Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment: Experiences from Geothermal Power Development Projects in the Philippines

 

 

 

 

by

 

Jonas G. Bautista, MSc*

  Paper Presented at the Seminar on Human Ecology in Vrije Universiteit Brussel

 Brussels, Belgium

December 1997

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________

The author is currently affiliated with the Environmental Technical Services Section, Environmental Management Division, Philippine National Oil Company-Energy Development Corporation (PNOC-EDC), Merritt Road, Fort Bonifacio, Makati Metro Manila, Philippines. However, the ideas are solely of author and do not necessarily reflect that of the PNOC-EDC. Likewise any errors of commission or omission are the sole responsibility of the author.

 

 

 

I. Introduction

 

There are two models of public decision-making: the technocratic or regulatory model and the democratic model. Traditionally, societies have followed the technocratic model wherein decisions are made by bureaucrats who possess high degree of expertise. However, this has been challenged recently as many citizens and reform groups have called for more public accountability in the light of increasing uncertainty  of technological effects to society (De Sario and Langton, 1987). A growing demand for wider and deeper involvement of the ordinary citizens in decision-making process has been very visible especially in the area of environmental policy. It is particularly gaining much ground in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) of projects.

            Public involvement was already embedded in the early EIA legislations. The US National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which was considered the seminal legislation for EIA, already included provisions for  public involvement. Yet, despite these provisions, early EIAs were dominated by technical issues. Throughout the years public participation programs existed but they were not always the key part of the planning process (Bregman and Mackenthun, 1992;p36).  To date, the depth and breadth of public participation in EIA varies from agency to agency and from country to country. In the US, each federal agency adopts its own procedural requirements for public participation (Bregman and Mackenthun, 1992;p38). The European Community  EIA directive which was passed in 1985 made explicit provision for public participation but gave responsibility to the member states as to how it will be achieved (Wathern, 1988;p192, EIA Center, 1997).

Public participation in EIA is not only in developed countries. Even in Southeast Asia where governments are more inclined to an authoritarian set up an increasing need for strengthening public involvement within the EIA process is felt (see for instance Smith and Wansem, 1995;p41-42). In the Philippines, the conduct of the EIA  had been largely technocratic until after the 1986 Revolution when companies, bereft of authoritarian government backing, were left on their own to resolve public opposition to their projects. Subsequent government rules and regulations attempted to formalize the gains in the EIA procedures as practiced by project proponents.  This paper will trace the development of public participation in the Philippine EIA system. It will use the experiences of the Philippine National Oil Company in its Geothermal Projects as a case study.

            The paper is organized as follows: Section II discusses the current Philippine EIA system and its evolution with respect to public participation. Section III looks at the experiences of the Philippine National Oil Company in its Geothermal Energy Development Projects. Section IV discusses benefits, issues and problems in the implementation of public participation in the EIA process.

 

 

II. Public Participation in the Philippine EIA System

 

 

A.    The Evolution of the  Philippine EIA System

The environmental impact assessment (EIA) has become institutionalized in the Philippines, with systems procedures and administrative machinery well established (Smith and Wansem, 1995;p39). Box 1 outlines the evolution of  Philippine EIA system since its beginning in 1977. The mother legislation was the Presidential Decree No. 1151 establishing the Philippine Environmental Policy.  This decree provided for the creation of the National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC) and required the preparation of Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for all projects and undertakings significantly affecting the environment. One year later,  PD 1586 established the Philippine EIA system, defining the scope of the EIS[1] system and broadly defining the environmentally critical projects (ECPs) and environmentally critical areas (ECAs) (DENR, 1997a). In 1981, Presidential Proclamation No. 2146 was issued, providing guidance on the types of projects wherein EIS is required. It provided specific lists of ECPs and ECAs. ECPs included large infrastructure projects, heavy industries such as petro-chemicals and metals, and resource extractive industries. ECAs included national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife reserves and sanctuaries, habitat for endangered species and indigenous flora and fauna, areas occupied by cultural minorities, areas frequently visited by natural calamities, agricultural primelands and recharge areas for acquifers (DENR 1997a). Proponents of projects classified as ECPs must submit an EIS while proponents of projects located in ECAs are required to submit a Project Description[2] which would serve as the basis for determining whether the project should be subject to an EIS.  Also in the same year, a presidential letter of instruction,  LOI No. 1179, directed all Ministries to create environmental units to carry out the EIS. This enabled the Ministries develop capabilities to prepare EIS. In 1985 NEPC issued rules and regulations governing the EIS preparation and review. During these periods, the preparation of EIS was highly technocratic. The EIA studies were conducted solely by experts (usually by environmental consultants or employees of government agencies) and reviewed by other experts (mostly academic professors) at the behest of NEPC. Projects whose EISs passed the review are issued  special permits called Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)[3] by NEPC.

