeholders for SDV. Policy covers, Plans, Pro-grams and Projects for a GEVI. Recommendations forthe IFSD

2-3

4-6

7

810

36

36

51

52

54

62


3/69

3score in an ecosystem or sector would indi-cate the movement from the undesired base-line state of unsustainability to the currentstate.

Based on the assessment scores, no eco-system was able to reach even half of thedesired sustainability level in any of the four

criteria, partly because interventions werelimited and uneven. Having the lowest score,metallic mining, freshwater, and forestry-bio-diversity ecosystems are the least sustaina-ble, while lowland agriculture and coastal andmarine the least unsustainable. Agriculture,coastal/marine, and forestry had at least20 interventions, while the metallic mineral,biodiversity, infrastructure (energy, waste,transport) and urban (cities, industries) sec-tors had less. Interventions across criteria

were also uneven, with fewer interventionsbeing carried out for poverty eradicationand equitable access compared to the othertwo criteria. Moreover, progress was hardlyachieved because of failure to resolve gov-ernance issues and to establish the requiredgovernance mechanisms. In retrospect,knowledge of the intervention gaps and theabsence of governance requirements wouldhave enabled the development and imple-

mentation of an improved set of interventionsthat can move the country on-track towardsSD and Inclusive Growth.

On the current road towards a GE, at least188 policies have been identied as consist-ent with the goals of SD. Most of these, how-ever, are either partly implemented or havemerely been proposed; only 14 are fully beingimplemented. Because of the limited GE-ori-ented policies in particular areas, much work

must be done in formalizing and implement-ing policies, specically in the areas of metal-lic mining, water, sustainable cities, energyand waste.

One major lesson from the PA21 assess-ment, with direct bearing for the IFSD is therequired condition for governance. Withouta governance framework in place and anagency to vitiate the necessary institutionaland organizational networks and establish

governance mechanisms, the constrainingintervention gaps and omissions were hencenot fully resolved. As a key sustainability cri-terion that should have been equally pursuedas the other criteria and its own interven-tions implemented, governance should nothave simply been understood as the mereimplementation of environmental and social

development policies and programs by therespective mandated government agencies.Instead, mechanisms for public participationand partnership among government, civilsociety and the private sector groups shouldbe promoted through the formation of stra-tegic alliances and action network. Constitu-encies for sustainable development withinthe entire government bureaucracy and civilsociety should also be organized while for-mal institutions operate to demand account-

ability, and expose and stop corruption in theenvironmental sector.

The following mechanisms for good govern-ance should be in place. 1) State agencies, civsociety groups, and the various stakeholdersin the private sector must have consensuson the strategic vision or societal goals forthe common good, and are bound togetherin effective partnership. The partnership of

multi-sector stakeholders and local govern-ment leadership is also critical. 2) Poor anddisadvantaged communities and sectorsmust have opportunities to articulate andpromote their interests through a bottom-upprocess and participate in decision making,while systems and structures at the nationallevel promote and support local actions forSD. 3) Project activities and outputs, as wellas commitments and activities at the nationaand international levels must be adequately

monitored and evaluated, and decision mak-ers, resource users, and implementers mustbe accountable to prevent corruption, wasteand the diversion of public resources. SDgovernance at the international level mustalso become more effective in supportingnational structures for SD localization and efcient enough to lower the transaction costsof developing countries. 4) Differences inpolicy positions and interests must be medi-ated, and conicts effectively resolved.


4/69

4

introduction

The 1987 Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development(PSSD) represents the countrys first roadmap towardsachieving economic growth and environmental integritythetwin pillars of sustainable development (SD) in the 1980s. It

was not until ten years later, when the Philippine Agenda 21(PA21): A National Agenda for Sustainable Development forthe 21th Century was written in response to the 1992 EarthSummit in Rio de Janeiro, that social development becamethe third pillar of sustainable development.

Thus, apart from providing enabling

economic and environmental policies

and integrating the idea of sustainable

development into the countrys govern-

ance framework, the action agenda of

PA21 specically highlighted investments

in human and social capital, health,population management, and human set-

tlements, while recognizing the need to

address the poverty of communities in

forest-watershed, agricultural, coastal/

marine, and urban ecosystems.

The signicance of PA21, however, lies

not only in the integration of human de-

velopment into the operational concept

of sustainable development but in its

provenance. Launched on 26 Septem-

ber 1996 as a state-initiated agenda,

PA21 is a historic document that envisioned

a better life for all Filipinos, laying down

fteen principles as basis for crafting its

action agendathe primacy of developing

the human potential; holistic science and

appropriate technology; cultural, moral

and spiritual sensitivity; self-determination;national sovereignty; gender sensitivity;

peace, order and national unity; social jus-

tice and inter- and intra-generational and

spatial equity; participatory democracy;

institutional viability; viable, sound and

broad-based economic development; sus-

tainable population; ecological soundness;

bio-geographical equity and community-

based resource management; and global

cooperation. These principles also reect

the human and social development goals

of PA21.


5/69

5

The above principles and goals formed the basis of

unity among various stakeholdersi.e. peoples organi-

zation, NGOs, and representatives of business, labor,

health, urban poor, youth and other sectors. A series

of year-long discussions, consultations, review sessions

and consensus building activities opened up spaces for

the stakeholders to proactively input into the agenda.Hence, what otherwise would have been another top-

down initiative by the executive branch generated

a peoples covenant towards a transition to sustainable devel-opment committing themselves to social justice and inter- andintra-generational equity... achieved through equal access to de-velopment opportunities and benets across ages, social classesand geographical units (because) sustainable development isa shared, collective and indivisible responsibility which calls forinstitutional structures that are built around the spirit of solidar-ity, convergence, and partnership between and among differentstakeholders.

support from both the development-oriented civil society

organizations on the ground and the market-oriented pri-

vate sector groups, giving the promise of a bottom-up pro-

cess in the pursuit of sustainable development. Remarkably,

the consultative process made it possible for the resulting

agenda document to stand as a collective expression of the

nations agenda vis--vis sustainable development broadlyconceived to include human development. This explains why

those who nally penned PA 21 constituted it as

Incipient collaborative work on PA21 possibly began yearsbefore its September 1996 launching, immediately after, ifnot before, the 1992 Rio Conference. The goodwill and soli-darity that the conference and post conference activitiesfostered among non-government organizations, peoplesorganizations, labor federations, and the representatives

of management and the business sector made it easier forthe Ramos administration to direct the Philippine Councilfor Sustainable Development (PCSD)which was created in1992to oversee and monitor the operationalization of PA21,as well as to mobilize the Regional Development Councilsand local councils for sustainable development.

It was also easier to reinforce this directive with the 26September 1996 Memorandum Order that mandated allgovernment agencies, departments and instrumentalities to adopt and translate the principles and action agenda intheir respective work plans, programs and projects whilethe DILG was tasked to coordinate and monitor the locali-zation of PA 21 with the LGUs. Thus, with PCSD at the helm

of promoting convergence among government agencies,fostering partnership between civil society groups, localgovernments, and communities, PA21 served as a compasstowards a path for a more sustainable future for Filipinos,if not a blueprint and action agenda for the much neededchange.

The action agenda (AA) of PA21 identied the critical issuesand concerns in each of the countrys ve ecosystemsfor-est/upland, agricultural/lowland, coastal/marine, freshwa-ter, and urban ecosystemas well as those cross-cuttingconcerns that transcend ecosystems. For each ecosystemor cross-cutting concern, the AA spelled out strategiesfor integrating the SD principles. It further specied the

time-bound qualitative and process-related targets in theimplementation of these strategies over a 30-year periodi.e. within the short-run from 1996 to 1998; the medium termfrom 1998 to 2005; and the long term from 2005 to 2025aswell as the institutions involved in the implementation.In addition to the governments PA21 commitments, the Phil-

ippines also entered at different times into other multilat-eral environmental agreements (MEAs)the United NationsFramework Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) in1993; the UN Convention to Combat Desertication (UNCCD)in 2000; the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) in 2003; and the Stockholm Convention on Persis-tent Organic Pollutants in 2006. Together with PA 21, theseMEAs together with new social and environmental legisla-tions, like the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, theClean Air Act of 1999, the Clean Water Act of 2004, comprisethe countrys agenda for sustainable development.Now into the 7th year of the 20-year long-term periodstipulated in PA21 and on the eve of the second Rio de Ja-neiro Earth Summit in June 2012, what has PA21 achieved? To

answer this question, it is imperative for the nation to takestock of its past actions vis--vis its commitments and tochart future directions towards sustainable development. Inthis regard, the National Economic Development Authorityhas commissioned the drafting of a report with a three-foldagenda: 1) to provide a rapid assessment of the implemen-tation of Philippine Agenda 21 and the countrys fulllmentof its UN Conference on Environment and Developmentcommitments; 2) to outline, given the countrys present stateof natural resource and ecosystem (un)sustainability, howto proceed towards the green economy (GE), and deneits contours for the country; and 3) to elaborate on therequirements and institutional framework for sustainabledevelopment (IFSD).


