!

!
RELEVANT!LAWS!WITH!ENVIRONMENTAL!PLANNING!IN!THE!PHILIPPINES!
!
!
Compiled!by!
Arch!/!EnP!GILBERT!S.!MENDOZA!uap$piep$pspe$nampap!
!
!
!
RA’s!–!REPUBLIC!ACTS!!
COMPILATION?1!

1. RA 0386 CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILS.

2. RA 4726 CONDOMINIUM BUYERS PROTECTION ACT

3. RA 6552 REALTY INSTALLMENT BUYER ACT

4. RA 6657 CARP

5. RA 6969 TOXIC SUBSTANCES and HAZARDOUS and NUCLEAR WASTE CONTROL ACT

6. RA 7076 PEOPLE'S SMALL SCALE MINING ACT

7. RA 7160 LOCAL GOVT. CODE OF THE PHILS

8. RA 7586 NIPAS ACT

9. RA 7718 BOT Law

!
RA’s!–!REPUBLIC!ACTS!!
COMPILATION!32!

10. RA 7835 Comprehensive and Integrated Shelter Financing Act of 1994

11. RA 7916 SPECIAL ECO-ZONE ACT

12. RA 8182 ODA OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1996 Amending RA 4860

13. RA 8242 TAXATION CODE OF THE PHILS.

14. RA 8371 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHT ACT with IRR

15. RA 8435 AFMA - Agriculture Fisheries Modernization Act

16. RA 8550 FISHERIES CODE OF 1998

17. RA 8748 SPECIAL ECO-ZONE ACT Amending RA 7916

18. RA 8749 CLEAN AIR ACT

RA’s!–!REPUBLIC!ACTS!!
COMPILATION!33!

19. RA 8981 PRC MODERNIZATION ACT

20. RA 9003 Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000

21. RA 9184 PROCUREMENT ACT

22. RA 9275 CLEAN WATER ACT

23. RA 9397 UDHA Amending RA 7279

24. RA 9729 CLIMATE CHANGE ACT of 2009

25. RA 10066 HERITAGE LAW

26. RA 10121 DISASTER RISK REDUCTION

27. RA 10587 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Amending RA 1308

PD’s!–!PRESIDENTIAL!DECREES!
COMPILATION!

1. PD 856 CODE ON SANITATION

2. PD 953 LAW REQUIRING PLANTING TREES

3. PD 957 REGULATING THE SALE OF SUBDIVISION LOTS AND CONDOMINIUMS with IRR

4. PD 984 NATIONAL POLLUTION CONTROL LAW of 1976

5. PD 1151 PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

6. PD 1152 PHILIPPINE ENVIRONMENTAL CODE

7. PD 1216 DEFINING OPEN SPACE IN RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS

8. PD 1344 EMPOWERING NHA TO ISSUE WRIT OF EXECUTION

9. PD 1517 URBAN LAND REFORM LAW

EO’s!3!AO’s!and!OTHERS!
COMPILATION!

1. BP 220 SOCIALIZED HOUSING

2. DAR AO 20 GUIDELINES ON AGRICULTURAL LAND USE CONVERSION

3. EO 71 DEVOLVING THE POWERS OF HLURB TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PLANS

4. EO 72 PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLUP

5. EO 90 CREATING HOUSING and URBAN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

6. EO 648 REORGANIZING THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS REGULATORY COMMISSION

7. PA 21 PHILIPPINE AGENDA
!
1. BP 220 SOCIALIZED HOUSING
 MALACAÑANG
Manila

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 220

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS TO ESTABLISH AND

PROMULGATE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF STANDARDS AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIALIZED HOUSING PROJECTS IN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS
FROM THOSE PROVIDED UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREES NUMBERED NINE HUNDRED
FIFTY-SEVEN, TWELVE HUNDRED SIXTEEN, TEN HUNDRED NINETY-SIX AND ELEVEN
HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE

!
Section 1. It is hereby declared a policy of the Government to promote and encourage the
development of economic and socialized housing projects, primarily by the private sector, in
order to make available adequate economic and socialized housing units for average and low-
income earners in urban and rural areas.