            The ousting of the authoritarian regime in February 1986 radically shifted the evolution the EIA procedure from a highly technocratic exercise to a more democratic, consensus-seeking process. Two developments were noteworthy.  First, a new constitution was drafted in 1987 which effectively dismantled the authoritarian system of governance and recognized broad-based public participation in decision-making. The new constitution also included explicit statements about the state’s role in environmental protection.  This constitutional provision led to the creation of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The old NEPC was renamed Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) and subsumed under DENR. Second, there was an increasing level of environmental awareness among the general public coupled with demands for grassroots participation in government projects by non-governmental organizations.

Operating under old NEPC guidelines, the new EMB could not seem to cope with the demands of the public. A case in point was its handling of the Mt. Apo Geothermal Development Project of Philippine National Oil Company which was located in a national park. The area is also considered “homeland” by the various indigenous upland tribes in southern Philippines. The project served as the focal point of intense public scrutiny and opposition. Because of the absence of adequate rules, the project was subjected to extreme arbitrariness in regard to public review. Numerous public hearings were held, negotiations with the tribes were conducted and, with politicians riding on public sentiments, congressional investigations were also held on the numerous alleged violations. This has resulted to a substantial increase the project’s cost. Due to the uncertainty in the EIA process, concerns were raised of a general decline in development projects especially in the energy sector. The cumbersome EIA process was actually one of the factors blamed for the crippling energy crises in 1992.

            In 1992, DENR issued Administrative Order (DAO) No. 21 which substantially amended the old guidelines of NEPC. Among the new features introduced was the requirement of social acceptability of projects.  Under these rules, a public hearing may be held at the discretion of EMB and the project maybe denied ECC for reasons of lack of social acceptability. The ECC was also expanded to include binding conditionalities based on the EIS and the recommendations of the Review Committee. However, due to the energy crisis, this requirement was only applied to long-term energy projects such as the geothermal. The Energy Crisis Act allowed the President to exempt many power projects from the EIA requirement until after the crisis was over.

For those projects which were not exempt from the new guidelines, the social acceptability criterion immediately became a source of problem due to its inherent arbitrariness. In particular, there was no operational definition of the social acceptability. To satisfy demands for objectivity on social acceptability, EMB required the proponents to submit proofs such as: at least three endorsements from either the host local governments units, NGOs or peoples organizations, or an endorsement by the Regional Development Council. However, the overall assessment of social acceptability remained open-ended and demands for clearer, less uncertain rules persisted. A debate was also initiated on whether the social acceptability criterion should be substantive or just procedural requirement and whether it should be divorced from or should be part of the requirements for the issuance of the ECC. With a substantive definition, the proponent must for example show that the project has a favorable social benefit-cost ratio and that distribution of its benefit is equitable. Under a procedural definition, the proponent needs only to show that the project underwent adequate consultation or stakeholder participation. There was also a debate on whether social acceptability criteria should be placed outside the DENR’s responsibility, possibly under the auspices of the National Sustainable Development Council.

While this was going on, the companies began to recognize the increasing power of the general public. Mere ECC permits do not protect companies from future losses due to public opposition. Hence they, too, felt the need to consult the public regarding their projects and the most effective vehicle for this was the EIA process. Even the professionals conducting the EIA started to package EIA services to companies in terms of new methodologies such as “participatory EIA” or “community-based EIA”. The companies liked these methodologies because they provided them extra public relations services.

Just recently DENR issued DAO 37 superseding DAO 21. These new guidelines are intended to address the inadequacies of the DAO 21 and to further streamline the EIA review process. Among its most important objectives are: a) to ensure that environmental considerations are incorporated at the earliest possible stage of the project development; b) to further streamline the current procedures in the conduct of the EIA in order to improve its effectiveness as a planning, regulatory and management tool; c) to enhance the maximum public participation in the EIA process; and, d) to validate the social acceptability of the project or undertaking so as to ensure the fullest consideration of the environmental impact of such project or undertaking (DENR, 1997b).