6/69

6

specic objectives of thecommissioned draft report:

To assess in broad strokes, the pro-gress made over the last 15 years in the

implementation of the AAe.g. the gov-ernment policies, programs and activi-ties undertaken in connection with PA21;

To identify the gaps in implementationthat have to be lled and the existingand emerging challenges that continueto limit the pace of the countrys move-ment towards SD, as well as constrainits overall prospects for a GE;

To specify the critical requirements,priority conditions and mechanisms forthe establishment of a GE; and

To dene the necessary institutionalframework for sustainable development(IFSD).

In order to address these objectives, this commissionedreport is divided into two major parts: 1) the assessmentof the implementation of the AA of PA21 and other UNCEDcommitments and the identication of implementation

gaps; and 2) the institutional and organizational require-ments of a GE and the strategic options for meetingthese requirements.

At the outset, it is important to note three points thataffect this assessment because of the implications theybear for the outcomes of the Action Agenda. First,since the launching of PA21 in 1996, particular economic,environmental and social problems, such as popula-tion growth, social disparities, pollution and the dete-rioration of the environment and the countrys naturalcapital have persisted and may have even worsened.Second, new challenges and risks in the form of climatechange, the increasing cases of natural and human-

made disasters, the unsustainable use of freshwater,and the depletion of groundwater sources, especially ingrowing urban areas, now confront the country, furthercomplicating an already highly complex situation. Third,the regime change in 1998 altered government prioritiessomewhat. Economic interests unsupportive of sustaina-ble development seem to have gured more signicantly.As a consequence, as PCSD went into an apparent hiatusunder the Arroyo administration, PA 21 lost its nationalprominence, leaving only blocs within civil society andparticular segments of the bureaucracyi.e. governmentagencies assigned to work on social and environmentalissuesto pursue SD independently within their limitedspheres of inuence.


7/69

7

part 1assessment report of PA21 & UNCED commitments

methodology for an objective assessmentMethodologically, an objective assessment of an intervention (or set of intervention measures) requiresthe following information and processes:

a description of baseline conditions and analysis of problems to be addressed by the interventions;

a clear articulation of the desired goals and expected outcomes of the identied interventions;

a discussion of the interventions, how they are informed by the baseline conditions and how they relateto the desired goals. A prior analysis of problems would expectedly ensure that the specied interven-tions are adequate to address the problems at hand or that there will be no intervention gaps and omis-sions. With an adequate analysis of the situation, the only requirement for attaining the desired goals isthe proper implementation of the identied interventions, i.e. the provision of logistical requirements andeffective monitoring and response mechanisms to oversee and direct the intervention process.

Finally, the resulting conditions are evaluated against the desired scenario, taking into account the lim-ited or full accomplishment of the implemented interventions and their assumed adequacy.


8/69


9/69

9

fourThe entries under the issues and concerns heading ofPA 21 do not unequivocally state the desired goals foreach ecosystem or across all ecosystems. Some entriescall attention to relevant problems or they propoundgeneral solutions or intervention measures. Two cross-cutting concerns/issuesi.e. the improvement of gov-ernance and the establishment of an enabling economicenvironmentexpress both the problem and the generalsolution requiring specic interventions.With regards to the strategies/action agenda and tar-gets in PA 21, the entries do not consist solely of inter-vention activities whose outcomes are directly related tothe desired goals. As written, the PA21 strategies/action

agenda consist of a mixed bag: general directions orsolutions within a given area of concern; the particularcourses of action (reviews/ assessments, direct interven-tions, etc.) to address a problem; and the existing or pro-posed policies and programs as well as the responsibleagency. On the other hand, the targets consist of theplans, policies (codes, proposed legislations and policyrevisions), pilot or nation-wide projects, or programs tobe formulated, improved upon or implemented, togetherwith the research to be undertaken and agencies to beestablished, strengthened or capacitated. In other words,it is necessary to sift through the strategies and targetsto cull the proposed interventions for a particular goal.

veMost of the strategies/action agenda and targets inPA 21 do not have objectively veriable indicators (OVIs)2.Although the AA strategies and targets were laid out inPA21 for the short, medium or long term, it is not possibleto monitor the timely implementation of interventions andwhether or not they achieved the desired effectmuchless assess the commitment of the country to sustainabledevelopment and the efciency of the implementing gov-

ernment agencies and civil society groupswithout therequisite indicators. In other words, without measurableOVIs, the possible impacts of the agenda on the variousspheres/areas of concern for each ecosystem would beunknown, and its accomplishments un-speciable. Undersuch circumstances, this report can only provide anincomplete review of the implementation and progress ofPA 21.

Interestingly, the task of specifying the indicators, risks, and responses to the contingencies and progress of imple-mentations could have fallen on the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development. But the window of opportunity forthe PCSD to have taken it on was open only for less than two years of the Ramos administration from the launchingof PA21 in September 1996, for another two years in the aborted term of the Estrada administration and for a year orso into the Arroyo administration, after which the Council seemed to have gone into a hiatus. In other words, elec-tions, regime changes (including the impeachment of President Estrada) and the attendant shifts in the priorities ofeach administration undermined what could have been ve years of uninterrupted implementation of PA21 under theauspices of the PCSD that could have set the terms of its implementation and developed the appropriate OVIs andmonitoring system.

2Note that in the initial review of PA 21, the suggested set of core indicators consisted of general conventional national income-related or sector statistics that are not directly pertinent to the intervention process, i.e. thes

are not relevant in monitoring the activities, outcomes, purposes and the attainment of the desired state in PA21.


10/69

10

the adjusted assessmentmethodology

Given the above limitations that reect a signicant deviationfrom common practice, what is the methodological basis for

the assessment of PA21 in this Report? The following proce-dures document the adjusted assessment methodology:

cull the interventions and adopt a log frame format

First, the entries under strategies/action agenda andtargets in PA21, including some entries under issues/concerns are unpacked and sifted through, to extractthe intervention activities that are necessary or instru-mental to the attainment of the desired state. The AAof PA21 is subsequently re-cast into a log frame formatwhere the extracted interventions specically involv-ing the implementation of policies, plans, projects andprograms (PPPP) constitute the rst critical entries in thelog frame. These entries thereby serve as the means toeither arrive at particular outputs or solutions or providethe necessary conditions that would combine with otherproject outcomes to achieve a purpose essential to theattainment of the goal or desired state.

Table 1 illustrates a sample recasting of a portion ofthe AA into a log frame structure. The Table differenti-ates the relevant intervention activities for the forestecosystem from the strategies/action agenda items ortargets that may aptly be classied as the preliminary oraccompanying activities of government agencies. Thesepreliminary activities constitute either the tasks prior to

actual intervention (those already assumed in the imple-mentation of a PPPP intervention), or those merely carriedout as regular governmental functions without any conse-quence for a proposed intervention or the attainment ofa desired state.

In the sample log frame, the goal of rehabilitation andsustainable management of forestlands would require atthe onset preliminary activities or projects, such as theestablishment of a comprehensive management informa-tion system (MIS) for forestland delineation, valuation ofbiodiversity and other forest-watershed use values, theassessment and policy formulation of alternative tenureinstruments, and the formulation of forest managementplans. With these preliminary activities, the proposed PPPPcan then be implemented simultaneously or chronologi-cally in the order of importance or prior work ow. Givenparticular assumptions, these PPPP interventions onceimplemented are expected to lead to particular projectresults, which in turn would contribute to conditions orpurposes strategic to the attainment of the goal ordesired state.

Goal or Desired State Rehabilitated forestlands and watersheds under sustainable managementPoverty alleviation

Purpose Forestlands under secure tenure;Improved policy environment and enforcement-implementation capacity;

PPPP Output or Results Watershed management approach implemented on the ground;Attainment of forestry-watershed plan objectives;Expansion of community-based tenure;Establishment of payments for environmental services;Marketing of community-based agro-forestry products

Implemented Policies, Plans, Projects orPrograms (PPPP)

Capacity building and organization of community based management;A joint LGU-DENR MOA on community management;Provision of a community-based management (tenure) agreement to identied com-

munities;Implementation of a forestry-watershed plan.

