SEP Impacts Law Review Workshops - pkp.pcsd.gov.ph 23_May 6... · Puerto Princesa City, Palawan SEP...

Palawan Council for Sustainable Development Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 1 of 57

‘The Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act of 1992: 23 Years After’

SEP Impacts

and

Law Review Workshops Citystate Asturias Hotel, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Philippines

May 6-7, 2015

Official Report and Documentation Presented to: The Palawan Council for Sustainable Development Hon. JOSE CH. ALVAREZ Chairperson The Palawan Council for Sustainable Development Staff Engr. NELSON P. DEVANADERA Executive Director III

Presented by: JAMES PAUL S. INAWASAN Consultant, Workshops Lead Facilitator & Lead Documentor Support Documentors:

Ms. Rio Jean A. Quendara Ms. Jenneferlyn B. Yap Ms. Marianne Faith M. Perez Ms. Jenevieve P. Hara

Mr. Mark Ace V. dela Cruz Ms. Cherry Lyn S. Jalover Ms. Maria Victoria G. Villaos Ms. Ilya Shelome S. Cansino



SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops

Citystate Asturias Hotel, Puerto Princesa City May 6-7, 2015

I. BASIC INFORMATION Name of Activities : SEP Impacts Workshop

SEP Law Review Workshop General Objectives : To meaningfully celebrate SEP Law’s 23rd anniversary. Specific Objectives : Workshop 1:

(1) To examine the impact of SEP to Palawan’s over-all development, on its people and the environment;

(2) To present the gains/achievements as well as “losses”/setbacks due to the SEP law. Workshop 2:

(1) To review the SEP Law in relation to Executive Order No. 79; (2) To review the SEP Law’s salient provisions; (3) To identify the issues/gaps/areas for improvement (AFIs) of the

law; (4) To identify gaps/AFIs in the implementation of the law; (5) To identify the achievements facilitated by the law; (6) To identify lessons learned in the implementation of the law;

and (7) To suggest recommendations for the updating of the law in

relation to the present context and future direction of the province.

Expected Outputs : A report containing the following: a. Assessment of the impact of the SEP Law based on the

perspectives of the different development stakeholders of Palawan;

b. Inventory/List of gains facilitated by the law, issues gaps and lessons learned from the implementation of the law in the last 23 years;

c. Inventory/List of issues in the law and recommendations to improve it.

Duration : One (1) day for each workshop Dates : May 6-7, 2015 Venue : Citystate Asturias Hotel, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan Day 1 Participants : Day 2 Participants : Day 1: Representatives from the following sectors National Government Agencies: Local Government Units: Academe:

NGOs/POs/CSOs: Church: IPs: Business:



Male :

Female : Day 2: Representatives from the following sectors National Government Agencies: Local Government Units: Academe:

NGOs/POs/CSOs: Church: IPs: Business:

Male :

Female : Lead Organizing Agency: Palawan Council for Sustainable Development Strategic Activity Partner: World Wildlife Fund-Philippines II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The landmark environmental legislation of 1990s, Republic Act 7611 otherwise known as the Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act of 1992, is now on its 23rd year of enactment and implementation. As a matter of good management practice, the said law and its implementation must be reviewed vis-à-vis standards the law has set for itself, i.e. its goals, principles and implementation framework and mechanisms. As this is the first formal review of the law conducted since its enactment, the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development and Staff deemed it necessary to use different methodologies to assess the effectiveness of the law and its implementation, and capture its impact to its target beneficiaries, the key issues it must address, and the lessons it must bring with it if it is to improve its implementation, and achieve its goals. One such methodology was the recently held multi-sectoral, participative SEP Impacts and Law Review Workshops conducted last May 6 and 7, 2015. Also used as the launching pad of the “SEP @ 23” celebration, the workshops gathered in one venue __ representatives of different sectors in the province which have had direct or indirect interface with the SEP Law and its implementation. The sectors invited include representatives from:

1. National Government Agencies, Military and Police like the DENR (PENRO and Environment Management Bureau), the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, the Department of Tourism, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, the Department of Agrarian Reform, the Tubbataha Management Office, the Philippine Information Agency, the National Economic Development Authority, the Philippine National Police, the Western Command and the Philippine Coast Guard;



2. Local Government Units like the Provincial Government of Palawan, the

Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Puerto Princesa City Government, Philippine Councilors League, Association of Barangay Captains, LGUs of Narra, Quezon, Brooke’s Point, Bataraza, Sofronio Española, Roxas, Coron, Taytay, Cuyo, San Vicente, El Nido and Cagayancillo;

3. the Academe, like the Western Philippine University, Palawan State University, Holy Trinity University, and the Department of Education-Palawan;

4. NGOs/POs/CSOs and Media organizations, like WWF-Philippines, Conservation International, Katala Foundation, Environmental Legal Assistance Center, Palawan NGO Network Inc., El Nido Foundation, Provincial Federation of FARMCs (Fisherfolks), CBFM Associations and Irrigators’ Association, Alyansa ng Palawenyong Mamamahayag, Inc. (APAMAI)1, and Palawan Communicators Network (PALCOMNET)2;

5. Church, like AVP-Puerto Princesa City and the Vicariate of Taytay; 6. IP groups like Nagkakaisang Tribu ng Palawan (NATRIPAL); and 7. the business sector like the Palawan Chamber of Commerce Inc., the Chamber of

Mines, the Palawan Tourism Council, Brotherhood of Christian Businessmen and Professionals (BCBP), Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Real Estate & Builders Association (CREBA), Palawan Electric Cooperative (PALECO), Puerto Princesa Water District, Palawan Live Fish Traders Association (PALIFTA), CRAAEN, Kawil Amianan, Jewelmer Pearl Farm, Sand & Gravel Quarry Operators, Bakers Association, and Petroleum Association.

In the invitation letter sent out by PCSDS for this purpose, Exec. Dir. Nelson P. Devanadera encouraged the agencies/organizations to send in representatives who have “(1) a good level of knowledge of the SEP Law; and/or (2) have a good amount of experience working with PCSD, and/or implementing the SEP Law.” Guided by select third party facilitators, the participants of the May 6 Workshop discussed under a “Fun Roundtable Discussion” format the following key question: What has been the impact of the SEP Law to the following pre-determined themes of development, where the law was designed to have an impact on:

1. To people and culture; 2. To the environment; 3. To the local economy; and 4. To governance and institutions in the province of Palawan?

Also, in the course of the discussions, areas for improvement (of the law and its implementation), lessons learned and some recommendations were brought up by the participants. Results of Day 1’s discussions were used as reference in the SEP Law Review Workshop.

1 Its membership come from all media based in the province except ABS-CBN (RNG Group) which “has a de facto policy of non-participation in local media formations.” http://citizenaction.net/index.php/research-and-development/local-baseline-assessment/162-citizens-guide-to-the-province-of-palawan, accessed May 13, 2015. 2 “An organization of all government information officers in Palawan.” https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=181893358575433&story_fbid=376510082447092, accessed May 13, 2015.

http://citizenaction.net/index.php/research-and-development/local-baseline-assessment/162-citizens-guide-to-the-province-of-palawan

http://citizenaction.net/index.php/research-and-development/local-baseline-assessment/162-citizens-guide-to-the-province-of-palawan

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=181893358575433&story_fbid=376510082447092