 

 

B. The present EIS process under DAO 37

The new EIA process is shown in the schematically in Figure 1. Except for the participatory requirement, the process still retains many of the features of the old system (see for example Smith and Wansem, 1995;p6-7) . Just like the old system, the first thing to do is to determine whether the envisioned project falls under the list of environmentally critical projects (ECPs) or if not whether is it located within environmentally critical areas (ECAs).  If the project is an ECP then the proponent should formally inform EMB of its intent to conduct an EIA on the proposed project.  Otherwise, if the project is not in the list of ECPs but is located in an ECA, then the proponent should either submit an Initial Environmental Investigation (formerly Project Description) to the Environmental and Protected Area Section (EMPAS) of DENR Regional Office which will then determine whether a full EIA study will be required. However, the proponent may opt to proceed with the conduct of the EIA instead of going to the process of screening by the EMPAS. Unlike in the old guidelines where only the final outcome of the EIA (i.e., the EIS) is required, the new guidelines also regulate the procedure of the conduct of the EIA. The following are some of the new important features of the new regulation:

 

a.      Scoping—project proponents are now required to initiate formal scoping. This is undertaken by the proponent with DENR and other stakeholders in order to define the range of issues, actions and alternatives and impacts that should be included in the EIS. The proponent is also required to submit a Scoping Report containing the all the agreed items to be included in the EIS. The report should be signed by the proponent, the representatives of the various stakeholders and DENR and shall become the basis for the conduct of the EIA study and the review of the EIS.

 

b.     Timetable—The appropriate review committee is expected to accomplish the review within 120 and 75 days for the EIS and IEE respectively. This is intended

to speed up EIS review process which in the past could last up to more than a year.

 

c.      Accreditation of preparers—EIS and IEI can now only be prepared by individuals or groups accredited by DENR. The procedural manual of the new regulation provides the guidelines for accrediting the EIA preparers.

 

d.     Accountability of EIA preparers and the proponent—both the project proponent and the preparers of the EIA are required to include statements of accountability binding themselves jointly liable for any misrepresentation or failure to state material information in the EIS or IEI.

 

e.      Public participation and social acceptability—The meaningful public participation and transparency of the EIS process serve as a gauge to fully determine the acceptability of the proposed projects. In this case, the EIS must include documentation of the EIA process such as list of attendees during meetings, list of issues raised during the scoping, memorandum of understanding or agreements with affected sectors, all indicating that the project in general and the EIA process in particular underwent sufficient public participation.

 

f.       Two-stage review process—The EIS or IEI now undergoes a two-stage review process. Upon submission, the appropriate DENR unit shall review the EIS in terms procedural requirements. If it is not complete, the EIS will be returned to the proponent for revision. If it is complete, the EIS will be turned over to the EIA Review Committee (EIARC) which will conduct a substantive review of the document. The EIARC may do any or all of the following:  recommend the conduct of public hearing, request additional information, or conduct site visits. The EIARC will not only determine the technical substance of the EIS report but also determine whether the project meets the social acceptability requirements;

 

g.      Environmental Monitoring and Guarantee Fund—Proponents are required to establish an Environmental Monitoring Fund (EMF) which shall be used to monitor the project after the ECC issuance and an Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF) which will be used for rehabilitation and compensation for damages caused by projects that posed significant public risk. However, the EGF may also include funding for research works, environmental education, programs to promote social equity, etc. Multi-sectoral committees will be formed to accomplish the purpose of the funds. These provisions are normally included in the list of conditionalities in the ECC (see for example DENR 1995, Appendix 1).

 

 

C.   Public participation in the EIA process and the Social Acceptability Criteria

The new regulation ensures that the public is involved during the scoping, during the  EIS review process and  finally during the monitoring for compliance of proponents to the ECC conditionalities. However, the social acceptability requirement actually compels the project proponent to do more. Section 1.0 of Article IV of DAO 37 provides that:  “The acceptability of environmental impact of a project or undertaking can only be determined through meaningful public participation and a transparent EIS process.”  DENR (1997b) defines social acceptability as:

 

            “the result of the process that is mutually agreed upon by DENR, the stakeholders and the proponent to ensure that the concerns of the stakeholders including the affected communities are fully considered and/or resolved in the decision-making process for granting or denying the ECC. It also means that the proponent is able to meet all the relevant and valid issues and match them with corresponding mitigative/enhancement measures together with the available resources to implement the measures and the corresponding agreements for the fulfillment of such measures.”

 

DAO 37 provides that social acceptability should be gauged by the following criteria: (1) ecological/environmental soundness of the proposed project (i.e., effective environmental monitoring and evaluation and mitigation of environmental impacts), (2) effective implementation of the public participation process, (3) resolution of conflicts, and, (4) promotion of social and intergenerational equity and poverty alleviation. The definition provided by DENR is necessarily open-ended. To meet the requirement of social acceptability, the proponent must convince the EIARC that the project meets the above criteria by providing sufficient indicators  or  proofs to the latter. A list of indicators or proofs is provided in Box 2 below. However, many of these indicators can be obtained only through constant public, consultation, dialogue, negotiation and conflict resolution throughout the EIA process. The process documentation addendum to the EIS would have to show sufficient public participation in the conduct of the EIA. Recognizing this, the DENR procedural manual for the implementation of DAO 37 actually encourages public participation in all stages of EIA from scoping to review. Specifically,  it also encourages public participation in baseline studies or eco-profiling and validation of findings, in the impact identification, prediction and evaluation, in negotiation and dispute/conflict resolution, in the formulation of environmental management plan, and finally in environmental monitoring. Box 3 outlines how the public might participate in each of the stages of EIA preparation.