Preliminary Activities Establishment of MIS; Identify sources of funding; Valuation of forest use and non-use benets; Delineation of forest boundary and production and protection forestsand watershed management area; Formulation of a forestry-watershed plan

table 1: illustrative recasting of a portion of the PA21 AA into a log frame

It may be noted that a log frame approach functionsmuch like the Managing for Development Results (MfDR)framework of the 2010-2016 Philippine DevelopmentProgram (PDP). Based on an analysis of the countryseconomic, social and environmental problems, the MfDRframework draws up a comprehensive program of de-velopment strategies which identies the policies, plans,

projects, and programs to implement. Like the log frame,the MfDR is a management tool that enables govern-ment to focus on development performance as well assustainable improvements in outcomes, and providesboth the framework and practical tools for strategicplanning, risk management, progress monitoring, andoutcome evaluation.

1. Cull the interventions and adopt a log frame format;2. Link the proposed interventions to a sustainabilitycriterion and dene the desirable criterion state;3. Determine the level of implementation and the ad-equacy of intervention or the presence of interventiongaps and omissions;4. Assess the impact of interventions with referenceto a constructed set of indicators that show the move-ment from an undesired baseline criterion state to animproved state;5. Determine the ecosystem criteria scores, and nally,

6. Validate the assessment with experts.


11/69

11

link the proposed interventions to a sustainability criterion and dene the desirable criterion state

Second, having identied the interventions that serve as means to attain the goals of sustainable development,these interventions must then be linked to a particular sustainability criterion. At least four criteria may be identi-ed: 1) natural capital/ resource stock, environmental quality and carrying capacity; 2) efciency of production oreconomic activity; 3) equity in access to natural and environmental resources and in the distribution of benets;and 4) poverty alleviation. These four goals/ criteria represent at least 5 out of the 15 PA21 principles mentionedearlier, namely ecological soundness; viable, sound and broad-based economic development; inter- and intra-generational and spatial equity; and bio-geographical equity and community-based resource management; and

sustainable population. If realized, the fourth criterion (poverty alleviation) may also help contribute to the partialrealization of 3 other principles, specically the development of the human potential, social justice, and participa-tory democracy. In order to be realized, however, these three principles must also have their own interventionmeasures. In other words, this assessment report would only be able to directly cover the above four criteria or 5principles. Regrettably, it cannot include other goals or principles which do not have explicit intervention measures.

Table 2 lists the various PPPP interventions that may be gleaned from PA21 and the MEAs, and classies them undera particular sustainability criterion, by ecosystem. The MEA interventions are dated on the year they were intro-duced to dovetail with the earlier PA21 measures.

table 2. list of PPPP interventions from PA 21 and MEA, along each sustainability criterion, by ecosystem.

Activities (Policies, Plans, Projects, Program) Indicator

Natural Capital Stock and Envi-ronmental Quality

Delineate nal forest boundaries Establish national and local forest tree seed cent-ers; Produce high quality seed and planting stocks; Undertake biological fertilization, enrichmentplanting, ANR Establish effective Multi-sectoral Forest Protec-tion Committees; Involve CFMA and CADC recipi-ents; Rehabilitate critical watersheds Promote indigenous knowledge and technologies Implement an integrated watershed managementprogram

6 million ha of forestEstablishment of a seed center in LosBanos; production of 5 species

One MFPC per hotspot area

Rehabilitation at 10% a year30 tribes20 critical watersheds; Effective forestcover in all critical watersheds

Equity in Resource Access andBenets

Expand community forests and implement allpeople-oriented forestry programs; Shift expired

TLA areas to community forest management Improve/ reform policy on tenurial arrangements Issue Certicate of Ancestral Domain Claims afterpreparing a development plan

Area of CBFM, ISF, CFP, FLMA (7.38Mhectares)

Poverty Alleviation and Eradica-tion

Provide alternative sources of livelihood to upliftthe socio-economic conditions of upland communi-ties and establish upland livelihood enterprises thatprovide technology, credit and marketing assis-tance Create Centers for People Empowerment in theUplands (CPEUs) Establish a trust fund for upland developmentefforts

Training of upland farmers & extensionworkers in sustainable farming

Production Efciency Establish industrial forest plantations

Sustainably manage delineated production forestareas; undertake TSI & enrichment planting (EP) Establish the permanent production forest estates Develop productive plantations in sub-marginallands Prevent pest and disease problems; Promote agro-forestry technologies in uplandareas Develop and establish the wood-based and thelocal non-timber industries

800,000 hectares

2.48 million hectares; TSI in 75,000 ha annu-ally & EP in 40,000 ha.

Pilot test

Inefcient mills phased out, number ofnon-timber industries

forest ecosystem: Purpose/Goal: Avert the expanding marginal, degraded, unproductive upland areas, andpromote the sustainable management of the remaining production forest.


12/69

12


Natural Capital Restoration Implement the 1997 National Biodiversity Strategyand Action Plan; 2002 Philippine Biodiversity Conser-

vation Priorities of 2002; Rehabilitate damaged marine, wetlands and ter-restrial (IPAS) areas; Enhance biodiversity conservation efforts; Identify critical habitats and species-rich areasfor inclusion in NIPAS Identify & protect ora and fauna species in near-crisis conditions Implement a community-based biodiversity con-servation education and research program Provide community training, capability building Strictly implement EO 247 (Prescribing guidelinesand establishing a regulatory framework for theprospecting of biological and genetic resources,their products and derivatives for scientic andcommercial and other purposes).

Prospective large-scale projects to be estab-lished in NIPAS areas must be relocated.

Identied Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs)

Establish biodiversity center, in-situ con-servation facility for wetland habitats andconservation areas for wildlife relativesof crops

Establish a Wildlife Rescue and RefugeCenter in each critical areaEstablish a gene/seed bank for animal ge-netic resources and underutilized species

Access Equity Resolve problems/ conicts in the implementationof the NIPAS law, Increase IP representation.in PAMB

Poverty Eradication Promote alternative sustainable livelihood activi-ties for bio-resources-dependent communities

Efciency Promote the development of value-added prod-ucts; Formulate and implement a National EcotourismDevelopment Plan; Unify DOE Energy Plan on geothermal productionwith the NIPAS biodiversity Program

biodiversity: Purpose/Goal: Prevent the loss of biodiversity or strengthen biodiversity protection


13/69

13

coastal and marine ecosystem: Purpose/Goal: To ensure sustainable development of the coun-trys coastal and marine environment and resources and alleviate poverty


Natural Capital Stock andEnvironmental Quality

Rehabilitate degraded coral reefs and sea grasses;reforest mangroves, and manage swamplands Evaluate Fishery Leasehold Agreement (FLA), cancelunproductive or unsustainable ones and revert these tomangroves/ public domain Develop anti-poaching illegal shing plans at themunicipal level Apply programmatic EIA for coastal and marine de-velopment projects Adopt monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) sys-tem; enforce protection measures; penalize violators Modernize the Bantay-Dagat program Develop and implement guidelines on the manage-ment of adjacent watersheds Implement the action plan for the protection ofmarine environment from land-based activities & thedevelopment plans of growth centers Formulate an action plan for the protection of marineenvironment from oil spills, Establish a multi-sectoral monitoring team to assessthe status of the area and evaluate impacts of activi-ties/ projects on the resource, environment Recognize the primacy of shing communities in themanagement of and access to marine resources. Enable communities to manage coastal and marineecosystems. Develop, improve mechanisms that would increase orfacilitate access to basic social services. Also in PE Comprehensive National Fishery Industry Develop-ment Plan 2006

10% of degraded areas must be restoredevery year.

Members of POs and NGOs deputized.