Using the same discussion format, the participants during Day 2 discussed in detail the issues they see in the law itself, as well as their recommendations on how to improve it. Both workshop results would form part and parcel of the “Report on SEP Implementation” which shall be presented to a select multi-sectoral audience, including the Scientific Advisory Board of PCSD, on June 19, 2015 – the law’s 23rd year of enactment. III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Despite limited time and relatively low turnout of participants, the SEP Law Impacts and Review Workshops were still able to deliver solid results: insights and recommendations from almost all development sectors in the province possible, which if acted upon, will provide tremendous benefits to the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development and its stakeholders – the people and the environment, today and in the future. Generally, all the stakeholders present in the workshops believe that the Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act (SEP Law) is “very good”, even “beautiful”, facilitating many gains for Palawan over the years, most especially in the area of environmental protection, and at hindsight, tourism, economy, governance and the livelihood of the people. There are apparent gaps and issues on its implementation, though, hindering the full enjoyment and realization of the law’s promise. Most of the participants share the observation that PCSD’s “highly-politicized decision-making process”, “slow and inefficient” clearance and permitting system, its perceived “too much power, mandate and functions”, its “missed opportunity to play an ‘integrative’ and ‘facilitative’ role in empowering local governments and communities”, and its failure to effectively communicate the law’s goals and values to the different sectors and communities have, in one way or another, hurt the sustainable development framework of the province’s development, the pace of its implementation at local governments level, and the faith of the people on the Council, consequently on its staff and on the core philosophy it promotes. Stakeholders’ outlook for PCSD and the SEP remains positive despite these issues. There were successes achieved in the past, there are ongoing initiatives viewed as “good practices”, and the PCSD staff members are reputed to be “technically equipped,” note the participants. But urgent on the table is the Council’s “de-politicization”, its shift to science-based decision-making, and the organization’s management audit and eventual “refocusing” of its resources and energies – “to its core mandate”, to playing an “integrative” and “facilitative role” in the development process, and to capacity building and empowerment of local governments and communities. “Without the SEP Law, we don’t know where we would be now… Sira na talaga siguro ang ating kalikasan,” notes a participant. What is certain, based on participants’ consensus, is that “much still needs to be done to truly safeguard the unique biodiversity makeup of the province and ensure that development activities are ‘sustainable’.”



IV. PROCESS AND CONTENT DOCUMENTATION: Part I, Day 1, May 6, 2015. Preliminaries

1. Registration officially started at 8:00AM. 1.1. A few participants started to arrive at the venue as early as 8:00AM but a

considerable number only started to flock in at past 9:00AM already. 1.2. Upon registration, participants were provided with a folder containing the

following documents: 1.2.1. The full text of R.A. 7611, production batch August 2014; 1.2.2. A 2-page Briefer containing the “Objectives of SEP vis-à-vis Brief

Indicators on Palawan’s Environment”; 1.2.3. A 7-page Summary of Relevant PCSD Policy Issuances by

Goal/Objective of the SEP Law; 1.2.4. PCSD Resolution No. 06-270, “A Resolution Allowing Ecotourism

Activities in Core Zones and Restricted-Use Zones”; 1.2.5. PCSD Resolution No. 05-250, “Revised Guidelines in Implementing

the Environmentally Critical Areas Network, the Main Strategy of the Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan, Amending PCSD Resolution Nos. 94-44 & 99-144”, April 29, 2005;

1.2.6. PCSD Resolution No. 05-268, “A Resolution Amending Section 35 of Rule VII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 7611, Otherwise Known as the Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan Act”;

1.2.7. PCSD Resolution No. 04-233, “A Resolution Allowing Almaciga Tapping by Indigenous Peoples (IPs) in the Core Zone in Areas Classified by the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) as Tribal Ancestral Lands Pursuant to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7611, Otherwise Known as the Strategic Environmental Plan (SEP) for Palawan Act”;

1.2.8. PCSD Resolution No. 99-147, “Resolution Adopting the Revised Guidelines in the Identification and Delineation of the Tribal Ancestral Zone”;

1.2.9. “Amended Rules and Regulations Implementing the Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan”, May 25, 1993; produced March 2011; and

1.2.10. A 3-page survey form containing 25 questions formulated to survey the perceptions and outlook of the participants on the law’s effectiveness and impact.

1.3. While waiting for the rest of the participants and the official start of the program, the participants were asked to answer the survey form and return the same once completed to the Secretariat stationed at the Registration Area. They were also requested to refresh themselves with the subject at hand by reading through materials in their kit.



2. The Opening Program, originally scheduled to start at 9:00AM, officially commenced

at 9:30AM. Mr. Alex Marcaida, head of PCSDS’ ECAN Education and Extension (EEE) Division, hosted the program. 2.1. After the opening prayer and national anthem, both conducted through an audio-

visual presentation (AVP), Mr. Marcaida called in Engr. Ryan T. Fuentes, PCSDS’ assistant director for planning, to welcome the participants on behalf of Exec. Dir. Nelson P. Devanadera.

2.2. In Exec. Dir. Devanadera’s welcome remarks, read by Engr. Fuentes, the executive director invited the participants to “openly share their honest opinions” about how the law has been implemented the past years, reassuring the former that PCSDS is “a listening” and “healthy organization.” “[W]e want to know how we’ve been doing the past 23 years, we want you to help us identify our areas for improvement, and we want to walk with you in moving forward not just to strengthen the law, or improve our organization. We want to do this because it is only through collective action that we can pursue the lofty goals and ideals of the very people who first drafted the SEP Law, and make the law matter to her people.”

2.3. Exec. Dir. Devanadera urged the participants to preserve the beauty and richness of Palawan “for our children, and our children’s children.” “We shall protect Palawan from ‘unwanted’ development. We shall make SEP Law work for Palawan, its people and environment today, and in the future!” See Annex A to see his speech as read.

Engr. Fuentes set the tone of the discussions: “We are a listening organization.”



3. At 9:40AM, the lead facilitator, Mr. James Paul S. Inawasan, took over the floor to

level off with the participants their expectations on the workshop, brief them on its objectives, its schedule of activities, and mechanics of the succeeding Round Table Discussions. See Annex B to see his slides. 3.1. After flashing on screen a series of pictures meant to “break the ice”, the lead

facilitator opened the Workshop Preliminaries through a picture and a discussion of the concept of Chindõgu, “the Japanese art of inventing ingenious everyday gadgets that are ‘unuseless’.” He shared that these seemingly “unuseless” inventions (two examples shown on screen) were products of “rich imagination, creativity, possibly numerous brainstorming sessions, and unrestricted thinking.” He related that in the succeeding workshops, he also wants to see “unrestricted thinking” among the participants, with the latter openly sharing their thoughts and opinions on how they think SEP has been implemented in the past 23 years. “Don’t think that your ideas or opinions might be stupid; they may be are ‘unuseless’. Your fellow participants might be able to find valid points on them and spark great discussions out of it.”

3.2. Mr. Inawasan emphasized that through honest opinions, PCSD and Staff will be able to “effectively assess the law and its implementation,” and “come up with a roadmap on how to correct mistakes and improve further,” the very objectives of the workshop.

3.3. Also, managing one participant’s expectation that the workshop would hopefully educate her on the content of the SEP Law, the lead facilitator conveyed that while there would be a discussion on the beginnings of the law and its salient features, such discussion would be framed, as designed, “only to refresh” the participants about the law they were about to assess and review. Mr. Inawasan encouraged the participants to further study the law as relevant materials were included in their kit.

3.4. The lead facilitator also informed the participants that to “maximize the power of social media in spreading social good”, including highlights of the workshops’ discussions, the PCSDS created social media accounts for the “SEP @ 23” activities. He encouraged the participants to post photos and remarks about the ongoing workshop accompanied by (hashtags) “#SEP23, #PCSD, #SEPLawImpacts”. He also shared that relevant information about the SEP Law and the workshops would be posted at the following websites: http://www.pcsd.gov.ph and http://www.pkp.pcsd.gov.ph.

http://www.pcsd.gov.ph/

http://www.pkp.pcsd.gov.ph/



“What are your expectations in this workshop?” The lead facilitator (in blue long sleeves) engaged the participants to share their expectations on the activity, and processed them thereafter.

4. At around 9:55AM, Atty. Adelina B. Villena, chief of staff of the Office of the Executive Director and a pioneer staff of PCSDS, presented “The Genesis of the SEP Law” and “The SEP Law and its Implementing Guidelines” on behalf of Exec. Dir. Devanadera. See Annex C to see the full details of her presentation. 4.1. Atty. Villena started her presentation by walking through the participants with the

outline of her discussion, to wit: 4.1.1. The strategic importance of Palawan; 4.1.2. The legal Framework of the SEP Law; 4.1.3. The Law’s declared policies, its rationale, and core philosophy; 4.1.4. The law’s main strategy, the ECAN; 4.1.5. Its support mechanisms; 4.1.6. Its administrative machinery, PCSDS; and 4.1.7. Relevant PCSD resolutions.