 

 

III.  Experiences from PNOC-EDC’s Geothermal Energy Development Projects

 

            The Philippine National Oil Company-Energy Development Corporation  (PNOC-EDC) is a government owned and controlled corporation, which is mandated to develop the geothermal resources throughout the Philippines. At present, the company is operating at least four geothermal production fields and is currently developing five more sites. The company is one of the companies, which piloted participatory or community-based EIAs from which many of the provisions in DAO 37 were based.

 

A.    Geothermal Development Projects in the Philippines

At present, the Philippines ranks second among the largest producers of geothermal power, after the United States. At the end of 1995 the country has a total installed geothermal power capacity of 1,194Mwe (USDE, 1996). It is predicted that the country will outrank the US as the top geothermal power producer by the year 2000.

Geothermal power development is the utilization of underground steam for electricity generation (Figure 2). Usually the geothermal steam is tapped by drilling several wells up to an average depth of 2,000 meters. The steam is then conveyed through a network of pipes to a separator station where it is purified before it is conveyed to the power plant. At the power plant, the high velocity steam turns the turbine thereby producing electricity. The waste from the separator station and steam condensate from the power plant are normally re-injected back to the underground.

The development of a geothermal production field could take an average of 5 years and normally consists of two phases: the Exploration Phase and the Development Phase. The exploration phase begins with (1) surface exploration or the collection and analysis of geological data and the identification of sites for (usually three) exploratory wells. This is followed by (2) the construction of access road and temporary facilities, and (3) the drilling and testing of exploration wells.  Once the testing is completed, a resource assessment study is conducted. If the resource assessment is positive a feasibility study for a full-blown development phase will be prepared.

The development phase which is based on the feasibility study consists of five major stages: (1) civil works or the construction of access roads, base camp facilities and drilling pads, (2) the drilling and testing of geothermal production and reinjection wells, (3) construction of fluid collection and disposal system (FCDS)—a network of pipes, control stations and waste treatment/disposal system, (4) the construction of the power plant and (5) the commissioning and operation of the power plant.

Although widely considered one of the one the sources of clean and renewable energy, geothermal power development project is among the projects classified by DENR as environmentally critical projects (ECPs) which means it should undergo the EIA process. Geothermal exploration or development usually involves a large area of land. The drilling activities are more or less the same as in oil explorations which involve construction of access roads, drilling pads and the transport of heavy machineries and equipment.  Also, geothermal resources in the Philippines are located in mountains of volcanic origins and watershed areas. Because of this EIA requirement, PNOC-EDC has become one of the few companies which are capable of doing in-house environmental impact assessments. Before DAO 37 was formulated, PNOC-EDC’s projects were designated by the DENR as pilot projects for participatory or community-based EIA. In the following section we will review the experiences of PNOC-EDC in the conduct of the EIA.

 

B.    EIA process in Geothermal Development Projects: The PNOC-EDC Experience

            The discussion below summarizes the experiences of PNOC-EDC in the conduct of EIA for geothermal projects:

 

1.     Delineation of Geothermal Block and Development Options—In the past, PNOC-EDC had to conduct one EIA for the exploration phase and another EIA for the development phase. This was done because during the exploration phase only the location of the three exploratory wells can be ascertained. The final location of the production wells and facilities cannot be ascertained until after the exploration phase is completed and the feasibility study for the development phase has been prepared. This practice has since been modified and now the company conducts only one EIA for both exploration phase and subsequent development phase. The company realizes that the EIA can be done at the early stage even if the resource assessment and the feasibility study were not yet available. For the purpose of the EIA, the area within which geothermal resource is expected to be found, is delineated and designated as the geothermal resource block. The geothermal block normally covers an area of about 40,000 hectares.

      The departments in charge of the physical development of the geothermal resource will prepare a preliminary resource assessment of the prospective site based only on data obtained from surface exploration. At least three development options are considered corresponding to the location of the three exploratory wells or the three resource location scenarios within the block. The final location of the production wells and facilities would then depend not only on the result of the exploration phase but also on the result of the EIA. Figure 3 is an example of a geothermal block used in the EIA, showing the location of facilities for each of the three development options. This practice is preferred by the regulator because it allows the use of EIA as a planning tool rather than merely a regulatory tool.