One multi-sectoral team per province

Access Equity Prepare and implement a coastal zone managementplan with the participation of communities. Develop mechanisms that provide equity of access to

coastal resources. EF Provide access to basic social services

Poverty Eradication Implement a Comprehensive Coastal Zone Manage-ment Plan with community participation Delineate near shore areas for various purposes Evaluate shing methods and revise rules and regula-tions on shing methods Monitor and control culture technologies in relation tosustainability& environmental impact Provide training for business enterprise management.PE Research, identify and provide alternative livelihood Promote the active participation of all sectors inplanning for the management of coastal resources/ecosystems

Provide technical and nancial assistance to improvetraditional knowledge of marine living resources andshing techniques Comprehensive National Fishery Industry Develop-ment Plan 2006

Production Efciency Delineate near shore areas for various purposes Evaluate shing methods and revise rules and regula-tions on shing methods Implement EIA system on existing and proposed de-velopment plans on economic growth centers Promote the active participation of all sectors inplanning for the management of coastal resources/ecosystems


14/69

14

lowland/ agricultural ecosystem: Purpose/Goal: Address land degradation and promote asustainable agriculture


Natural Capital Restoration Identify agricultural lands non-negotiable for conver-sion; prohibit conversion of agricultural lands with exist-ing or planned irrigation facilities. (Also in EQ) Implement the National Action Plan (NAP) to combat

desertication, land degradation, drought and poverty(2004 -10; 2010-20) Promote and, provide incentives for effective soil andwater conservation through various ways Establish germplasm/ seed banks for indigenousspecies, & reintroduce disease-resistant traditionalvarieties Implement alternative pest management activitiesand promote organic farming (Also in EF) Ban use of inorganic fertilizer Promote diversied intensive farming systems (Also inEF)

MOA among DA, LGU and communities

Conduct training and establish IPM demosites.

Equity in Access and Distribu-tion

Implement CARP Provide security of tenure and efcient support ser-vices (irrigation, credit, roads, harvest facilities) Promote community-based resource managementand cooperatives (Also in PE)

Poverty Eradication Implement projects to ensure the regeneration ofmarginal lands for agriculture (NK) Implement a food subsidy program tied up to theparticipation in revised work program Implement suitable agroforestry systems Provide support services to ARCs Increase the incomes and productivity of farmersthrough the cultivation of high value crops Provide incentives in support of sustainable agricul-ture; Provide accessible funding/ loan facilities to POs,cooperatives Establish an endowment fund for sustainable agricul-ture (Also in EF, NK)

Increase nonfarm employment for small farmers,sher folks

Efciency Circularize regulations on land use conversion Tax idle agricultural lands; Develop idle lands intointegrated production areas Increase domestic food production (Gintong Ani) Encourage integrated crop and livestock farmingsystem Support the development of community-based fullcycle food processing technologies Remove subsidies on output and input prices andeliminate policy-induced costs of production; Allocate public expenditure in rural infrastructure andhuman resource development for sustainable agricul-ture Develop integrated nancing for all agricultural op-erations Implement the Irrigation and Agricultural ProductivityEnhancement Act; Establish SWIP, farm to market roads& provide extension service Support the development of community-based full cy-cle food processing technologies and support services Ban the marketing and use of persistent organic pol-lutants (POPs) Reintroduce the use of traditional varieties (NK) Promote chemical free agriculture, organic farm-ing, and the use of environmentally-friendly biologicalcontrol techniques

1.2M ha for palay, 750,000 ha for cornOne demo farm per district

Unspecied percentage of the budget

Construction of new irrigation and reha-bilitation of existing system (8,876 has)


15/69

15

freshwater ecosystem and water resources in the urbanecosystem: Purpose/Goal: Prevent the degradation of water quality and freshwater ecosystems


Natural Capital Restoration &Environmental Protection

Rationalize land use to prevent degradation, erosion,siltation of water bodies Formulate and adopt a national policy framework for

the sustainable use of freshwater ecosystem Integrate the development of water resources withthe conservation of the ecosystems (forests, wetlands,watersheds) that affect the water cycle (Also in EF) Restore degraded freshwater ecosystems Protect freshwater ecosystems from pollution anddegradation Regulate the extraction of freshwater resources Formulate a master plan for the management, reha-bilitation and protection of water bodies from domesticwastes and industrial efuents Assist small and medium-scale industries in watertreatment and recycling Promote centralized waste water treatment facilitiesfor industrial zones Promote the construction of common treatment facili-

ties for domestic sewage Provide adequate, efcient sewerage system andseptage treatment facilities Relocate industries from urban watersheds Protect and rehabilitate watersheds and its bufferzones Develop groundwater resources

Access Equity Expand the water supply distribution network andupgrade existing facilities

Poverty Eradication (After PA21, the Philippine Water Supply Sector Road-map of 2008 was conceived. Only recently did the poorbecome the target of the Presidents Priority ProgramP3W of 2005.)

Efciency Review, adopt and implement the Action Plan forOverall Water Resources Management or the PhilippineWater Supply Sector Roadmap Regulate the extraction of freshwater resources Establish the appropriate frameworks and strengthenthe institutional capabilities to assess water resourcesand provide ood and drought forecasting services Formulate Water Resources Master Plan Expand the water supply distribution network andupgrade existing facilities Reduce non-revenue water


16/69

16

metallic mineral sector: Purpose/Goal: Promote the growth of the industry and prevent the environmen-tal disturbances due to mining operations.


Natural Capital Restoration Enforce payment of the Mine Waste and Tailings fee (1974) Adopt a tree, adopt a mining forest requirement on mining rms Establish a mine rehabilitation fund Restore abandoned mines Declare a moratorium on mining operations and the granting of permits in environ-mentally-critical areas

Access Equity Strengthen the criteria and guidelines for social acceptability; ensure that mininginvestors obtain FPIC from indigenous peoples in the planned mining area Require a comprehensive plan developed with local stakeholders

Poverty Eradication andLabor Protection

(Prior to implementation of 1% royalty for host IPs and the Social Development and Man-agement Program with funds amounting to 0.9% of direct mining and milling cost) Involve the community in environmental monitoring Ensure mine safety and control potential hazards to mine workers Provide safety net to mine workers Minimize the risks from mine operations

Efciency Add risk assessment in EIAs issued (Also in NK) Provide incentives for value-added manufacturing processes


17/69

17

urban ecosystem (green industry/cities with transportation,waste, energy): Protect the quality of air and water resources; reduce the risks of natural and man-made hazards;and address the poverty situation


Natural Capital Restoration Green Industry/ City Strengthen/ improve EIS system to include risk assessment Improve policy enforcement, monitoring systems and facilities Assist small and medium-scale industries in water treatment and recycling Promote centralized waste water treatment facilities for industrial zones Relocate industries from urban watersheds Improve the air quality monitoring network; develop technologies to improve air quality Phase out lead and reduce SOx emissions Develop non-motorized transport modes Review, revise or amend existing policies on air pollution control Formulate a geo-based physical framework plan for geologically sensitive areas;adopt appropriate measures in managing geo-hazards

Waste Inventory industrial sources of waste which pose risk to public health and environment Strengthen the management of hazardous wastes Develop regulatory measures for the collection and disposal of industrial waste thatpose threat to public health LGU development of a cost-effective garbage disposal system Formulate a solid waste management master plan for municipalities/ cities Develop sanitary landll sites Include waste management cost in LGU budget

Access Equity Green City Upgrade, relocate slums, squatter settlements; implement Shelter Program Urban poor access to nancial institutions for low-cost housing

Poverty Eradication andLabor Protection

Green City Upgrade, relocate slums, squatter settlements; implement Shelter Program Urban poor access to nancial institutions for low-cost housing

Efciency Green Industry/ City Improve policy enforcement and monitoring system, facilities Update the comprehensive land use plan; formulate and implement a zoning plan forindustrialization

Provide incentives for the relocation of existing industries in urban areas

Transport Stop importation of second hand vehicles and engines Promote sustainable transport systems in urban centers Provide scal incentives for importation or manufacture of non-conventional energysystems Improve urban transport system

Energy Provide accessible nancing for renewable energy projects Formulate national, local action plans to develop, promote and utilize renewable en-ergy technologies (solar, wind, biomass)

Having culled and classied the proposed AA interventions under a par-ticular sustainability criterion, it is assumed that this set of interventions,properly implemented, will be sufcient to move an ecosystem/ sector to-wards the desired state. Table 3 depicts the desired states or conditionsfor each sustainability criterion per ecosystem or sector. Hence, over aunspecied period of time the implementation of these interventions willenable the attainment of the desired end goal or improved environmen-tal, resource economic and social conditions.


18/69

18

table 3: desired state or goals for each sustainability criterion per ecosystem, sector

Criteria/Areas of Con-

cern

Forest, Biodiver-sity

Coastal/ Marine Freshwater, wa-ter resource

Agriculture,Farm lands

Mining Urban (city,industry, waste,

energy

Natural Re-source Stockand Environmen-tal Quality

Zero rate ofdeforestation;Reforestation/afforestation ofdenuded forest-lands; Regenera-tion of naturalforest;Protection forestfor biodiversityconservation,water supply,ood or erosioncontrol, protec-tion from geo-hazards, forestres; Attainmentof a desirableforest cover

Zero loss ofmangroves, seagrass, coralreefs, sherybiomass;Restoration andregenerationof mangroves,coral reefs andsea grasses;

Control of pointand non-pointpollution;Water qualitymaintained;Waste watertreatment;Adequate re-serve for basichuman needsand in-stream in-direct/ ecologi-cal services (e.g.habitat mainte-nance, aquiferrecharge, )

Adequate areafor food securityneeds;Soil nutrientmaintainedor restored;Improvement ofonce degradedlands

Rehabilitationof abandonedmines;Depletion ofmineral depos-its that coversthe cost ofenvironmentaldegradation andcommunity liveli-hood losses

The carrying ca-pacity of the ur-ban air shed andinfrastructureis maintainedand improvedwith the growingpopulation.