4.2.Atty. Villena underscored “the strategic importance of the province of Palawan in the country’s and world’s biodiversity and natural ecosystem”, flashing on screen pictures of Palawan’s protected areas, key biodiversity areas, tourism destinations, and endemic species only found in the province She segued, “How do we protect the [country’s last biodiversity frontier?” She pointed out that the Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act (SEP Law) emerged as the instrument that would answer this question and ensure that the Plan is “legitimized” and “institutionalized.”

4.3. Atty. Villena proceeded with enumerating the declared policies of the law, and its core philosophy, “sustainable development” or as defined by many, “the improvement in the quality of life of the present and future generations through complementation of development and environmental protection activities.”



The tripartite principles of “Sustainable Development”: “(1) Ecological Viability; (2) Social Acceptability; and (3) Integrated Approach.” Visual from Atty. Villena’s presentation.

4.4. She emphasized that the main strategy of the law is the ECAN, or the “Environmentally Critical Areas Network,” “a graded system of protection and control over the province of Palawan covering the terrestrial area, coastal or marine area, and the tribal ancestral lands”. And the way to undertake it is by ECANization, or the “process of delineating and marking the boundaries of the different zones in both land and sea, the identification of prescribed activities and resource use for each zone, together with the enforcement of regulatory measures to prevent practices that are destructive to the environment,” Atty. Villena explained.

The ECAN Zones illustrated; visual from Atty. Villena’s presentation.



4.5. The resource person continued by sharing the support mechanisms defined by law

which would ensure the attainment of its objectives, to wit: 4.5.1. The Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation System (EMES); 4.5.2. Environmental Research; 4.5.3. Environmental Education and Extension; and 4.5.4. Community Support.

4.6. Atty. Villena also briefly enumerated the powers and functions of the Council, as stated in the law, as well as its present members.

4.7. The pioneer staff further shared the ongoing thrusts and activities of the organization, noting that the PCSDS has “organized, reactivated, and empowered ECAN Boards at the LGU level to share with them responsibilities and accountability in protecting Palawan’s environment.”

The participants intently listen to Atty. Villena sharing the genesis and the salient features of the SEP Law.

5. After around 30 minutes of presentation, Mr. Inawasan thanked the resource person then asked if the participants have any questions relative to the topics discussed. 5.1. A representative from a local government unit asked if PCSD is happier with the

present set-up, i.e. PCSD attached under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, or when it was under the Office of the President.

5.1.1. Atty. Villena responded that she could not speak for the entire organization, but for her, she is fine with either set-up.

5.2. Ms. Jane Urbanek of Rio Tuba Nickel Corp. commented that she takes pride to be part of the pioneer staff who worked for the first years of the implementation of the PIADP3 project and later, of the PCSDS. She said the workshop is timely and important, especially that the law has been on implementation for the last 23 years. She queried if there has been any effort on the part of PCSDS to conduct a

3 Palawan Integrated Area Development Project, a project in the 1980s that was part of the Integrated Area Development Project implemented nationwide and funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and later, by the European Economic Community.



management audit or organizational review to assess its roles and performance vis-à-vis its mandate and challenges. Atty. Gerthie Mayo-Anda of ELAC followed through on the same question, noting that the audit is crucial in assessing the effectiveness of the law and its implementation.

5.2.1. Atty. Villena responded that PCSDS had initial efforts to review its organization sometime in 2004 or 2005 conducted by a commissioned third party consulting group. An organizational rationalization was implemented but other reform measures recommended were not pursued when a new executive director was installed, she added.

5.2.2. Mr. John Pontillas, Project Development Officer V of PCSDS, shared that recommendations from such review were incorporated in a form of a PCSD Resolution, the draft of which was submitted to the Council for approval but the latter rejected the same.

5.2.3. Atty. Anda queried further if a copy of such review is still available and Mr. Pontillas responded in affirmative.

6. The lead facilitator asked for more questions or comments from the participants but none raised, hence, the facilitator proceeded briefing the participants regarding the mechanics of the Roundtable Discussions (RTD). 6.1. Mr. Inawasan explained that the participants would be divided into four pre-

determined groups who shall be rotating around four stations, i.e. function rooms in the hotel, at a pre-determined time allocation: for the first station, the participants would stay for two hours, and would spend 45mins to one hour on their succeeding stations.

6.2. Each station had a pre-assigned theme where the SEP law would be assessed against in terms of impact, and which discussions would be guided by an invited facilitator. Under the methodology, the facilitators would stay on their station all throughout the workshop while the participants would hop from one station to next, until all participants have entered all the stations and have provided opinions on all themes.

Fig. 1. The methodology of the workshop.



6.3. The following were the stations, their respective facilitators and documentors,

and the first group of participants to sit on these respective stations/themes: Station 1: SEP’s Impact to People and Culture

Facilitator: Mr. James S. Inawasan Documentor: Ms. Rio Jean A. Quindara 1st Group: NGOs, POs, Church, IPs & Media

Station 2: SEP’s Impact to the Environment Facilitator: Dr. Allaine Baaco Documentor: Ms. Faith M. Perez, Ms. Jenevieve P. Hara 1st Group: NGAs, NGOs & the Academe

Station 3: SEP’s Impact to the Local Economy Facilitators: Prof. Eva Marie Ponce de Leon, Prof. Marissa Pontillas Documentor: Ms. Maila Villaos 1st Group: Business groups and the rest of the Private Sector

Station 4: SEP’s Impact to Governance and Institutions Facilitator: Prof. Hermenegildo P. Dela Peña Documentors: Ms. Cherry Lyn S. Jalover, Mr. Mark Ace V. dela Cruz 1st Group: LGUs & other NGAs

Since there were organizations represented by two or more participants, they were allowed by the organizing committee to spread their representatives on other stations/themes right on the first round, i.e. “to maximize their contribution on the discussion.” Facilitators were briefed on the RTD format and were provided with a “Facilitators’ Toolkit” (see Annex D) to guide them on the suggested process at the RTD level days prior to the workshop.

6.4. Additionally, the participants were advised to observe a few ground rules:

“The facilitators’ role is mainly to guide the discussion and ensure that the exchange of ideas fall within the realms of the assigned theme, and within the time limit;

They shall enable the open sharing of ideas, through methodologies they deem appropriate and effective in encouraging so;

No opinions shall be censored, however, facilitators may advise the participants to maintain proper decorum and calm demeanor when providing critical and/or sensitive opinions;

Resource persons from PCSD are there in the RTD venue simply to assist the facilitators and provide technical information when needed BUT will not join the discussions;

Participants shall observe communication traffic. They must listen while other participants are still speaking, and encourage those who haven’t spoken to share; and



Facilitators will present the summary of discussions by theme, with the

help of their respective documentors, when the groups convene in the plenary later in the afternoon.”

6.5. Engr. Madrono P. Cabrestante, Jr., head of PCSDS’ ECAN Zones and Knowledge Management Division and lead coordinator of the workshop, then read the names of the participants for each station, and briefed them on the location of each station.

6.6. Before the participants proceeded to their respective stations, the participants were requested to come at the center of the hall for a class picture.

Class Picture (and Reunion). “The workshop was also a reunion of workers and advocates who fought for the enactment of the SEP Law and who continuously work to this day for its meaningful implementation,” notes Atty. Villena, a pioneer staff of the PCSDS, and its predecessor, PIADP. Seated in front are (from left) Mr. Inawasan, Ms. Tess Batul (PCSDS’ Finance and Administration Chief), Atty. Villena, PCSDS Planning Dir. Lualhati E. Tabugon, Ms. Jane Urbanek (formerly with PCSDS), Ms. _________, Ms. Marvi Trudeau of Pilipinas Shell Foundation, In.c and Atty. Gerthie Mayo-Anda of ELAC. The rest in the picture are participants of Day 1’s workshop and PCSD staff.

6.7. The RTDs started at around 11:00AM. Workshop Proper 7. The participants then proceeded to their respective stations by theme. After an hour of

discussion, the participants took a lunch break. The afternoon session resumed at around 1:00PM, and spent another 1 ½ hours on their respective first station.