Sec. 2. As used in this Act, economic and socialized housing refers to housing units which are
within the affordability level of the average and low-income earners which is thirty percent
(30%) of the gross family income as determined by the National Economic and Development
Authority from time to time. It shall also refer to the government-initiated sites and services
development and construction of economic and socialized housing projects in depressed areas.

Sec. 3. To carry out the foregoing policy, the Ministry of Human Settlements is authorized to
establish and promulgate different levels of standards and technical requirements for the
development of economic and socialized housing projects and economic and socialized housing
units in urban and rural areas from those provided in Presidential Decree Numbered Nine
hundred fifty-seven, otherwise known as the "Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective
Decree," Presidential Decree Numbered Twelve hundred and sixteen, "Defining Open Space in
Residential Subdivision"; Presidential Decree Numbered Ten Hundred and ninety-six, otherwise
known as the "National Building Code of the Philippines"; and Presidential Decree Numbered
Eleven hundred and eighty-five, otherwise known as the "Fire Code of the Philippines" and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, in consultation with the Ministry of Public Works
and Highways, the Integrated National Police, and other appropriate government units and
instrumentalities and private associations.

Sec. 4. The standards and technical requirements to be established under Section three hereof
shall provide for environmental ecology, hygiene and cleanliness, physical, cultural and spiritual
development and public safety and may vary in each region, province or city depending on the
availability of indigenous materials for building construction and other relevant factors.

Sec. 5. The different levels of standards and technical requirements that shall be established
and promulgated by the Ministry of Human Settlements only after public hearing and shall be
published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines for at least once a week for
two consecutive weeks and shall take effect thirty days after the last publication.

Sec. 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: March 25, 1982. (P.B. No. 1880)

!
ANNEX A - RULES AND STANDARDS FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIALIZED HOUSING
PROJECTS TO IMPLEMENT BATAS PAMBANSA

Pursuant to Sec. 3 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 220 and by virtue of Sec. 4 (f) of Presidential
Decree 1396, the following rules and levels of standards are hereby promulgated.

RULE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1. Scope of Application. — These rules and standards shall apply to the
development of economic and socialized housing projects in urban and rural areas as defined in
Sec. 2 of BP Blg. 220. They shall apply to the development of either a house and lot or a house
or lot only.

These rules and standards shall also apply in the case of individual lot owner who belong to the
category of average of low income earners as defined in BP Blg. 220 and who shall cause the
construction of their houses after the effectivity of these Rules.

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policies. — It is a policy of the government to promote and encourage

the development of economic and socialized housing projects, primarily by the private sector in
order to make available adequate economic and socialized housing units for averaged and low-
income earners in urban and rural areas.

RULE II
DEFINITION OF TERMS

Sec. 3. As used in this rules, the following words and phrases are defined and understood to
have the meaning correspondingly indicated therein.

ALLEY : A public way intended to serve both pedestrian and emergency vehicles, and also
access to lots, both end always connecting to streets.

BLOCK : A parcel of land bounded on the sides by streets or alleys or pathways or other
natural or manmade features, and occupied by or intended for buildings.

CLUSTER HOUSING : A single-family attached dwelling containing three or more

separate living units grouped closely together to form relatively compact structures.

COMMISSION : Shall mean the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES: Facilities or structures intended to serve common needs and

for the benefit of the community, such as: neighborhood/multi-purpose center, health
center, drugstore, school, livelihood center, etc.

DWELLING : A building designed or used as residence for one or more families.

Single-Family Detached — a dwelling for one family which is completely surrounded

by permanent open spaces, with independent access, services, and use of land.
 Single-Family Attached — a dwelling containing two or more separate living units
each of which is separated from another by party or lot lines walls and provided with
independent access, services, and use of land. Such dwellings shall include duplexes,
row houses or terraces, and cluster housing.

Multi-Family Dwelling — a dwelling on one lot containing separate living units for 3 or
more families, usually provided with common access, services, and use of land.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIALIZED HOUSING: A type of housing project provided to

moderately low income families with lower interest rates and longer amortization periods.