 

2.     Information Campaign—Right after the decision to commence the EIA process, the company’s field-based Community-Relations Officer and the Public Relations Department are mobilized to conduct information campaign about geothermal energy in the towns and villages which has political or geographic jurisdiction over the whole or portions of the geothermal block as well as in the towns and villages which are directly downwind or downstream of the block. The company often uses a combination of a video presentation, an audio-visual exhibit and a lecture followed by an open forum. The meeting is usually held at the village or town center. To attract attendees to the information campaign, the company usually provides lunch or snacks. The local elected officials are always very effective facilitators and could easily convince a large number of their constituents to attend. Also, it is always a standard practice to arrange an audience with the village head or the town mayor at least a day before the campaign. At the company’s invitation  visits to existing geothermal production sites are usually arranged for some groups starting with the local government officials, youth leaders and leaders of people’s organizations.

 

3.     Formation of the EIA Interdisciplinary Team—The company maintains a large environmental division consisting of more than 200 field-based and about 20 central office-based personnel. Within this division is the Environmental Planning and Control Department which handles, among others, the conduct of the EIA. The department is composed of a multidisciplinary team of experts ranging from air quality to socio-economics. Box 4 provides a typical composition of an EIA team for geothermal projects. The team normally assigns one expert as the technical coordinator for every specific EIA study. The function of the technical coordinator is to provide technical direction and coordination of the various modular studies of individual experts.  The section supervisor normally acts as the overall administrative director of the team taking charge of the logistical and administrative requirements. Special expertise may be sometimes hired on a contractual basis from consulting firms. Recently it has become necessary to hire a process documentor to document EIA process.

 

4.     Orientation and Scoping Meeting—When the information campaign has reached most of the target villages, the EIA team proceeds to conduct the EIA orientation and scoping sessions. Formal invitations are usually sent at least one week before to the local officials of the towns and villages, to the church leaders, local NGOs, peoples organizations, the women’s organization and the youth. The DENR also sends its representatives. Villagers from far away places may need to be fetched by a company-hired vehicle. Since this is a whole day affair, the company usually provides free meals. The Scoping session normally opens with a speech from the mayor of the host town followed by a brief presentation of the proposed project by a designated spokesperson from the company, usually the Community Relations Officer. The first part of the scoping session explains the nature, purpose and objectives of an EIA. In the second part, each member of the team will present his or her working list of items defining the scope of his or her study. Usually direct contributions to the scope items from the participants are very  rare. Participants usually expressed their inputs in terms of issues and concerns, citing examples of disasters in other sites and rumors of serious health and accident risks. The session usually precipitates into an open forum where participants raised questions and company personnel gives standard answers. The EIA team however takes note of the issues and concerns which are later studied for possible inclusion in the scope of the EIA. Box 5 presents most common issues and concerns raised during open forum and during the scoping session. It should also be noted that more or less the same issues and concerns appear during the public hearing.

Since more or less the same issues and concerns are raised the company is always ready to answer them. The Community Relations Officer have become very well-versed of the standard answers. In the past, the company had difficulty dealing with issues concerning equity or cost-benefit sharing with communities. However,  at least two new laws[4] had been enacted which provide among others, protection and benefits to communities hosting big power plants. The Department of Energy Law, for example, provides for the payment of royalty taxes equivalent to P0.01 per kW-hr of electricity generated to the host village, town and province. It also provides for mandatory electrification of the area within 25 km radius of the power plant, free electricity and the proper resettlement of displaced families and compensation of affected properties. When questions dealing with these issues crop up, all the company needs to do is to inform the public about these new laws.

 

5.     Baseline data gathering—After the orientation meeting the team immediately sets out to gather baseline data within the block. Public participation at this stage is implemented by hiring locals as assistants and guides to the experts. Local college-educated residents could be hired on a contractual basis as research assistants. The socio-economic and health modules usually require more public participation than other modules. Although secondary socio-economic data are available in the municipal offices, they are usually out of date and their accuracy are often suspect. The primary data for the socio-economic module are gathered through a formal survey (usually 10% of the total households of all villages within the block) supplemented by key informant interview and small group discussions. Locals are always hired and trained as interviewers for the formal survey.

 

6.     Laboratory and Data analysis—During the data analysis, public involvement is minimal. On occasions, villagers who have the relevant college degrees are hired as research assistants and are involved in data analysis or the analysis of samples and biological specimens. The analyses are done in the PNOC-EDC laboratories. However, duplicate water and soil samples and biological specimens are also submitted to independent laboratories for confirmation.

 

7.     Validation Meeting—The results of the analyses are packaged into simple information materials and presented to the villagers and other interested parties for validation. Local officials and DENR are also invited to observe in this meeting. Just like the information drive and the scoping session, the validation meeting often ends up in an open forum and the more or less same issues and concerns are again raised (see Box 5).