8. At around 2:30PM, the groups moved to their next station, guided by the organizing committee, and so on and so forth (see figure 2), ending the RTDs at around 4:30PM.

8.1. The movement of groups was based on the proximity of their preceding station to their next.

8.2. All participants were able to enter all stations, hence, had the opportunity to share opinions on the impact of the SEP Law on all core development themes identified.



TIME Station 1: PEOPLE & CULTURE

Station 2: ENVIRONMENT Station 3: ECONOMY

Station 4: GOVERNANCE & INSTITUTIONS

11:00-12:00

NGOs, POs, Church, IPs & Media

NGAs, NGOs & the Academe

Business Groups & the rest of the Private Sector LGUs

1:00-2:30 NGOs, POs, Church, IPs & Media


Business Groups & the rest of the Private Sector LGUs

2:30-3:15 Business Groups & the rest of the Private Sector LGUs NGAs, NGOs & the Academe

NGOs, POs, Church, IPs & Media

3:15-4:00 NGAs, NGOs & the Academe

NGOs, POs, Church, IPs & Media LGUs

Business Groups & the rest of the Private Sector

4:00-4:30 LGUs Business Groups & the rest of the Private Sector NGOs, Pos, Church, IPs & Media


Figure 3. Schedule of RTD as they happened.

Station 1. Representatives from the NGOs, POs, Church, IPs and Media discussed for more than two hours SEP’s impact to “People and Culture”. Discussions in this station were facilitated by Mr. Inawasan.



9. The process of sharing and validation of issues and recommendations varied from facilitator to facilitator. For purposes of presentation and

better understanding of the participants’ thoughts and opinions, the lead documentor analyzed and consolidated all the comments captured by workshop documentors. To see the relatively raw transcript of workshop outputs by station and sector, please see Annex E.

SUMMARY OF ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS

THEME 1: SEP’s IMPACT TO PEOPLE & CULTURE

THEME 1: SEP'S IMPACT TO PEOPLE & CULTURE

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe

G2: Business/ Private Sector

G3: NGOs, Pos,

Church, IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

A GAINS, POSITIVE SIDE

1

Environmental awareness/consciousness. Increased/Improved/Heightened environmental awareness, consciousness; developed

a culture of environmentalism among the people. Provided a strong rallying point for advocating issues related to the

environment, livelihood and welfare of the people. Discouraged individuals from illegal and unwise use of natural resources.

√

√

√

√

2 Pride. SEP Law’s uniqueness in the country makes Palaweños proud and popular whenever in environment-themed gatherings outside of Palawan.

√ √ √ √

3

IP Rights. The law recognized/s and upheld/upholds the rights of the IPs. “The law is the first to recognize ‘ancestral domain in waters’, in terms of

rhetoric of the law.”

√ √ √ √

4

Protected IPs’ culture. “The law protected the IPs from destructive activities which might jeopardize [and

disrupt] their culture… Notable is PCSD’s efforts in making sure that the communities in Mt. Mantalingahan are protected.”

√



GAINS, POSITIVE SIDE (continuation)

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs, Pos,

Church, IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

5

Eco-tourism-based Jobs. The forest resources remain intact; natural resources remain rich. Nature has become the selling point of Palawan tourism; tourism generated jobs for Palaweños. √

6 Reforestation programs (e.g. NGP) has provided jobs and incomes to communities. √ 7

Traditional sources of livelihood. “The imposition of the total log ban preserved our Almaciga, which is the main source of livelihood among IPs.”

√

8

Food security. Fish and other marine resources are protected, their extraction regulated, [hence food sources remain at substantial level].

Sources of basic needs (food, water, energy, etc.) easily and are abundantly available because the environment is protected. “SEP is helping us ensure that these are provided to us.”

√

√

9 Sense of unity. Provides a sense of unity or culture among Palaweños, e.g. during Pista y ang Kagueban. √

10 Sense of security. Protection of forests gives people a sense of security, i.e. that landslides, floods and other disasters are not likely to occur.

√

B ISSUES, GAPS, NEGATIVE SIDE, AFIs4 G1 G2 G3 G4

1

Lack of and problem with communication. Problem with communicating the law on the ground: Either too technical, not

audience-appropriate, or totally absent; the latter particularly on IP communities, the participants alleged.

Many among the IPs seem to not understand the objectives of the law, particularly the Zoning. “PCSD failed to explain [it] to them.”

Gap in communicating the law to IP communities, “who are happy living in isolation, on core zones. IP communities violate the law without knowing it.”

√

√

√

√

4 Areas for Improvement



PCSDS’ stringent implementation of the law is viewed by some as “heartless”.5

B

ISSUES, GAPS, NEGATIVE SIDE, AFIs (continuation)

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs, Pos,

Church, IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

2

Confusion and ‘loss of trust’ in the system. “The ECAN is moving, it changes…dangerously dynamic to accommodate mining.

There is no stability, hence creating confusion [among stakeholders].” There were confusions in the implementation of the ECAN Zoning. Some IPs

were apprehensive when it was implemented. Confusion on the extent of IPs’ preferential rights, especially when it comes to

kaingin. Also, the lack of monitoring of SEP Clearances issued at the ground level make

people doubt the fairness of the implementation of the law.

√

√

3

Law and ECAN Zoning vs. IPs culture/Traditional knowledge. IPs culture has been negatively affected by the implementation of ECAN

Zoning. Some IPs disagree declaring their “banal na lugar” core zones. “IP communities [who are happy living in isolation] violate the law without knowing

it.” “The zoning process and prohibited activities [in the buffer and core zones]

clash with traditional practices of the IPs.” Kaingin, as a culture of the IPs, is reduced and viewed negatively. “There is also no assurance that the implementation system is informed [by traditional

knowledge.”

√

√

√

√

4

Division among IPs. Some tribal leaders have become “tribal dealers.” Some IPs were apprehensive when ECAN Zoning was implemented.

√

√

5 The facilitator noted in the discussion that this again boils down to the problem of communication: selling the long-term and greater gains versus short-terms gains. Depending on which lens one uses in interpreting this statement, this statement may also be viewed as something positive for PCSD – for upholding the rule of law.



Lack of knowledge (and communication) of the goals of the law created confusion and divided IPs into factions.

B


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs, Pos,

Church, IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

5

Livelihood. While IPs are allowed to gather almaciga, the business requires substantial

capitalization which IPs couldn’t put up. Thus, capitalists end up profiting from IPs’ preferential rights and permit, while the latter remains deeply indebted to the former.

Kaingin, as a culture of the IPs, is reduced and viewed negatively.

√

6

Jobs generation. The bureaucracy in the permitting system makes putting up businesses/investments difficult, negatively affecting or delaying possible job generation. √

7

Inequitable sharing of benefits, alleged displacement of IPs. “It seems that the law has been used by those in power to perpetuate personal

interests.’ (Mentioned here were retired military officials allegedly grabbing lands away from IPs).

“The people has not equitably benefitted from [the income and opportunities derived from] mining.”

√

√

8

Basic Services. “Government’s basic services don’t reach IPs living in core zones [because of the

regulated activities in the said zone].” “We cannot construct water impounding [structures] because it will submerge trees,

and the SEP does not allow it.” “Dams are not allowed [when] this would [have been the solution] of our water

shortage problem in Palawan.”

√

√

9

Governance constraints/challenges jeopardize benefits supposedly for the people. Highly-politicized decision-making in the Council hinders the enjoyment of

maximum benefits people should have had courtesy of the law.



Slow Clearance system process, which consequently slows down implementation of projects designed to help IPs. “Its requirements are also cumbersome.”

PCSD’s permitting system “slowed down the issuance process of IPs’ CADTs.”6

√ √

10

No impact, IPs left behind. An IP representative stated that “there is no significant change in their life and culture.”

“The IPs were left behind in the development process.” “The law does not respond to the poverty situation of the province, which is its main

problem. The law has no impact to alleviating poverty incidence in the province.” “Illegal loggers are caught, but poverty is not alleviated.”