Equitable re-source access(as indicative ofinclusive growth)

Tenure toforest-livelihooddependenthouseholds,community-based manage-ment;

Sustainableforest resourcemanagement

Tenure to sus-tainable sheryor mangrove re-source users orcommon prop-erty managers;Coastal com-

munity resourcemanagement

Water for all;Communityaccess to localwater sources;

Provision of landand secure ten-ure to landlesscultivators; Ac-cess to domesticand irrigationwater;

Tenure to com-pliant miners;Access tomineral res-ervation landswhich provideecological/ non-

use benets ornon-mining uses(e.g. agro-forest-ry, geothermal,ecotourism)

Movement touniversal wateraccess, sanita-tion services;Waste water andseptage treat-ment; Provision

of health, educa-tion and othersocial services

Efciency ofProduction/ eco-nomic activity

Harvesting atsustained yieldsin the productionforests;Forest use fornon-timber pro-duction;No biodiversityloss

Harvesting atsustained yields;Preference formunicipal sher-ies versus largecommerciallicensees;No biodiversityloss

Moratorium ofwater extrac-tion in depletedaquifer areas toallow recharge;Groundwaterabstraction atthe rechargerate; Wastewatertreatment

Attainment ofhigh potentialyield; Organicfarming;Shift from chemi-cal-based mono-cropping tomixed cropping,agro-forestryand livestock; At-

tainment of foodsecurity withminimal adverseeffects

Vertical inte-gration (valueadded genera-tion for minedores)Full compensa-tion, if not fullmitigation of thenegative eco-nomic, social and

environmentalexternalities

Use of renew-able energy;Reduction ofhigh-carbon ac-tivities; Increasein low-carbonactivities.

Poverty allevia-tion and eradica-tion

Reduced povertyincidence amongindigenous peo-ple and uplandmigrants

Alternativelivelihoods indepleted areas;Reduced povertyincidence amongsmall sher folks

Water reservefor basic needs;Cross-subsidiesfor the poorhouseholds

Poverty alle-viation of smallfarmers andlandless farmworkers

Reduced povertyincidence amongindigenous peo-ples and uplandmigrants

Reduced numberand proportionof the urbanpoor


19/69

19

determine the level of implementation, the adequacy of intervention or the presence ofintervention gaps and omissions

Third, the attainment of a given desired state or goal isconstrained, however, by the level of implementation of

relevant interventions, the adequacy of interventions (i.e.the presence of intervention gaps and omissions), and theimpacts of developments in other criteria on the crite-rion in question. At the onset, implementation necessarilystarts with the near completion of preliminary activitiesand the introduction of the necessary interventions, insome cases at the pilot level. It then proceeds at an ap-propriate time either to the replication or extension ofthe successful pilot project to a larger spatial coverage,if not nationwide, at least across the entire sector. At this

stage, the adequacy ofthe intervention depends

on the availability andefcacy of the measuresdeemed necessary tochange and improve thegiven undesirable state.In other words, whateverintervention omissionsand gaps that existedearlier would have beenaddressed.

Given the above identied interventions, the followingobservations on Table 4 may be inferred. One, many of

the listed strategies and targets in the AA are preliminaryactivities, i.e. actions that are pursued before any direct,effective intervention can be undertaken. Only about afth to a quarter of the listed strategies and targets aredirect interventions in the log frame sense. Hence, in theareas or criteria where preliminary activities persist orwhere there are effectively no interventions, one cannotexpect any immediate improvement in the given baselinecondition.

Two, the available interventions are unevenly distributedacross the various ecosystems/ sectors and criteria.These interventions31 in allseem concentrated in low-land agriculture compared to the metallic mineral, biodi-

versity, industry, cities and other urban (waste, transportand energy) sectors which have only half13 to 17of the

interventions in lowland agriculture. With regards to thedifferent criteria across ecosystems, greater attention is

given to two criteria, namely natural resource/environ-mental stock and quality and production efciency, withthe former generally enjoying more interventions thanthe latter, except in agriculture. Conversely, fewer inter-ventions have been undertaken for equity and povertyeradication. In particular, the limited number of interven-tions to eradicate poverty was mainly directed to agricul-ture, while biodiversity had only one intervention, greenindustry and cities two, and forest, coastal/ marine andmineral, three. It was only with the 2005 P3W project thatintervention for poverty alleviation was undertaken in thefreshwater ecosystem. Similarly, with regards to equity,there was no related intervention in the urban ecosystem(waste, transport, energy) while the freshwater ecosys-

tem had one intervention measure and the other ecosys-tems two or three.

Ecosystem Number ofPA strategies,

Targets

Number ofInterventions

Across AllCriteria

NaturalCapitalStock &

EnvironmentalQuality

Equityin Access

&Distribution

PovertyEradication

ProductionEfciency

Number ofIndicators

Forest 106 19 6 3 3 7 12/19

Biodiversity 76 15 10 2 1 3 4/15

Coastal/

Marine

84 24 10 3 3 7 3/24

LowlandAgriculture

111 31 7 3 8 13 4/31

Freshwater 34 21 14 1 - 6 -

MetallicMineral

64 13 5 2 3 3 -

IndustryCities 114

17 10 2 2 3 -

WasteTransport

Energy

742

7--

---

---

-42

-

TOTAL 589 153 69 15 20 49

table 4. number of interventions, by criterion and ecosystem, relative to the number of strategies and targets in PA21, with indicators


20/69

20

Three, only the forest, biodiversity, coastal/marine and agriculture ecosystems had indicators to monitorthe progress of some of the interventions. With the forest-watershed ecosystem having the most number ofindicators, the proper monitoring of implementation was more feasible compared to the other ecosystems andsectors. No mechanism seemed to have been available for determining the developments of the interventionsin the freshwater, metallic mineral, waste, transport, energy, and other urban sectors.

While Table 4 indicates the relative presence of interventions implemented across the criteria in each ecosys-tem/sector, it is also necessary to determine the quality of the intervention, the level of implementation and

the presence of intervention gaps and omissions. These features are expected to constrain, if not reduce,the efcacy of the interventions, and thereby account for the lack of improvement or limited progress in theecosystem or sector. Unless the implementation problems and intervention gaps and omissions are resolved,the desired goals are close to unattainable.


21/69

21

forest-watershed ecosystem and biodiversity

One, given the target set in the AA for natural capital and equity considerations through the promotion of people-ori-ented forestry or a community forest tenure programwhere a total area of 7.38 million hectares was specically tar-geted in 1996 for the establishment of Community-Based Forestry Management (CBFM), Integrated Social Forestry (ISF),Community Forestry Program (CFP), and the Forest Lease Management Agreement (FLMA)does the existing reducedcoverage of only 5.4 million hectares reect the slow implementation of the program or a policy reversal that manifestsa change in the DENRs priorities?

Two, the plan to establish effective multi-sectoral forestprotection committees and rehabilitate, starting in 2002,the critical watersheds at the rate of 10% a year impliesthat these watersheds should have been fully rehabilitatedby the end of this year. If they are not close to being fullyrehabilitated, what has constrained forest protection andthe rehabilitation of degraded critical watersheds? Havethe direct and indirect beneciaries of critical watershedservices (Napocor, NIA, water districts) been tapped forthese interventions?

Three, what has been the employment generation ef-fect of the various interventions like forest rehabilita-

tion, watershed management, industrial forest plantation,livelihood projects from the use of trust fund, and thewood-based and non-timber industries? Have these inter-ventions signicantly generated jobs for the rural laborforce? If not, then it seems that the PA21 interventionsin the forestry sector have had limited impact on ruralunemployment.

Four, while PA21 did not explicitly mention the use of theintegrated ecosystem-based management approach asa major strategy for sustainable natural resource (NR)managementpossibly due to its focus on the particularfunctioning of an ecosystemthe approach might havebeen adopted more widely in time, especially with the

converging actions of environment- and development-oriented government agencies and the role NR plays in the2011-2016 Philippine Development Plan (PDP). Has an inte-grated ecosystem-based management approach guredin the development and implementation of PPPP for forest-watershed sustainability? The PDP, for instance, has usedthe approach to conceive of adaptation measures to dif-ferent climate change scenarios, as well as to incorporatevulnerability and adaptability to disaster risk and climatechange in the preparation of protected area managementplans.