 

8.     EIS Review—The EIS is submitted to the EIS Section of the Environmental Management Bureau. Review of completeness is done by the EMB staff. If the EIS is deemed complete, an EIA Review Committee will be formed  usually from the academe. At the same time the company is asked to reproduce the EIS and distribute complete copies (2-3 volumes of 500-1,000 pages each) to the local government offices of the host towns and provinces, the church, the academe, local NGOs, the Regional Development Council and people’s organizations which actively participated in the conduct of the EIA. Usually 40-80 copies of EIA are distributed during the review process. In addition, some 30-50 copies of the Executive Summary of the EIS are reproduced and distributed to interested persons. During the review, the Review Committee may ask for additional information. After reviewing the EIS, the Review Committee usually decides to conduct a public hearing.

 

9.     Parallel Activities—During the conduct of the EIA, the company undertakes social conditioning activities. Information or public relations campaigns are usually continued from the start of the EIA up to the holding of public hearing. Additionally, consultations and negotiations with affected parties are undertaken. For example, the company may enter into formal agreements with the households who might be displaced by the project for a resettlement and compensation plan (see for example appendix 2). The company can also solicit project endorsements from local NGOs and local governments. Early consultations and negotiations with affected parties could effectively minimize opposition during public hearing.

 

10. Public Hearing—If a public hearing is required, a notice should be published through “posted announcement” in the host communities, radio and in at least two major national newspapers. The proponent usually negotiates for the schedule of the public hearing, allowing enough time to prepare. Social preparation is necessary and is usually done by information campaign followed by an open forum in the villages. Villages which were not covered during the previous information campaign are usually given priority. The proponent may also solicit endorsements and position papers from various groups known to favor the project. Meanwhile opponents of the projects and other concerned groups may also mobilize and write position papers. Each group would be allowed to articulate their concerns during the hearing through a designated spokesperson.  Experience suggests that the same concerns and issues will be raised during a public hearing, even if they have been already settled in earlier dialogues. The public hearing becomes more like another information drive, except that some groups prepares formal position papers. The whole session is usually tape-recorded and later transcribed into text and translated into the national language and submitted to the Review Committee together with the a formal reply to the issues and concerns raised during the hearing.

 

11. Issuance of the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC)—Depending on the result of the review and the public hearing, an ECC maybe issued or denied. In case of issuance, usually a draft is circulated by the DENR-EMB for comments before the final version is released. Comments especially from the proponents are necessary because the conditionalities contained in the ECC could be very specific and difficult to comply with. For example, an item may be included in the conditionalities requiring the company to “transplant all endemic tree species that will be destroyed in the construction of access roads.” The company may opt to replace the felled tree species by growing saplings in nursery and planting them in suitable places because transplanting a fully-grown tree maybe impossible or even more ecologically destructive given the terrain and density of trees in the area. A typical ECC contains around 20 to 30 conditionalities. Appendix 1 shows the a sample ECC issued for PNOC’s Northern Negros Geothermal Development Project. Most of these conditionalities are redundant because they are already addressed in the environmental management plan, which is contained in the EIS. The ECC also contains provisions for post-EIA activities such monitoring and further research. The proponent is often required to organize a Multipartite Monitoting Team and establish the Environmental Monitoring and Guarantee Funds. Furthermore, ECC may require post-EIA studies such as Environmental Risk Assessment, socio-cultural studies for the affected tribal communities or some dose-response studies.

 

Figure 4 is a schematic representation the whole EIA process as practiced by PNOC-EDC. Shaded boxes indicate the stages wherein public participation is possible. As can be seen from the diagram, public participation is not confined within the conduct of the EIA study. The more critical stages of public participation occur outside the EIA study. These include the public hearing and consultations and negotiations with the affected parties.

 
 

III. Discussions

 

A.    How far has the Philippine EIA System gone in terms of genuine public participation

The Philippine EIA system as indicated by the content of the new regulation has certainly come a long way from its technocratic beginnings. At present, it is probably at par or, if not, more sophisticated than the EIA process in industrialized countries. It is also probably well ahead in terms of encouraging the conduct of participatory or community-based EIA. The US NEPA regulations, for instance, identified only the publication of the notices of intent, conduct of public meetings or hearings, public review of no significant impact findings and the dissemination of the record of decision as the key points of public participation (Bregman and Mackenthun, 1992;p38-39). The Philippines DAO 37 and its accompanying Procedural Manual actually encourages public participation in all stages of the EIA process through the requirements of social acceptability. The social acceptability requirement also makes other public consultation activities outside of the EIA study a necessity, such as negotiations for compensation and conflict resolution.