√ √

C

RECOMMENDATIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs, Pos,

Church, IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

1

Coordinate with DepEd in strengthening the Alternative Learning System (ALS) in IP communities. Such system might be an effective tool in communicating the SEP law and its programs to upland communities. √

2

The PCSD has to work on “integrating” UNESCO’s declaration that Palawan is a Man and Biosphere Reserve in what it does, and in “truly translating it…into concrete actions.” √

3

The PCSD must “make a definite or verifiable standard of indicators, goals for 10 years, so that we can determine the impacts of the law in a less subjective manner and we will have a definite basis.”

√

6 A resource person from PCSDS qualified that a MoA was entered into by NCIP and PCSD regarding this matter in 2005; the purpose was to harmonize their respective guidelines on processing and issuance of Tribal Ancestral Zones (TAZ) and Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT). She further qualified that while there has been an internal agreement in processing titles, as of date, such arrangement is not yet implemented.



D

OTHER THOUGHTS, OPINIONS G1 G2 G3 G4

1

Many shared it was difficult to ascertain the impact of the law on people and culture because of lack of baseline data (poverty index)7. Furthermore, the participants said that it is difficult to co-relate the law with the developments on the ground, as of discussion, as many socio-economic factors affect development.

√

2 An IP representative expressed that they [IPs] should not be blamed if they live in the Core Zone. √

3 There are no specific regulations in the SEP Law providing for a definite standard to measure the “social acceptability” feature of its philosophy. √ √

Station 1. Representatives from the Business Sector while airing out their thoughts and opinions on the impact of the law on people and culture.

7 While on this discussion, PCSDS Assistant Director for Planning Engr. Ryan Fuentes presented statistics regarding this subject. It was shown that from year 2000 vs. 2011 data, employment increased (from 80.43% to 90%) as well as the number of households living above poverty line (from 30.6% to 40.86%).



THEME 2: SEP’s IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT

THEME 2: SEP'S IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs, Pos, Church, IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs


1 “The SEP law has accomplished a lot in [terms of] environmental protection.” “It has discouraged unwise use of resources.” √ √

2

Forest cover. The law protected Palawan’s forest, resulting to the province having the highest forest

cover in the Philippines. Lower rate of forest degradation. “ECAN helped reduce forest degradation.”

√

√

√

3 Protected Areas. The law and PCSD facilitated the recognition and declaration of Protected Areas in the province, e.g. MMPL8. √ √

4 Water sheds are protected. “The regulated cutting of trees improved our watersheds.” √

5 Bird habitats are protected and conserved, resulting to its increasing population. √

6 Fish and other marine resources’ extraction regulated. Regulation of live-reef-fish-for-food (LRFF) preserves the diversity of fish fishes and population, and marine habitats. √ √

7 Strong regulation and monitoring of extractive and pollutive industries/projects, resulting to good protection of the environment.

√

8 Regulated tourism activities (limited to low/soft-impact in buffer and core zones) help protect the environment. √

9 Good air quality.

√

10 Water quality is regularly monitored; emerging problems readily addressed, e.g. PPUR and El Nido cases. √

11

Periodic environmental monitoring, assessments and evaluations help ensure the state of the environment is at healthy level.

State of the Environment periodically published. √

√

8 Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.



B

ISSUES, GAPS, NEGATIVE SIDE, AFIs

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

1

Forest degradation. The forest cover has decreased, permits for chainsaw use have increased, production

from natural resources have increased; Kaingin continues, has widened and contributes to deforestation. There still are cutting of trees, despite the SEP, NGP and campaigns to protect the

forest and reforest.

√

√

√

√

2 Thinning of mangrove areas. There were mangrove areas which were converted into fish ponds. √ √ √

3 Overfishing, illegal fishing. Fish production/yield is decreasing, while fishing effort is increasing. √ √ √

4 Introduction and regulation – or the lack thereof – of exotic species. √

5

Regulation over forest lands and islands. Carrying capacity and sustainable development standards of island ecosystems. “Small islands and other critical habitats are for sale.” “Forest lands and islands are being appropriated for tourism development.”

√

√

6 No control on environmental impacts of lowland farms/agriculture, e.g. oil palm. √ 7 Conversion of agricultural lands into settlement areas and other uses. √ √ 8 Gaps on research and monitoring on environmental concerns. √

9 “Weak law enforcement in terrestrial and coastal/marine areas may hasten environmental degradation.” √

10

Continuing threats to the environment, e.g. mining on natural forest, despite the SEP Law. “The unstable ECAN Zoning allows downgrading of core zones to accommodate mining operations.”

√



C

RECOMMENDATIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

1 Strengthen enforcement of laws protecting the environment. PCSD must collaborate with organizations. √ √

2

Improve environmental monitoring, enforcement and evaluation. Develop quantifiable and verifiable indicators of sustainable development. Make a comparative study using the baseline data 23 years ago and the data today in

order to have complete and indicative data. √

3 PCSD must lead conduct studies on the carrying capacity and sustainable development standards for island ecosystems. √ √ √

4

PCSD must lead conduct studies on the environmental impact of intrusive species, e.g. oil palm, in the natural ecosystem. √

5

PCSD must help “enable” renewable energy projects; discourage coal-fed power plants.

It must also provide technical assistance to PSU and WPU in pursuing sustainable technologies, e.g. renewable energy, green inventions.

PCSD must help expedite issuance of permits for these types of projects/applications. √

6 Implement closed and open seasons for fish species and other marine products (e.g. crabs) which are over-extracted, and which population are decreasing at alarming levels. √

7 “The 1,000-meter elevation definition of ‘natural forests’ in the IRR must be categorized.”

√

8 PCSD must craft/finalize water use criteria for marine zones in relation to ECAN guidelines. √ √

9 “LGUs must take action against unregulated kaingin farming.” √ √



D

OTHER THOUGHTS, OPINIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

1 “The SEP law is good but we [are facing environmental] challenges now.” √

2 “We have good policies but still degradation is happening because of the poor or challenges on governance.”

√

3 “We have good perceptions on SEP but we have to validate these perceptions.” √ 4 “The Law itself is positive, the rhetoric is positive but the application is not.” √ 5 “Why don’t we tap oil and gas sources from our own province?” √ 6 “Are environmental projects climate change-resilient/adaptive?” √ 7 “How can the SEP Law regulate the impact of mining?” √ 8 Can our rivers provide the volume of sand and gravel requirements in the province? √

Station 2. Representatives from the NGAs, NGOs and the Academe weighing in the impact of the SEP law to the environment. Discussions in this station were facilitated by Dr. Allaine T. Baaco of Western Philippines University.



THEME 3: SEP’s IMPACT TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY

THEME 3: SEP'S IMPACT TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

A GAINS, POSITIVE SIDE 1 “The local economy has improved [due to the SEP law].” √

2 The clearance system regulates entry of businesses in Palawan. It helps ensure that new businesses are “environmentally acceptable.” √

3

Boosted the tourism sector. The law helped ensure that “tourism development is [environment-friendly],”

boosting Palawan’s popularity as a tourism destination. More tourists, better income to businesses, more livelihood opportunities for the people;

Also paved way to the development and marketing of nature-based products and opportunities;

LGUs get minimal direct income from the SEP Law, but indirectly benefits from tourism growth.

√

√

4

Boosted the agriculture sector, improved rice production. Through regulated cutting of trees (including kaingin), the watersheds were effectively protected; watersheds provide irrigation to lowland agriculture, which in turn helps increase rice production.

√

5 Reforestation programs (e.g. NGP) have provided economic opportunities to local communities.

√

6 Regulation of live-reef-fish-for-food (LRFF) helps sustain the industry and provide better income to fishermen and dependents. √

7 Taxes, revenues. The government generates revenues from nature-based economy/businesses. √

B ISSUES, GAPS, NEGATIVE SIDE, AFIs G1 G2 G3 G4

1

Clearance system viewed as slow, additional burden to investors, businesses. The clearance system is viewed as “additional [source of] red tape”. “Requires time and effort” on the part of the investors/businessmen. PCSD has tendency to become “too regulatory, driving away investors and

√



encouraging fixers/fixing business to flourish”. PCSD “collects fees” and “requires many permits.” “Some externalities (political influence) intrude in the clearance process,” possibly

delaying or hurting proposed projects/businesses and investments.