Five, although the AA discusses biodiversity separatelyfrom the forest ecosystem, they cannot be managed and

conserved separately. In line with the countrys commit-ment to the Convention on Biodiversity, the DENR draftedthe Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities in 2002.Through the efforts of academe, NGOs, donors, communi-ties and government, the Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) forconservation priorities were identied in 2006. Comprisingmore than twice the areas covered by the NIPAS, mostKBAs have not yet been proclaimed as priority protectionareas. What is their status then? How will government andcivil society address the actual and potential economicuses of un-proclaimed KBAs; how will the economic gainsbe reconciled/ balanced with the biodiversity losses?What must a national land use policy clearly articulate as

the basis and justication for forest protection, as well asthe conditions that will make the allocation of forest landsfor conservation or development socially agreeable? Ifbusiness/economic development is to coexist with biodi-versity conservation, what forms of biodiversity interven-tions would be considered adequate or sufcient?. Forinstance, will biodiversity offsets, establishment of corri-dors, or forest habitat regeneration outside of the projectsite be acceptable?

There are only two options to maintain biodiversity: eitherestablish a protection area of the same size and qual-ity elsewhere or declare the targeted open pit area aNo-Go site in the interest of biodiversity conservation.

The declaration of a site as No-Go depends on thedetermination of the critical level of biodiversity andthe valuation of biodiversity. An area rich in biodiversitymay be declared a protection area in different ways: theafrmation by a body of experts, religious or moral lead-ers and the state of its aesthetic, educational, ethical orreligious value; the secular liberal democratic practice ofvoting; contingent valuation or by legislation. Historically,expert judgment has been the main means for the estab-lishment of protected areas. If the richness of a countrysbiodiversity benets all of humanity, what is the interna-tional communitys willingness to pay for its protection andconservation?


22/69

22

coastal, marine ecosystemIn confronting the problem of shery depletion and shery

habitat degradation, the AA includes a number of pro-posed interventions: 1) regulations to stop and penalizeillegal shing methods; 2) policies to implement a municipaland commercial shery licensing system; 3) comprehensivemanagement plans to rationalize/reduce shing effort,develop environment-friendly shing methods, establishcommunity shery resource management, and co-manageand protect coastal shery areas by incorporating thewatershed in management plans; 4) projects for man-grove reforestation and the rehabilitation of other sheryecosystem, and 5) the establishment and enhancement oflocally managed marine protected areas.

Where implemented, these interventions have yielded

tangible benets, such as the conservation of coral cover,growth of biomass and sh stock, and improved liveli-hoods for small sher folks. Their effective implementationmay have been boosted by certain conditionse.g. localawareness of the ecological relationship of forest-water-sheds and the coastal, marine ecosystem; strong leader-ship at the local level; the cooperation of the BFAR-DA andFMB-DENR with the LGUs; and the community organizingefforts of civil society; and external assistance.

The absence of these conditions and the bias for particu-lar interventions probably explain the unabated sherydepletion and habitat degradation that combined to spawngreater competition for shery and coastal resource ac-

cess and displace small municipal sher folks. In particular,the failure to prevent commercial shery encroachmenton municipal shery grounds and establish equity in thelicensing of municipal shery access, coupled with theconversion of mangroves, coastal zones and lakes toshponds, aquaculture or mariculture have restricted theaccess to the resource (sh biomass, shing area, or habi-tat) or the livelihood of small sher folks. Apart from theinequity effect, the commercial production bias for aqua-culture/mariculture and the inability to regulate stocking

practices have resulted in overfeeding, pollution and the

further degradation of lakes and municipal waters.

The failure to anticipate the adverse equity and naturalcapital stock effect of particular interventions and omis-sions arises from the lack of analysis of the sector andthe poverty of municipal shers. Against this backdrop, theComprehensive National Fisheries Industry DevelopmentPlan (CNFIDP) of 2006albeit a bit late in comingis nev-ertheless a welcome development. It provides a holisticanalysis on which this sector roadmap or sector plan isbased. The analysis recognizes how the larger economyoutside of shery resourcese.g. credit, infrastructureinvestment, employment opportunitiesimpact on pov-erty in the sector. Beyond contextualizing the problem in

a good analysis, the CNFIDPO advances specic solutions.For instance, to address the issue of inequitable access,CNFIDP proposes the provision of prior use rights throughthe municipal registration and licensing system. .

The lack of analysis in PA21 of 1) the competition for local(marine, coastal) resources; 2) the displacement of smallsher folks; and 3) habitat pollution partly accounts forthe absence of intervention measures, such as settingthe total allowable catch based on the sustainable yield ofthe shery stock; the use of shery charges to promotesustainable shing; the imposition of charges on point- andnonpoint pollution sources; and compensations for dam-ages to coastal waters, marine resources, and habitats.

Another problem that PA21 did not anticipate is the threatof cheap sh imports, given the countrys decreasingcatch from its depleted stock and degraded habitats.While this development highlights both the urgency ofrestocking and restoring the ecosystem and the need foraquaculture growers and commercial shers to be moreefcient and competitive, it also requires the provision ofsafety nets and alternative employment opportunities forthe families whose livelihoods have been displaced.


23/69

23

lowland/ agricultural ecosystemThe issues and concerns section of the AA refers toimmediate priority tasks or problems in the agriculturalsector such as the pace of CARP implementation, landconversions, idle lands, watershed deterioration, droughtsand the increasing share of degraded lands. Even with-out any explicit analysis of the causes of these problems,PA21 advanced strategies like a nationwide assessmentof land degradation; the monitoring of soil erosion ratesand sedimentation; and the formulation of an overall landuse policy. Interestingly, these strategies are more in thenature of preliminary activities than direct interventionmeasures. Only with the countrys ratication of the UN-

CCD on February 10, 2000 was a National Action Plan (NAP)to Combat DLDD (NAP-DLDD) for the period 2004- 2010formulated. This Plan was later updated for FY2010-2020 asa land and water-centered action plan.

It is notable that the AA also proposed interventions forproblems that are not explicitly stated. For instance, whileit does not single out the loss of biodiversity or povertyamong small farmers as an issue, interventions, like theestablishment of seed banks for indigenous speciesand increasing the incomes and productivity of farmersthrough the cultivation of high value crops, respectively,are proposed. It is not certain whether the proponentsof these interventions were unaware of the grassrootsorganic farming movement that scientists, farm organiza-tions and civil society groups initiated a decade earlier togather traditional seeds; undertake eld experimentationand development; and establish community seed banksto counter the green revolutions HYV-chemical ferti-lizer technology, Or, if this local movement came to theirawareness, whether they wanted to replicate its process(now with PCSD blessing) in other localities and advancethe position that organic farming would alleviate thefarmers indebtedness/ poverty and improve the health oftheir families.

Organic farm products may not have been equated withhigh value crops in the discussions and consultations ofPA21, given the dominant commercial sector and the smallfarms dependence on chemical fertilizers, inorganic pesti-cides and genetically-modied seeds (GMO). However, theAA proposals calling for the introduction of disease-re-sistant traditional species; alternative pest management;the use of biological control and organic fertilizers; theban on inorganic fertilizers and POPs; and chemical-freeagriculture suggest a nascent advocacy for alternativefarming within the existing agricultural system. Whethersustainable agriculture through organic farming wouldprosper and expand beyond its small market and land useshare is dependent on several factors that include the tra-jectory of existing policies (like the Organic Act of 2010, EO514 on biosafety); the inuence of strong interest groups;and the capacity of the organic farming movement to fend

off the GMO threat, support the transition of small farm-ers to a new farming mode, and help them realize a largermarket share. The play of all these factors is dependenton the health and environmental consciousness of thePhilippine middle class.

Approved on March 17, 2006, Executive Order No. 514Establishing the National Biosafety Framework, Prescrib-ing Guidelines for its Implementation, Strengthening theNational Committee on Biosafety of the Philippines, andfor other Purposes seeks to control the risks posed byorganisms modied by biotechnology. Whether this policy

will effectively regulate the continued use, introductionand spread of new GMO seeds like BT corn and possiblyGolden Rice is a challenge considering the continuingdebates within circles of scientists and agriculturists onwhether organic farming can be scaled up fast enough, ifat all, to feed a rapidly growing population.