            Another headway that the Philippine EIA system has achieved is the requirement of post-EIA monitoring of compliance to the conditionalities in the ECC and adherence to the environmental management measures stated in the EIS. Moreover, the monitoring has to be participatory as the proponent is required to set up a Multipartite Monitoring Team and to establish the funds for its operation. On the other hand, most of the  EC countries, except the Netherlands and possibly, Austria, still have not provided the mechanism for post-EIA monitoring (Art, 1994 and EIA Center, 1997).  This seemed to be also the general concern elsewhere and early on.  As Sadler (1988;p138)  observed, “the recurrent theme among the recent evaluation studies was the discontinuity between impact assessment and the subsequent phase of implementation and review”. Recently however, some EC countries, notably Austria adopted provisions for post-project analysis, 3-5 years after the project has been in operation (EIA Center, 1997).

            It is evident that the evolution of the Philippine EIA process towards greater public participation was not a result of a trailblazing legislation or regulation. Historically, the changes were more of a result of the initiatives of non-government entities i.e. the public and the companies. Legislation and regulation seemed to always lag behind the actual practice in terms of allowing public participation. Subsequent regulations seemed more like a formalization of the already existing practices. A good explanation to this phenomenon is the inherent necessity of public involvement in the EIA process. Public involvement in EIA is inevitable because of the risk and uncertainty involve in the estimation of impacts. Science is still unable to make precise predictions therefore all impacts are subject to some degrees of risk.  Risks as we know them are not quantifiable but a matter of taste preference. The decision to take the risk must be made by the affected individuals as they the only ones who know their preferences. The early drafters of the EIA legislation recognize this as noted by De Jongh (1988;p80) “scoping and public participation are the procedural answers to resolving uncertainty in the EIA. Negotiations, mediation and strategic choice approach are the EIA process-oriented solutions to uncertainty.”

            Another plausible explanation is that both proponent and the public have each derived themselves benefits from public participation in the EIA. Obviously the public wants to get involved in decision-making that affects them and EIA is one such mechanisms. Meanwhile proponents see EIA as a public relations opportunity. Under these conditions, public participation will occur with or without the regulation requiring it.

 

B.    Lessons from EIA in Geothermal Energy Development

 

Benefits from Public Participation—Bregman  and Mackenthun, (1987;p35-36) enumerates the benefits from public participation as: (1) the resolution of conflicts among different groups during project planning (2) the incorporation of a more comprehensive data base due to public input (3) the more thorough identification and analysis of issues (4) the more comprehensive computation of costs and benefits to social groups. All these benefits are in some ways met in the participatory EIA process. In the latest EIA conducted by the PNOC-EDC[5], potential sources of conflicts were identified early on. For instance, residents and landowners were concerned about damaged to their houses and crops and undocumented occupants of government lands were afraid that they will just be evicted.  The dialogues that always precipitated in all kinds of public meetings allow the company to show proofs that it is bound by law to resettle them and justly compensate all damages to properties. In most cases, Memoranda of Agreements (MOA) were signed between affected individual households and the company, spelling out the terms and conditions of the resettlement and compensation package. An example of such agreement is provided in Appendix 2.

In regard to the input to the data, there is no doubt that the baseline data especially the socio-economic aspect had been enriched due to participation of the local communities.

Another benefit from the public participation was the enhancement of interdisciplinary cooperation among experts in the EIA study. There is no doubt that the inputs from the public during the various public meeting have provided some common points which served as bases for the integration of modular results. The exposure of experts to public dialogues have also broaden the individual expert’s grasps of the environmental problem and have caused them to look at the problem in a more holistic way.

 

How much to expect from the public in a participatory EIA—The success of public participation in the various stages of the EIA study namely, scoping, baseline data gathering, validation of findings, impact identification, environmental management plan formulation and public hearing was limited. Public contributions in scoping, validation, impact identification, plan formulation and even during the public hearing were not meaningful. In all these sessions, the public contribution are in the form issues and concerns which are more or less a repetition or were the same ones encountered during the information campaign. Meaningful public contribution however were elicited during the collection of baseline data.

 

C.    Remaining difficulties and issues in the Philippine EIA process

 

The Uninterested Public—The all-out participatory model runs in danger of exhausting the public’s energy. In the rural areas of the Philippines it is probably easy to ask the village head for an audience with his constituents. However this would not have been possible in other more developed areas where the public is often busy with other interests. Kweit and Kweit, (1987;p30) argues that public participation should be viewed in terms of costs and benefits. If public participation is costly or the benefits are minimal, from either the point of view of the public and the technocrat, meaningful citizen participation breaks down.