2 Development is “too controlled, slow and not balanced.” √ 3 Sustainability of economic growth: Until when? √ 4 [Due to regulations,] “price of fish in the local market has escalated.” √

5 “The unstable ECAN Zoning allows downgrading of core zones to accommodate mining operations.” √

6 “Mining operations negatively affect agriculture productivity and food production, particularly in Narra.” √

7 “Mining operations continue to threaten natural forests, watersheds protected areas, ancestral domains and critical habitats.” √

8 “Perceived lack of baseline data parallel to tourism concerns.” √ 9 “Lack of solid and definitive policy on extractive and pollutive industries.” √

C

RECOMMENDATIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

1 “PCSD must give LGUs and NGAs guidelines/checklist regarding clearances and capacitate them to implement [the same].” √

2

A third party management audit must be conducted to review PCSD’s and PCSDS’ organizational design and performance, re-calibrate and re-focus its resources, functions and activities (in relation to PCSD’s perceived too many powers and functions). √ √ √

3 PCSD must assist LGUs in developing Management Plans for tourism areas and ensure their alignment with the goals of ECAN. √ √ √

4

PCSD must assess small islands if tourism development can be allowed in there, and determine their respective carrying capacity, formulate and implement payment for ecosystem services guidelines, etc. √ √

5 PCSD must lead implement “payment for ecosystem services” in the province. √

6 There is a need “to fine tune regulations as to agricultural crops in multiple use zones. Impact assessments must be made prior to project implementation.” √ √



7 PCSD must improve monitoring on compliance of mining firms based on existing government standards. √

8 PCSD and the industry need to agree on standards for monitoring energy, oil and gas projects. √ √

D

OTHER THOUGHTS, OPINIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

1 “PCSD should rethink the interpretation of the law. How do we incorporate (sic) entrepreneurship in Palawan?” √

2 “Is tourism growth sustainable?” √

3 “The main goal of ecotourism is to educate the local people and the tourists, have we achieved that?” √ √ √

4 The law “gives imprimatur to the mining companies [that they are] environmentally-compliant.” √

5 “Is SEP Law looking at meeting the demand for power that will be economically sustainable for Palawan?” √

6 “How much land should be allocated for agriculture, food production, tourism, mining, etc.?” √

7 “Does the SEP Law, and/or its implementation protect the agriculture sector (fewer cropping seasons)?” √

8 “Has PCSD set guidelines on land banking by big companies? How about on islands/islets?”9 √ 9 “Kaingin/Swidden farming by IPs is not destructive.” √ √

10 “The PCSD staff are technocrats; they [don’t] feel what the [businessmen] feel [with their processes].” √

11 PALIFTA “was consulted but disagreed on policy amendments” re: LRFF.

√

12 “How do we address fishing in national waters? Can they (sic) be given special permits to ship out live fish?” √

9 Clarified immediately during the discussions that the said concern is within the realms of the DENR and LRA.



Sustainable nature-based products. Profs. de Leon and Pontillas engage representatives from the academe, NGAs & NGOs on the same question. And they responded: “PCSD must assess small islands if tourism development can be allowed in there, and determine their respective carrying capacity, formulate and implement payment for ecosystem services guidelines, etc.”

Station 3. Profs. Eva Marie Ponce de Leon (standing) and Marissa Pontillas (sitting in front of a laptop, picture below), both of Palawan State University, verifies with the business sector if, indeed, the SEP Law has any impact on their respective businesses, and to Palawan’s economy in general. (Photo above)



THEME 4: SEP’s IMPACT TO GOVERNANCE & INSTITUTIONS

THEME 4: SEP'S IMPACT TO GOVERNANCE & INSTITUTIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs


1

Provided clearer and better planning, environmental management, and governance framework to LGUs, other government agencies, NGOs, businesses and other stakeholders.

The law and PCSD provided LGUs with the framework for land and water use zoning and protection of resources. As a result, “zoning lands have become clearer.”

PCSD/S helped LGUs formulate their respective: a. Comprehensive Land, Water and Forest Land Use Plans; b. Municipal Zoning Ordinances; c. Municipal ECAN Map; d. Coastal Resource Management Plans and other environment management plans.

“ECAN is established in the whole of Puerto Princesa.” “Development in Coron does not damage the environment.” Local environmental and zoning ordinances are anchored on the SEP Law. Potential investors have a ready guide when to put up their planned

projects/businesses. Example: Tourist destinations and recreation areas were already identified for their quick reference.

Issuance of Buildings/Business Permits has become more stringent. Processes and standards were established. PCSD has mandate and capacity to inspect/evaluate mining operations; LGUs

lack technical capacity. “Wala kaming sandalan kundi SEP lang.” Projects and activities are, in most cases, done in “allowed” and/or “safer

areas.”

√

√

√



Supplemental policies are issued to address “environmentally-unsound” activities or clarify confusing regime.

GAINS, POSITIVE SIDE (continuation)

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

2

Provided opportunities for capacity-building and empowerment of LGUs. ECAN Boards were reactivated/organized and are continuously mentored by

PCSDS in filtering through projects and activities to be put up in their respective jurisdictions. Relevant policies were also promulgated for this purpose.

PCSDS assists/trains LGUs identify their forests, watersheds; account and assess their natural resources.

PCSDS assists LGUs produce their maps.

√

3

Provided opportunities for greater institutional partnerships/collaborations between and among LGUs, NGAs, NGOs and other CSOs in performing and delivering their respective mandates.

Examples: Palawan Knowledge Platform, research, education, enforcement. √

√

√

4

Encouraged environment protection actors especially from CSOs to “strongly advocate environmental causes, programs, projects and initiatives” and “exert greater pressure to government to act.”

Provided strong basis for the establishment and declaration of MMPL as a protected area.

Provides strong basis and “conducive environment” for environmental lobbying.

√

√

5 Attracted national and international support, investments and recognitions especially on environment-themed projects and initiatives.

√

√

√

√

6

Encouraged compliance to related environmental laws, ‘behavior to comply’. Strict implementation of Solid Waste Management Programs in the LGU

level. Full compliance to documentary requirements has become a matter of practice

√



among project proponents.

7

Ensured strict implementation of SEP and other special environmental laws despite opposition, popular will and challenges.

“PCSD [penalizes violators,] something that politicians couldn’t do.” The SEP Clearance system effectively regulates proponents without SEP

Clearance. “The law has a value of deterrence.” “Even offshore drilling companies comply with the requirements.” The Philippine Coast Guard would have more difficulty performing its mandate (i.e.

protecting the marine environment) if there is no SEP Law in Palawan.

√

√

8

Incentivized LGUs to adopt a “sustainable development framework” in their programs and projects, as well as deliver results and get awards.

√

B

ISSUES, GAPS, NEGATIVE SIDE, AFIs

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

1

Inherent ‘loophole in the law’. “The governance body must have a clear measurement and standards of

“sustainable development.” Because PCSD’s role is facilitative in nature, it cannot sanction LGUs which

do not follow the ECAN. Composition of the Council.

√

√

2

Interpretation of the law among Council members and external stakeholders. “The conflicting interpretations among Council Members sometimes result to

biased decisions.” One example cited: “Why are extractive activities such as mining and oil palm allowed?”

“Interpretation of the Council as to what are ‘natural forests’ is vague; the 1,000-meter elevation in the IRR must be categorized.”

“Paradigms and perspectives of Council Members are not in harmony with the staff.”

√

√

√

3

Composition, Politicization and Decision-making Process of the Council. “Decision-making [in the Council] is highly-politicized.” “A lot of political

interventions but weak political will.”

√

√

√

√



“The law’s implementation is highly politicized.” No representative from the Department of Education in the Council. Lack of transparency and accessibility of proposed projects’ information. Lack of science in decision-making process of the Council as well as in lower

level endorsing bodies.

B


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

4

Weak, poor governance and implementation. “The law is good in terms of rhetoric, but the problem is with the

implementation.” “Weak law enforcement on terrestrial and coastal/marine areas.” “The ECAN is moving…changes to accommodate mining, has no stability.” “Forests have no ECAN demarcation lines.” The ECAN Zoning is not always followed at the LGU level. The clearance/permitting system is slow. The bureaucracy invites red tape,

discourages investments. Lack of monitoring of issued SEP Clearances on the ground is being taken

advantaged by “those who see the inconsistencies”, inviting others to violate the law/system, and makes people doubt the fairness of the application of the law.