FIREBLOCK : Any wall which separate two abutting living units so as to resist the spread
of fire. Such wall shall be of masonry construction e.g., cement hollow blocks, bricks,
reinforced concrete, etc. at least "4" thick, and shall extend throughout the whole length
of the living units and from the lowest portion of the wall adjoining the living units up to
the point just below the roof covering of purlins.

FIRE-RESISTIVE TIME PERIOD : Fire resistive time period is the length of time a
material can RATING withstand being burned which may be one-hour, 2-hours, 3-hours,
4-hours, etc.

FIRE WALL : A fireblock with extends vertically from the lowest portion of the wall which
adjoins the 2 living units up to a minimum height of 0.30 meter above the highest portion
of the roof attached to it; the fire wall shall also extend horizontally up to a minimum
distance of 0.30 meter beyond the outermost edge of the abutting living units.

FRONTAGE : That part or end of a lot which abuts a street.

LIVING UNIT : A dwelling, or portion thereof, providing complete living facilities for one
family, including provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, eating, bathing and toilet facilities
and laundry facilities, the same as a single family-dwelling.

LOT/PLOT : A portion of a subdivision or any parcel of land intended as a unit for

transfer of ownership or for building development.

LOT LINE WALL : A wall used only by the party upon whose lot the wall is located,
erected at a line separating two parcels of land each of which is a separate real estate
entity.

OCCUPANCY : The purpose for which a building is used or intended to be used. The term
shall also include the building or room housing such use. Change of occupancy is not
intended to include change of tenants or proprietors.

OPEN SPACE : Shall refer to areas allocated for the following purposes:
— Circulation
— Community facilities
— Park/Playground
— Easements
— Courts

PARTY WALL : A wall used jointly by two parties under easement agreement, erected
upon a line separating two parcels of land each of which is a separate real estate.

PARK/PLAYGROUND : That portion of the subdivision which is generally not built on and
intended for passive or active recreation.
 PATHWALK/FOOTPATH : A public way intended for pedestrian and which cuts across a
block to provide access to adjacent streets or property with maximum length of 100
meters if connecting to roads and 50 meters if terminating in a dead end.

ROW HOUSE : A single-family attached dwelling containing three or more separate living
units designed in such a way that they abut each other at the sides, as in a row, and are
separated from each other by party walls: provided with independent access, services,
and use of land.

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: Shall refer to the set of documents required by the

Commission for the processing and approval of economic and socialized housing projects
including systems and procedures for the implementation and enforcement of BP 220.

RULE III
MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ECONOMIC AND
SOCIALIZED HOUSING

Sec. 4. Compliance with standards required. — Development of economic and socialized

housing project shall be in accordance with the minimum design standards herein set forth.

Sec. 5. Basis and objectives of the minimum design standards. — The minimum design
standards set forth herein are intended to provide minimum requirements within the generally
accepted levels of safety, health and ecological considerations. Variations, however are also
possible, as may be based on some specific regional, cultural and economic setting, e.g.,
building materials, space requirements and usage. The parameters used in formulating these
Design Standards are:

A. Protection and safety of life, limb, property and general public welfare.

B. Basic needs of human settlements, enumerated in descending order as follows:

1) Water
2) Movement and Circulation
3) Storm drainage
4) Solid and Liquid Waste Disposal
5) Power
6) Park/Playground

The provision of these basic needs shall be based on the actual setting within which the
project site is located.

C. Affordability levels of target market

D. Location
The Actual setting of project site shall determine the type and degree of development to
be required in a subdivision/housing project regardless of political boundaries. With
respect to this, the degree on level of development shall be defined as follows:

1) Underdeveloped Area — characterized by the predominant absence of utility

systems or networks, especially water supply, roads and power.

2) Developed Area — characterized by the predominant presence of utility systems

or network, especially water supply, roads and power.
Sec. 6. Technical Guidelines. — In determining whether an economic and socialized housing
shall be allowed, the following guidelines shall be considered.