While the biotechnology industry knows its bottom lineand where to move the agricultural sector, it is not clearwhether government agencies (DA, DAR, DENR, DILG, DTI,DOST-PCARRD) have leveled off on the kind of agriculturethey envision for the country. Would convergence maintainthe existing dual asymmetrical structure? Or would theircollaboration with LGUs, peoples organizations, and civilsociety groups in local development projects help promotesustainable agriculture? The strategic R&D technologyresearch agenda of PCARRD for agriculturee.g. farmingtechniques under adverse conditions, the developmentof high-yielding, environment-friendly traditional cropsand botanicals, and broad-spectrum bio-fertilizers, therenement of water harvesting methods, and the im-provement of integrated nutrient and water managementsystemsseems oriented towards organic farming. Butthe challenge PCARRD confronts is how to involve localfarm communities in the eld experimentation, adaptation,renement and diffusion of these new technologies sincegreen technologies do not yield tangible benets (eco-nomic) in the short term.

On the other hand, the potential role of the other agenciesin sustainable agriculture is the provision of support forthe successful adoption and effective linkage of produc-tion to market outlets. The NAP (2010-2020) in particularfaces similar prospects. It must create livelihoods for theaffected communities and introduce technologies thatwould not only reverse land degradation and mitigatethe effects of drought in affected areas but also improvethe communitys resilience to natural disasters. In its pilotstage implementation in four barangays within the PuertoPrincesa Subterranean River National Park, the UNDP-fund-ed STREEM project for the NAP is still in a more or lessexperimental phase.


24/69

24

freshwater ecosystemThe most striking gap in the AA for the freshwater eco-

system is its inadequate policy framework and resourcemanagement approach. While the AA mentions the needfor an inventory of watershed areas and the manage-ment of the freshwater ecosystem using an ecosystemmanagement approach (EMA), it does not explicitly link theconditions of forest watersheds to the freshwater eco-system. Neither does it dene what EMA entails. What, forinstance, is the unit of management? Is it the body of sur-face water, the aquifer, the river basin, or the watershed?If each of these water bodies begs to be properly man-aged, what regulations and economic policy instrumentsought to be employed? If PA 21 adopts an integrated waterresource management (IWRM) framework as is supposed,would the IWRM policy measures be taken en toto or only

in part?The gap in the AAs water management approach isintended to be addressed in PA21 by operational[izingthe] management for freshwater ecosystems. But thistask is hardly a strategy/action agenda which can beimplemented on a given body of water, such as a river.The statement merely expresses the need to identify andoperationalize the best option for managing a freshwaterecosystem. As such, it is only a preliminary activity. Simi-larly, the strategy to integrate the development of waterresources with the conservation of the ecosystems is notan activity/ PPPP for implementation but a mere guide, ifnot an expression of intention to prevent water resourcedevelopment from damaging the ecosystem. How this

intention translates into existing water policies and regula-tions is not clear. Moreover, the agenda document doesnot discuss the policies and regulations that must beimplemented.The AA underscores the need for a national policy frame-work for the sustainable use of the fresh water ecosys-tem. However, it does not cite the limitations of the 1976Water Code and the Clean Water Act to justify such need.In particular, it has no discussion of the following unre-solved critical issues: 1) the equity issue in water access;2) the distribution of rights to both surface and ground-

water sources according to benecial use; 3) the assumed

zero-value of raw water; 4) the provision of formal waterrights on a perpetual basis (even across generations) towater permit holders; 5) the absence of the formal rightsof rural communities to domestic water supply; 6) the non-provision of a reserve for basic human needs and ecologi-cal functions; 7) the non-application of economic instru-ments to the critical phases of the water supply cycle, likea surface and groundwater abstraction charge, pollutioncharge, tariffs for wastewater treatment, and the sustain-ability of water infrastructure and watersheds; and 8) thediversion of all water-related fees and charges to theGeneral Fund away from the water sector or local water-shed. In other words, there is hardly any discussion of howthe IWRM goals of equity in access, resource efciency in

use and sustainability can be attained through the activi-ties/ PPPP in PA21.The neglect of the above water management and policyareas characterizes the current situation. Illustrativecases would show how to guide the process of policy andregulatory reforms in the water sector. For instance, cost-recovery irrigation fees may be applied to reduce wast-ages, cover depreciation of irrigation facilities, and sustainservices. Similarly, the application of tariff setting basedsolely on cost recovery to cover water supply servicescan be broadened to enable the provisioning of sanitation,sewerage and septage services.Thankfully, the principles of IWRM and the availability ofthe water road map make it possible to apply the princi-

ples of IWRM and formulate a strategic program for waterresource management that would promote its equity,efciency, and sustainability goals. In the absence of acomprehensive policy framework and appropriate man-agement approach to reach the desired state, it will bedifcult to ascertain whether the sector has moved to aless sustainable state. The question at hand then is havepolicy discussions and resolutions been reached withregards to the IWRM policy issues and what have material-ized in the PPPP?


25/69

25

metallic mineral sectorThe AA for the metallic mineral sector has two generalobjectives: 1) to promote the growth of the mining industry,and 2) to address/prevent environmental disturbance due

to mining operations and enhance the countrys capacityto manage such disturbances. The two objectives are alsopresent in the Philippine Development Plan, as reected inthe identied strategies: 1) to rationalize mining for na-tional development, and 2) to strictly enforce, if not assure,the industrys compliance with the laws and policies onenvironmental conservation, protection and rehabilitation.With its expressed concern for the inadequate institutionalcapacity/capability to implement the 1995 Mining Act, PA 21reiterates the regulations and requirements industry mustcomply with, such as the social acceptability of the projectto the communities, the establishment by the industry ofa mine rehabilitation fund, its payment of the mine wasteand tailings fee, the formation of multipartite monitor-ing team, and the formulation of abandonment plans withadequate funds guarantees.

PA 21, however, does not go beyond existing policies andregulations which are assumed to adequately addressenvironmental disturbances/ damages. There is no discus-sion, for instance, of compensation for damages, apartfrom the tailings fee and rehabilitation fund. In truth, PA21has not questioned the limited coverage and declining realvalue of the mine waste and tailings fee. The fund onlyprovides for the cost of repair of damaged privately-heldproperty, and does not consider damages to public re-sources and the environment. Moreover, at the very leastit has not adjusted the xed nominal fee rate set in1974.

The PDP recognizes the industrys potential threat to envi-ronmental conservation and thus recommends measuresto institute comprehensive resource valuation and safe-guard the ecological and environmental integrity of areasaffected by mining operations. Operationally, this recom-mendationwhen applied either during the EnvironmentalImpact Study (EIS), the application for an EnvironmentalCompliance Certicate (ECC) or while a mining rm is inoperationseems to translate into the establishment ofan environmental insurance or a damage compensationfund to cover either the estimated expected damages orthe actual damage costs. At the moment, this is not yet apolicy issue.

It is worth noting that there are uncompensated costsdue to mining, which have not been considered in eitherthe PA 21 or the PDP. These include 1) the costs of com-

munity displacement from their traditional subsistenceor livelihood sources; 2) the free use of water for miningoperations and its diversion away from the communi-ties domestic and farm needs; 3) the pollution of surfacewater and aquifers from acid rock discharges, release ofwastewater, toxic metals and efuents, and the risks oftailings leakages and overows; 4) the full cost of pollutionof community water sources, natural habitats, farm andsh yields, marine productivity, livelihood, health, mortalityand biodiversity; and 5) the cost of tailings dam collapseson livelihood, health and the environment in downstreamareas. The internalization of the full economic, social andenvironmental cost of mining implies drawing the fundfrom the miners rent or excess prot which is likely totrigger industry resistance.

The concern to safeguard the ecological and environ-mental integrity of areas affected by mining operationswhich implies measures to prevent biodiversity damagesor lossessuggests either a policy to establish No-Go orprotection areasthereby extricating such areas from amining concession areaor a provision to compel licen-sees to undertake biodiversity offsets within or outsidethe concession area. This too is not yet a policy issue.

Apart from biodiversity concerns, there are other min-ing related problems that have not been the subject ofpolicy consideration. These include the need to containacid mine drainage (AMD) and to prevent acid forminghazardous wastes from the open pits; runoffs from acidicore stockpiles; and other toxic chemicals from contaminat-ing surface water streams and leaching into the aquifer.Should mining companies be made to treat surface waterperpetually even after the life of the mine, or should theybe required to prevent AMD from starting at the veryonset is a policy question?