Some projects start, or are even completed, even without the SEP Clearance. Lack of “sustainability”10 in the implementation of the law. Lack of sustainability of projects. “The PCSD missed on its integrative role”. Lack of coordination with LGUs. Some projects (e.g. resorts) and activities are not suited to the natural

ecosystems of the project sites.

√

√

√

√

10 The participant could have meant “consistency”?



B


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

5

PCSD’s ‘too many functions’, ‘too much power’. Overlapping, duplicating functions, efforts, and implementation especially

with DENR, BFAR, LGUs, etc. One example cited: “PCSD staff monitors river quarry and mining operations, while the MMT (Multi-partite Monitoring Team) conducts its own. Can they be harmonized?”

“PCSD exercises regulatory as well as police powers, collects fees and requires many permits.” “Nagmulti-task, baka hindi s’ya equipped to do these all?”

“PCSD has parted away from its original design, i.e. from being a policy-making body into a policy-making body with enforcement powers.”

√

√

√

√

6

Other institutional challenges. “The implementors themselves are not clear of their mandate. They are part of

the problem…There is corruption, bribery and ignorance at the community level.”

Alleged factions within the organization (PCSDS). “Underused technical [PCSD] staff.” Some LGUs are not cooperative. Absence of Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Offices in LGUs,

contributing to the challenge of implementing the law at the LGU level. “Policymakers, politicians themselves are part of the problem. Some are law-

breakers”. Power play in the issuance of PCSD-related permits (LGU Executives vs.

PCSD). “DENR, PNP…do not listen to [PCSD-created local bodies], e.g. Task

Forces.”

√

√

√

√

7

ECAN Zoning Issues. “The ECAN is moving…changes to accommodate mining, has no stability.”

√

√



“Forests have no ECAN demarcation lines.” “Mining in Espanola is in the Controlled Zone; the activity is allowed,

however, the mining area is near the watershed. Nasalaula ang Pulot River.”

C RECOMMENDATIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

1

Improve communication strategies and programs. Publish and share research to the public, in easily understandable formats. Data from PCSD should be made into formal research papers. Information regarding proposed and approved projects must be made

accessible to the people. Communication materials must be “area-specific,” “updated” and “audience-

appropriate.” Conduct IEC activities in IP communities. Groom champions in the Council.

√

√

√

√

2

The Council’s decision-making must be science-based. “PCSD should listen to PCSDS.” “De-politicize the Council.”

√

√

√

3

Council Membership. “The membership of the PCSD must be modified.” A representative from the Department of Education must sit in the Council as

a regular member. There should be more representatives from the academe. Increase the number of representatives from the NGO sector. The Philippine

Council for Sustainable Development has three (3) representatives in its Council.

“There must be champions [of advocacy] in the Council.”

√

√

4

Conduct third party management audit of the organization or revisit the organizational/management audit conducted in the past.

Review original organizational design.

√

√

√

√



Refocus. Organizational assessment “must be participatory.” “Does the current strategy work?”

C

RECOMMENDATIONS (continuation)

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

5

Harmonize PCSD’s functions with fellow national government agencies in the province and LGUs, establish clear protocols of cooperation.

“PCSD to unload some functions and delegate to LGUs.” “Breakdown policies into protocols, so it is clear where one begins and end, as

well as the others.” Example cited: Tubbataha Management Office. The Philippine Navy, Philippine Coast Guard and TMO agreed that the Navy and PCG staff report to the Park Superintendent, and the Park Superintendent reports to the respective heads of the Navy and PCG.

√

√

√

6

Capacitate and mobilize LGUs. The PCSD must capacitate LGUs in the permitting system, “enable LGUs to

understand the SEP Law.” “The PCSD must pursue its initial efforts in ‘mobilizing’ agencies, as it has

proved difficult for them to assume all the tasks and challenges when they themselves have limited capacity.”

√

√

7

The PCSD has to work on “integrating” UNESCO’s declaration that Palawan is a Man and Biosphere Reserve in what it does, and in “truly translating it…into concrete actions.” √

8

The PCSD must “make a definite or verifiable standard of indicators, goals for 10 years, so that we can determine the impacts of the law in a less subjective manner and we will have a definite basis.” √

9 The ECAN Zoning must be clearer. “There should be ‘monumenting’ of ECAN demarcations.” √ √

10 “Basis for ‘social acceptability’ should not be based on the number but the people who really have the know-how of the project proposed.” √



11 There should be a “demo site for best practices” in the implementation of the Law. √ 12

“Projects must be sustained, scaled up and amplified so that their impact would be felt by the people.” √

D OTHER THOUGHTS, OPINIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

1 The law is “good”, “beautiful”, “unique”. √ √ √ √

2

“Governance is the driving force towards good implementation of the SEP Law.”

“The problem lies on the interpretation and implementation of the law.” “Strong political will is needed; less political intervention.”

√

√

3

There is no definite standard for “social acceptability”. There are no specific regulations in SEP law providing for the ‘social

acceptability’ feature of its philosophy.

√

√ √

4 “Public consultations are not done publicly or are done just by a few people.” √

5

“[PCSD] has parted from the original wisdom of the law; the structure of PCSDs is not designed as an enforcement body, hence, it fails to execute its functions well. It was designed as an enabling body – to enable LGUs and to enable departments.” √

6 “There are underused technical staff members in PCSD.” √

LEGEND OF SYMBOLS USED IN THE MATRIX: √ : Expressed by participants from the group but not necessarily shared by everyone.

: The group was divided on the idea; other participants in the group expressed dissenting opinion.



Station 4. Prof. Hyrmie Dela Peña of Palawan State University traffics the discussion on how the SEP Law has made an impact on governance and institutions in Palawan. Shown in the picture are representatives from the LGUs and NGAs sharing their thoughts on the subject.



10. During the plenary session from around 4:30PM to 5:30PM, the key points of discussions

by theme were presented by RTD facilitators. 10.1. Mr. Inawasan, facilitator of Station/Theme 1, “SEP’s Impact to People and

Culture,” presented the following key points of discussion under his station, to wit: 10.1.1 “The SEP Law has increased the level of awareness/improved the culture of

environmental conservation and protection among residents, although much needs to be done on informing/educating the public, especially the IPs on the SEP/ECAN and their value; on the other end, people got confused and were divided.

10.1.2 The total log ban and other environmental conservation/protection efforts improved the capacity of the environment to deliver economic goods/services, hence, source of livelihood for people (e.g. almaciga for IPs); some traditional economic sources (kaingin, birds nest, honeybees) may have been negatively affected short-term.

10.1.3 The direct benefits of the law on the quality of life and culture of residents are difficult to ascertain (subject to more scientific study) but the law offers many opportunities for Palawan which should be maximized.”

10.2. Dr. Allaine T. Baaco, facilitator for Station/Theme 2, “SEP’s Impact to the Environment”, presented to the plenary the following discussions they had in her station:

(Slide 1)

Prof. Baaco sharing her group’s report.



(Slide 2)

(Slide 3)

10.3. Prof. Marissa Pontillas, co-facilitator for Station/Theme 3, “SEP’s Impact to the Local Economy”, shared with the participants the highlights of their discussion in the aforesaid station, to wit:

(Slide 1)

Prof. Pontillas while reporting Station3’s output.