A. Suitability of Site
1. Physical Suitability
A potential site must have characteristics assuring healthful, safe and
environmentally sound community life. It shall be stable enough to accommodate
foundation load without excessive site works. Critical areas (e.g., areas subject to
flooding, lands slides and street) must be avoided.

2. Slope
Flat to rolling terrain (0 to 5%) are preferable but housing development may take
place up to 15% slopes, with flat lands (below 5%) for high density development and
sloping area (5-15%) for low to medium density development. The latter slopes,
however, should be capable of being developed for habitation at reasonable cost with
assurance of stability for vertical construction.

3. Availability of basic needs

The prioritized basic needs cited earlier shall preferably be available within
reasonable distance from the project site, but where these are not available, the
same shall be provided for by the developer.

4. Conformity with the Zoning Ordinance or Land Use Plan of the City/Municipality
Generally, housing projects should conform with the Zoning Ordinance of the
city/municipality where they are located. However, where there is no Zoning
Ordinance or Land Use Plan, the dominant land use principle and site suitability
factors cited herein shall be used in determining suitability of a project to a site.

Furthermore, if the project is undoubtedly supportive of other land uses and activities,
(e.g., housing for industrial workers) said project shall be allowed.

B. Allowance for future development

Project design should consider not only the reduction of cost of development to a
minimum but also provision for possible future improvement or expansion, as in the
prescription of lot sizes, rights-of-way of roads, open space, allocation of areas for
common uses and facilities.

C. Land Allocation
1. Saleable and non-saleable are

There shall be no fixed ratio between saleable portion and non-saleable portion of a
subdivision project.

2. Area allocated for Circulation System

The area allocated for the circulation system shall not be fixed, as long as the
prescribed dimension and requirements for access (to both the project site and to
dwelling units) specified in these Design Standards are complied with.

3. Area allocated for community facilities

Sites for community facilities shall be reserved or allocated by the developer,
where such facilities may be constructed/put up the Homeowners Association as
the need arises. Said sites shall be used exclusively for these facilities as defined in
Rule II, and the area shall be exclusive of that area intended for park/playground.
 The area allocated for community facilities shall vary with the density of the
subdivision, i.e., number of lots and/or living units whichever is applicable, as
shown in Table I.

TABLE I
REQUIRED AREA FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES
ACCORDING TO DENSITY

No. of lots and/or living units Areas for

% of gross area of subdivision
Community Facilities per ha.

150 and below 1%

151 to 225 1.50%

above 225 2.00%

Community facilities shall be centrally located where they can serve maximum
member of population, preferably near or side by side the park/playground.

4. Area allocated for Park/Playground

Provision for park/playground is required in all cases.

Allocation of areas for parks and playgrounds shall be exclusive of those allocated
for community facilities and shall vary according to the density of lots and/or living
units in the subdivision, whichever is applicable, as shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2
REQUIRED AREA FOR PARK/PLAYGROUND
ACCORDING TO DENSITY

Area%for%Park/Density%Playground%
No. of lots and/or living units Areas for
% of gross area of subdivision
Community Facilities per ha.

150 and below 3.5 %

151 to 225 7.0 %

above 225 9.0 %

Location of parks shall be based on hierarchy, accessibility and shall be free from
hazard, risks, barriers, etc.

Landscaping (sodding and tree-planting) shall be done by the subdivision

developer/owner.

Minimum size for a pocket park is 100 square meters.

D. Integration of project site with adjacent property and to the total development context
of the city/municipality.
 Land allocation and alignment of the various utilities (roads, drainage, power and water)
of the subdivision should align and be integrated with those of existing networks as well as
projects outside the boundaries of the project site, e.g., access roads (road connecting
project site to the nearest public road) should follow the standard specification of the
MPWH.

Hierarchy of roads (with respect to function and dimensions) shall be observed when
planning the road network within the project site such that no major or minor road align
with an alley or footpath.

Sec. 7. Design Standards and Planning Considerations. — The following design standards
and planning considerations shall be observed by all projects covered by these Rules.

A. Water Supply
1. Underdeveloped Area
Minimum requirement shall be provision of communal wells.

Water supply must be potable and adequate at least 43 liters per capita per day.
Supply source shall be identified and developed by the project developer/owner.