Finally, another policy question regarding the allocationof a substantial amount of public forest lands for mineralreservations is whether it is an exclusionary policy thatprevents other economic land uses such as agroforestry,non-timber production, geothermal production, eco-tour-ism, and simply ecological protection.


26/69

26

Urban ecosystem(energy, water, waste, industry and cities)The action agenda of PA21 cited myriad urban environmen-tal problemspoor living conditions in heavily populatedand expanding slum communities; pollution of drainagesystems and water bodies given the non-treatment ofdomestic wastewater, sewage and industrial efuents; theresulting biological death of rivers; the accumulation andinadequate collection and disposal of domestic and indus-trial waste, chemical and toxic substances and hazardouswastes; the polluted city air; and the threats to life andproperty in densely populated, disaster-prone or geologi-cally hazardous areas. The persistence, and, in some in-stances, worsening of the problems, that become palpablewhen major disasters strike, create the impression of apotential implosion of the Philippine urban environment.Culling from the discussion in the agenda document,

two of the salient issues that underlie many of the above

manifestations of a degraded urban environment andthe challenge of turning the situation around are 1) thetremendous pressure of a rapidly growing population onthe urban infrastructure and the carrying capacity of itsecosystem; and 2) the extremely limited governance andenvironmental management capacity of the DENR and theLGUs.The rapid growth of the population in urban areas andthe consequent expansion of slum communities have beena constant feature of the countrys postwar develop-ment. Scholars have attributed this condition to internalmigration due to the concentration of formal and infor-mal income sources in the cities. Not even the period ofauthoritarian rule from 1972 to the early 1980s succeeded

in regulating population growth and the ow of rural folksto the city to eke out a living. This is a far cry from thesituation in authoritarian countries with entrenched localregistration systems that have effectively limited the in-migration to cities. It also deviates considerably from thesituation of liberal democratic states that have effectivelycontrolled migration to cities by a more even economicdevelopment across the rural and urban geographies of

their countries.Addressing the urban environmental issues enumeratedin PA21 through various interventions demands a rela-tively strong statei.e. city and metropolitan governmentsas well as government agencies like the DENR with thecapacity to formulate the necessary policies, but moreimportantly, to enforce and monitor consistent compli-ance to existing legislation (e.g. the Clean Air Act and theClean Water Act). It also calls for a general awareness ofenvironmental issues and the vigilance of civil society toprotect the urban environment.

The proposed interventions for the urban eco-system that are listed in Table 3 require different levelsof government involvementfrom the least involvementto the necessary creation of some form of central com-mandwhether it be at the level of the nation, a metro-

politan government or local city governments. Considerthe following observations: A few of the interventions simply entail govern-ment oversight or the extension of assistance to existingservice providers in their provision of environmental ser-vices, like the assistance to industrial zone managers forthe establishment of centralized waste water treatmentfacilities on a cost-recovery basis for enterprises within azone. A related but more challenging form of assistance isthe linking of dispersed small and medium scale industriesin a given district as clients of the local water district thatwould invest in wastewater treatment and recycling facili-ties. Other interventions require more intensive gov-

ernment efforts such as relocating industries out of urbanwatersheds, phasing out lead and reducing SOx emissions,or establishing garbage disposal systems at the LGU level. There are (development) plans/ interventionsbegging for measures that are not fully identied in PA21 tohelp realize sustainable development goals. These include1) the relocation of slum communities and the provision ofpublic housing for the informal sector; 2) the development


27/69

27

of a sustainable transportation system in urban centerssuch as non-motorized transportalthough there is noinfrastructure for it in most of the countrys cities; andgiven the low cost of motorcycle, a high preference formotorcycles exists among the lower income groups thatusually constitute the majority of the urban population; and3) the development of sources of renewable energy at thelocal and national level, such as solar energy for the ur-ban poor similar to that provided by development-orientedIndian social enterprises (e.g. SELCO, India)A review of the planned actions/measures for the urbanecosystem in the AA also reveals that a number of themare still at the preliminary activity level, some with pro-posed measures without a denite end intervention inminde.g. monitoring population and emission levels; a re-view of existing air pollution control policies; an inventoryof industrial and hazardous waste sources to develop andstrengthen regulatory measures to protect public health.Although preliminary, these actions are neverthelessimportant because of the usual dearth of information forpolicy makinge.g. the relationship of population density,emission levels to health and mortality risks; the inven-tory of empirically validated energy efcient technologies;which businesses generate industrial waste and hazard-ous waste; how these businesses dispose of these wastesand who are or will be affected by these wastes.What remain unclear are the next steps after the neces-sary information is obtained. For instance, once populationdensity or emission levels are known to exceed tolerable

levels is it enough to simply relocate informal settlers andindustries, enforce anti-belching regulations, or disal-low the importation of second hand vehicles. Are thesemeasures sufcient to reduce the number of vehicles onthe road? Similarly, once information on informal settlers isobtained, wouldnt relocation simply transfer the problemsof domestic waste, untreated sewage, industrial efuents,

and other wastes?On the technical or policy implications of procured data,once information on the cost of energy efcient technolo-gies is available, would it be used as marginal pollutionabatement cost measure for setting pollution charges?How will industrial and hazardous waste be treated? Ifbioremediation is not possible for particular wastes, willsuch industrial wastes and hazardous waste be banned?Under what conditions will industrial and hazardous wastebe allowed, what disposal method is permissible? Will thepolluter pay principle be applied to the generators ofindustrial and hazardous waste and under what terms, andwill their victims be compensated?A major challenge in Philippine urban areas is how to tran-sition to an ecosystem that provides a better quality oflife where there is socialized housing for the poor; wastewater, sewage treatment and recycling of water; sanitarylandlls; reduced consumption of fossil fuel energy; andthe availability and increased use of renewable energy,and a sustainable transport system. An equally importantchallenge is how to distribute the costs of the benets ofclean air, water, sanitation services, and the environmentamong the beneciaries in a class divided society.At the moment, the public expectation is that the respon-sibility for confronting these challenges or for provid-ing solutions to environmental problems falls squarelyon individual LGUs or national government agencies. Asnoted earlier, the complexity of the urban ecosystem in acountry where courts can issue injunctions against the im-

plementation of environmentally sustainable interventionsfor a common good suggests the need for central coor-dination that transcends political turfs and that harmo-nizes local and national efforts to generate much-neededsynergy for mitigating urban environmental degradationand decay.


28/69

28

assess the impact of interventions and construct a set of indicators that show the

movement from an undesired baseline criterion state to an improved state

Fourth, the impacts of the identied PA21 and MEA inter-ventions must be assessed. Given the absence of base-line data, as noted earlier, and the above implementationproblems and interventions gaps and omissions, it ismethodologically impossible to conduct a strict quantita-tive assessment of the impact of the proposed interven-tions. A more feasible alternative is a qualitative assess-ment of the state of ecosystem/ sector sustainability orun-sustainability that considers the varying levels of im-

plementation and the existing omissions and gaps of theidentied intervention measures and the resulting state ofeach criterion. The varying levels of implementation andthe accompanying or resulting state of each criterion arespecied by their respective set of indicator outcomesthat would both be measured along a scale from 0 to 4.With regards to the level of implementation, each levelshall be associated with a particular score as follows:

A value of 0 represents either the baseline scenario condition withoutPA 21 or MEA intervention measures for a particular criterion, where theundesirable conditions persist. Or it signies the condition where existingproposed measures bear no positive impact because they have not beenproperly implemented, partly due to weak governance and environmentalmanagement capacity.

A value of 1 means that implementation is either at a pilot stage with somepotential success, or is happening on a larger scale with limited success dueto some unresolved interventions gaps and implementation problems.

A value of 2 is assigned when implementation at the pilot level has beensuccessful, and now proceeds at an extended scale, with some positive out-comes.

A value of 3 means that implementation at a nationwide scale yields signi-cant accomplishments as reected in the criterion outcomes.

The highest value of 4 means that the desired outcomes or goals are fullyrealized.

Similarly, the relative effect of intervention may be rep-resented by varying indicators for the four sustainabilitycriteria. In general, a 0-value is assigned for the base-line unsustainability condition or when the problems ofresource depletion, environmental degradation, worsen-ing pollution, inefcient and unsustainable resource andenergy use, inequitable resource access, lack of inclusivegrowth, and unalleviated or growing poverty persist,while a value of 4 means that the (most) desired outcome

has been attained.Table 5 species the indicators that would show themovement of a particular criterion from an undesiredstate to an improved or more desirable state of sustain-ability. Necessarily this movement involves time, effort,leadership and collective action. The value obtained by aparticular

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jpaph2002
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Philippines' 20+ Report

Documents