(Slide 2)

(Slide 3)

(Slide 4)



(Slide 5)

(Slide 6)

(Slide 7)



(Slide 8)

(Slide 9)



(Slide 10)

(Slide 11)

(Slide 12)



10.4. Prof. Hermenegildo P. Dela Peña, facilitator for Station/Theme 4, “SEP’s Impact to

Governance and Institutions”, presented the following summary of their discussions: Positive

“1. Provide assistance in the: a. Approval of CLUP, b. Municipal zoning ordinance aligned with SEP c. Municipal ECAN map d. strict implementation of SWM (search for cleanest and greenest brgy and school annually and awarded every foundation day) e. Active ECAN Board - Regular monthly meeting of ECAN board and special meeting in case of emergency issues to be tackled f. Formulation of the WUP and FLUP (ongoing) g. Establishment of MPA and strengthening coastal resource mgt. plan and other conservation areas (MMPL, Pulot Watershed, etc.) 2. PCSD gives the penalty, hindi kaya gawin ng mga pulitiko, sila ang gumagawa nun. 3. Nainspire ang LGU to get awards 4. It serves as guide/reference to potential investors 5. Identified tourist destination and recreation areas 6. SEP is one of the basis in the Establishment and declaration of MMPL 7. ECAN Boards…empowering the LGUs 8. ECAN as basis in approving/endorsing projects. Ensuring projects are done in safer areas (ECAN) 9. LGUs work toward SD 10. mabuti ang intention for the environment and for the people 11. Provided opportunity for better environment management 12. Institutional partnerships (researches, enforcement and education) 13. Staff is technically equipped 14. PCSD formulated a policy to address Illegal, Unregulated and unreported cases 15. need for demo site of SEP implementation where best practices are demonstrated

(-) Negative 1. Hindi perfect ang batas, may mga loopholes 2. limited of knowledge of SEP and other laws at the grassroots level…sustain and level-up/ relevant IEC formats at all level (formal, Non-formal, Informal…including IPs) 3. Strong political will is needed (Less political intervention in decision making) 4. Laws maybe complementing sometimes overlapping…need to harmonize functions and establish clear protocol on the roles of involved agencies or organizations 5. overlapping of functions/ implementation 6. walang ECAN demarcation 7. Update and area specific IEC should be sustained 8. malapit po mining area sa aming watershed 9. absence of MENRO offices leading to weak implementation

Prof. Dela Peña while reporting Station 4’s output.



10. Powerplay 11. Paradigm and perspective of council members, not in harmony of the staff 12. Institutional constraints 13. Weak political will 14. Need to review the role of the PCSD and PCSD Staff. 15. Creates red tape, difficulty of getting permits and licenses to build business in Palawan 16. Issue on Real Estate: implementing rules how to protect the envi and lupain ng Palawan 17. Maraming body na nag-iissue ng cert/licenses/permits 18. Need to strategize: does the current strategy address the issues/concerns of the SEP? 19. Great need for less political intervention 20. Underused technical staff 21. Problem is in the implementation and interpretation.”

11. After the presentations, Mr. Inawasan thanked the facilitators and documentors, as well

as the participants “for spending their valuable time, contributing their thoughts and opinions” regarding the impact of the SEP Law on Palawan’s development.

12. He said that the outputs of the day’s RTDs will be used in the following day’s workshop. He invited all the participants to join the SEP Law Review Workshop.

13. Certificates and tokens of appreciation were given to the facilitators by PCSDS leadership before the activity formally closed.

14. The workshop ended at around 5:35PM.

Atty. Adelle Villena hands a certificate of appreciation to the lead workshop facilitator and RTD/Station 1 facilitator Mr. James Inawasan. From left to right: Mr. Jong Cabrestante (workshop lead coordinator), Mr. Alex Marcaida, Atty. Villena, Ms. Tess Batul and Ms. Maila Villaos (District Management Office-Central).



Prof. Viet Baaco (center), facilitator of RTD/Station 2, receives her certificate and token of appreciation from PCSDS led by Atty. Villena.

Prof. Eva Marie Ponce de Leon (4th from left), co-facilitator of RTD/Station 3, with the PCSD staff and lead facilitator.



Prof. Marissa Pontillas (3rd from left), co-facilitator of RTD/Station 3, smiles as she receives her certificate of appreciation from PCSDS.

Prof. Hyrmie Dela Peña (6th from left), facilitator of RTD/Station 4, with the PCSD staff and lead facilitator.



V. ANNEXES FOR PART I OF THE REPORT.

Annex A: Welcome Remarks of Exec. Dir. Nelson P. Devanadera Annex B: Presentation of Mr. James Paul S. Inawasan, Day 1 Annex C: Presentation of Atty. Adelina B. Villena Annex D: Facilitators’ Toolkit Annex E: Workshop Groupings Annex E: Raw Workshop Outputs/Documentation by Theme E.1. People and Culture E.2. Environment E.2. Local Economy E.2. Governance and Institutions Annex F: Participants’ Kit (Relevant readings) Annex G: Workshop Evaluation Annex H: Program Annex I: Other Workshop Photos Annex J: Attendance Sheet



ANNEX A: Welcome Remarks of Exec. Dir. Nelson P. Devanadera

“Thank you very much for choosing to join us today. We invited you because we believe you will have valuable contribution to today’s workshop. The story of the Strategic Environment Plan for Palawan Act, or the SEP Law – why it was conceived, how it was enacted into law, how it has been implemented, and how it tries to safeguard this precious province from ‘unwanted’ development – is the selfsame story of Palawan as a province, of Palaweños as a people. And every story has both sides. Every story has a negative side and a positive side; sad moments, and happy moments. We want to hear directly from you these sides, these moments… Because SEP Law’s administrative machinery – the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development – is a healthy organization: We are a listening organization, we want to know how we’ve been doing the past 23 years, we want you to help us identify our areas for improvement, and we want to walk with you in moving forward not just to strengthen the law, or improve our organization. We want to do this because it is only through collective action that we can pursue the lofty goals and ideals of the very people who first drafted the SEP Law, and make the law matter to her people. We here in Palawan are all blessed to live in a province with vast natural resources, unique environmental beauty, endemic and rare animal and plant species, and rich, indigenous culture. We live in one of the best places in the whole world! And we certainly don’t want to just let this go to waste. We shall preserve this beauty for our children, our children’s children. We shall protect Palawan from ‘unwanted’ development. We shall make SEP Law work for Palawan, its people and environment today, and in the future! We look forward to a healthy, rigorous exchange of ideas and thoughts today and tomorrow – for Palawan and her people. Good morning.”



ANNEX I: Other Workshop Photos

An NGO representative stresses that while the law has increased the level of environmental awareness among the general public, education regarding the law, unfortunately, has yet to reach IP communities.

The business sector thinks the law is a double-edged sword: Its protecting the environment attracted more investors and customers, but its regulatory mechanism permitting system gives them a headache.

Everyone leaves the room smiling, even after fiery exchange of opinions – especially after a mandatory class picture.



“The law has slowed down environmental degradation,” postulates a participant at Station 2, “SEP’s Impact on the Environment.”

Participants from the LGUs and NGAs pose with Prof. Baaco after a grueling exchange of viewpoints on the law’s impact on the environment.



Serious business. Representatives from the business sector took the workshop as a serious opportunity to ventilate their issues and concerns regarding PCSD’s permitting system in the hopes of improving the latter, and truly helping Palawan’s growing local economy.

Participants from the Media and NGOs were all smiles after their turn at Station 3, “SEP’s Impact to the Local Economy.”



Prof. Dela Peña was all ears as a representative of the IPs shares what he thinks are the impact of the law on Governance and Institutions in the province.

Representatives from the LGUs and NGAs appreciate the “better, clearer governance framework” SEP provides to them, but point out inherent institutional challenges both at PCSD and LGU levels hindering full effectiveness of its implementation.

Participants from the NGOs and the Academe at Station 4, “Governance and Institutions.”



A participant from a local government raises a question during a plenary discussion. “Were you happier when you [PCSD] were still with the Office of the President?” The participants – when not busy debating and arguing:



The participants – when not busy debating and arguing:

The support secretariat staff – when not busy attending to the workshop’s and participants’ needs.



The PCSD staff/working committees with the workshop facilitators.

The workshop participants with the PCSD staff. ================================================================== For questions, comments, feedback and suggestions regarding this Report, kindly e-mail: [email protected] and [email protected] with the subject line “SEP Workshops Documentation”. Disclaimer: All photos courtesy of the ECAN Education and Extension Division, Palawan Council for Sustainable Development Staff. All rights reserved 2015.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Date post:	21-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyenkhuong
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

SEP Impacts Law Review Workshops - pkp.pcsd.gov.ph 23_May 6... · Puerto Princesa City, Palawan SEP...

Documents