Whenever a body of water shall be utilized for community waters supply, permits
from the National Water Resource Council (NMRC) shall be obtained. Standards set
by the Regional Water Resource Council (RWRC) on water source development shall
be complied with. Each well shall be allocated approximately four (4) square meters
area which shall form part of the area for community facilities (as defined in Rule II)
and shall not encroach on any saleably lot or right of way.

2. Developed Area
Whenever a public water supply system exists, connection to it by the subdivision is
mandatory. Each lot and/or living unit shall be served with water connection
(regardless of the type of distribution system). Water supply provided by the local
water district shall be complemented/supplemented by other sources, when
necessary, such as communal well which may be located strategically for ease and
convenience in fetching water by residents and at the same time not closer than 300
meters from each other.

If public water supply system is not available, the developer shall provide for an
independent water supply system within the subdivision project. Minimum quantity
requirement shall be 75 liters per capita per day.

Likewise, required permits from the NWRC shall be obtained and standards of the
Local Water Utilities Administration shall be complied with.

If ground reservoir is to be put up, and area shall be allocated for this purpose (part
of allocation for community facilities). The size shall depend on volume of water
intended to be stored. Provide for protection from pollution namely, buffer of at least
25 meters from sources of pollution/contamination.

For elevated reservoir, structural design shall comply with accepted structural
standards.

B. Circulation System
1. Circulation system shall be the same in both Underdeveloped Area and a
Developed Area projects except for type of pavement which is adopted on regional or
locational peculiarities of the project site.
 TABLE 3
HIERARCHY OF ROADS

Type of Right-of- Maximum

Length
Road Way Carriageway

Major 8.00 6.00 120 m. (dead end),provide for turn around

space.
If 50 m. or less, turn around space not
Minor 6.50 5.00 required.

150%m.%(both%ends%connecting%to%a%Minor%road),%
Alley 3.00 3.00 75%m.%(dead%end)%
100%m.%(both%ends%connecting%to%an%alley),%50%m.%
Footpath 2.00 2.00 (dead%end)%%

TABLE 4
MAXIMUM SIZES OF PROJECTS PER HIERARCHY OF ROAD

Project Size Range Road Network

above 0 — 2.50 has Minor%road,%alley%footpath%

above 2.50 — 15.00 has Major%road,%minor%road%alley,%footpath.%

Model%A's%collector%road,%service%road,%then%major%road%to%
above 30.00 has
footpath%as%cited%in%Table%3.%(Model%A%of%PD%957)%

TABLE 5
PAVING MATERIAL SPECIFICATION PER TYPE OF ROAD

Type of Road Underdeveloped Developed

aggregates (stones, aggregates
Footpath %%
rocks, pebble, gravel)

Alley Aggregates Aggregates%

Minor road Aggregates Macadam%

Major road Macadam% Asphalt%

Note: Paving material for roads adopted from Models A and B (PD 957) shall have
the same paving materials as cited herein, i.e., asphalt.
 2. Planning Considerations or Circulation Layout

a) Observance of the hierarchy of roads within the subdivision.

b) Conformance to natural topography.

c) Consideration for access and safety e.g. adequate radius, minimum

number of roads at intersections, moderate slope/grade, adequate sight
distance, no blind corners, etc.

d) Optimization as to number of lots to lessen area for roads, at the same

time enhance community interaction.

e) There shall be no duplications of street names and such names shall not
bear any similarity to existing street names in adjacent subdivision, except
when they are in continuation of existing ones. Street names shall be
recognizable and readable.

The developer shall bear the cost of purchase and installation of street
names/signs coincident with the construction of streets and utilities.

f) Sidewalks shall not be required when drainage system is through open

canals; when drainage canals are covered or underground, the space above
the canals shall be utilized as sidewalk.

C. Drainage System
Drainage system shall be required in all projects.

An open canal on each side of the circulation network shall be provided. Said canal shall
have appropriate slope to effect good drainage. Moreover, the sides of the open canal
shall be lined with grass or stones to prevent erosion. See illustration below.