 

Social Acceptability Requirement—Unfortunately even with the new regulation the social acceptability criterion has remained open-ended. One of the benefits of this criterion seemed to be that it compels the project proponent to follow an all-out participatory EIA. However, it should be noted that most of the participatory EIAs occurred because of the added value of public relations. Indeed, from the way it is articulated in both DAO and the Procedural Manual, it sounded like DENR is requiring companies to have a good public relations program. Should public relations be absorbed in the EIA process? If the purpose of the social acceptability criteria is to be used in conjunction with environmental impact then it should be given substance like defining some minimum requirements that can be objectively measured such results of a Environmental and Social Benefit Cost Analysis and the distribution of cost and benefits among stakeholders. A related concern is the continuing loss of significance of the scientific objectivity of the EIA exercise due to the expansion of the EIA process requirements. Indeed, under the new regulation more than half of the EIS document (about 500 pages) is already devoted to meeting social acceptability requirements. 

 

            Danger of over-regulation—The requirements provided by the new regulation may be indeed too much. One of the concerns of the companies was the length of time it takes them to go through the EIA process. The new regulation provides time limits for the review of EIS. However, since public participation is now required in scoping and indirectly in all stages of the EIA, it is possible that the time it takes to prepare the EIA would be much longer. As Sadler (1988;p139) points out, public participation was the focal point of assessment of the procedural effectiveness of EIA and the major concern regarding the cost-effectiveness of public review of EIA is the time taken to complete them and the delays it cause to the projects.

 

 

 

V.    Conclusion

 

The following conclusions may be drawn from the this paper:

 

1.     EIA in the Philippines has evolved very fast from almost purely technocratic regulatory tool to a more democratic instrument of planning.  Evidence suggests that this development is not due to effect of government regulation but due to the initiatives of the private sector.  The increasing level of public participation is dictated by the necessity which not only the public but also the project proponents have recognized. The initiatives made by PNOC-EDC in the conduct of the EIA for its geothermal power projects are good case examples.

 

2.     Initiatives in geothermal energy development, particularly the conduct of EIA ahead of the physical feasibility study demonstrates that the EIA can be truly used as a planning tool.

 

3.     There are limits as to how much the public genuinely participate in the EIA process. In particular the public contributions during scoping, validation and even public hearing have been limited to providing a list of issues and concerns. The public is unable to participate meaningfully during these sessions. Not to be underestimated however, is the contribution of the public during baseline data gathering as source of information, guides and assistants. The resolutions of conflicts through negotiations as parallel activities during the conduct of the EIA have also yielded positive results.

 

4.     The new regulation and the increasing trend towards participatory approach in the EIA have also elicited a number of legitimate concerns. One is the meaningfulness of the community participation in the EIA study. The other is the lack of objective definition for the social acceptability requirement. There is also a growing concern of the decreasing significance of the scientific merit of the EIA. Finally, there is a concern about over regulation resulting to increase in costs or the lengthening of the time needed to complete the EIA process.

 

VI. References

 

Arts, Jos (1994) “Environmental Impact Assessment: from Ex Ante to Ex Post Evaluation” in Issues in Environmental Planning by H Voogd (ed). Pion Limited, London.

 

Bregman, Jacob I. and Kenneth M. Mackenthun (1992) Environmental Impact Statements, Lewis Publisheres Inc. Chelsea, MI.

 

De Jongh, P. (1988) “Uncertainty in EIA,” in Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice by  Peter Wathern (ed),  Unwin Hyman, London, p80-81.

 

De Sario, J and Langton , S (1987) “Citizen Participation and Technocracy” in Citizen Participation in Public Decision Making, edited by Desario J and Lanton Stuart, Greenwood Press, New York, pp3-18.

 

DENR (1995) Environmental Compliance Certificate for Northern Negros Geothermal Development Project, Environmental Management Bureau, Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Manila, Philppines.

 

DENR (1997a) “EIA Frequently Asked Questions,” Department of Environment and Natural Resources Webpage, http://ics.uplb.edu.ph/~fll/eia/eia-faqs.html.

 

DENR (1997b) Procedural Manual for DAO 96-37, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Manila, Philippines.

 

EIA Center (1997) “Leaflet 5:EIA Legislation and Regulations in the EU,” in EIA Leaflet Series, EIA Center Webpage.

 

Kweit, M.G. and Kweit, R.W. (1987) “The politics of policy analysis: the role of citizens participation in analytic decision-making” in Citizen Participation in Public Decision Making, edited by Desario J and Lanton Stuart, Greenwood Press, New York, p31.

 

PNOC-EDC (1995) “EIS of 100 Mwe Mt. Labo Geothermal Development Project,” Makati, Philippines.

 

Sadler (1988) in Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice by  Peter Wathern (ed),  Unwin Hyman, London.

 

Smith, David B. and Mieke van der Wansem (1995) Strengthening EIA Capacity in Asia: Environmental Impact Assessment in the Philippines, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. World Resource Institute, Washington D.C. 90 pp.

 

USDE (1996) “Philippines: Oil, Natural Gas and Electricity Country Profile,” United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration Webpage, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emue/cabs/philippi.html.