In case of non-existence of drainage system in the locality, catchment area for drainage
discharges shall be provided for and developed by the developer/owner in consultation
with local authorities or private entities concerned, to prevent flooding of adjacent
property. Moreover, said catchment are shall be made safe and maintained and shall form
part of the park/playground requirement.

D. Sewage Disposal System

The minimum requirement for sewage disposal shall be the use of septic tank.
For single detached units and multi-unit buildings, communal septic tanks may be allowed.

Drainfield area of affluent shall be 25.00 meters minimum distance from any sources of
water (well, spring, etc.).

E. Electrical Power Supply

1. Underdeveloped Area
Electrical power supply is optional. However, the developer shall allocate sufficient
land area for easements for power supply facilities based on existing laws and
regulations.

2. Developed Area
When power is available within the locality of the project site, its connection to the
subdivision is required. Actual connection, however, may depend on the minimum
 number of users as required by the power supplier. Installation particles, materials
and fixtures used, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the existing rules
and regulations of the Electrical Code of the local power utility company.

F. Lot sizes
1. Minimum lot area requirement shall be as follows:

a) Detached dwelling unit — 72.00 sq. meters

b) Semi-detached dwelling unit

a. corner lot — 54.00 sq. meters
b. row house d.u. — 36.00 sq. meters

2. Lot Planning consideration (applicable to both Underdeveloped Area and

Developed Area Projects).

a) A lot shall either be served by a road, motor court, an alley or a pathway.

b) Deep lots and irregularly shaped lots shall be avoided.

c) Lot elevation may be at grade, lower or higher than the elevation of the
street but should not be so excessive as to effect good utility
connection/run.

d) Lot lines shall be perpendicular or radial to street lines in appropriate

cases.

e) Lot shall be protected against non- conforming uses and/or other risk
through provision of adequate buffer strip, protective walls, and roads or
other similar devices. On the other hand, lot shall be laid out that they front
desirable views, such as parks, lagoon, etc.

f) Lot shall be so laid out that water courses/drainage ways do not bisect
the lots.

g) Minimum lot frontages:

Single detached — 8.00 meters
Single attached — 6.00 meters
Row house/irregular lot — 3.50 meters

G. Block Length
Maximum block length is 250 meters. Block length exceeding 250 meters, but not beyond
400 meters, shall be provided by an alley at midlength.

H. Easements
Provisions for easements in both Under-developed Area and Developed Area projects shall
be integrated with utility network/part of right of way.

I. Other Facilities
1. Garbage Disposal System
Garbage disposal shall be undertaken by the local government or in the absence
thereof by individual lot owners, but shall always observe sanitary practices and
methods.
 2. Firefighting
The Homeowners Association shall form fire brigade in collaboration with the
barangay fire brigade. Water for fire fighting shall be part of the water supply
requirement and shall comply with the requirements of the local/district fire unit of
the Integrated National Police.

Sec. 8. Building Design Standards and Guidelines. — Projects incorporation housing

components shall comply with the following design standards and guidelines.

A. Single Family Dwelling

1. Height Limitation — Maximum number of stories is two (2).

2. Unit Planning
a. Access to the Property. — Direct access to the single-family dwelling shall
be provided by means of an abutting public street, alley or pathway.

b. Access to the dwelling unit. — An independent means of access to the

dwelling unit shall be provided without trespassing adjoining properties.
Acceptable means of access to the rear yard of the dwelling unit shall be
provided without passing through any other dwelling unit or any other yard.

c. Open space requirements. — Open spaces shall be located totally or

distributed anywhere within the lot in such a manner as to provide maximum
light and ventilation into the building.

TABLE 6
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT

Percent of Open Space

Type of Lot
Residential All Others
a. Interior lot (located in the interior of a block
made accessible by means of alley or a private 50% 25%
access road).

b. Inside lot (non-corner or single frontage lot) 20% 15%

c. Corner and/or through lot 10% 15%

d. Lots bounded on three (3) or more sides by

public open spaces such as streets, easement of 5% 5%
seashores, rivers, esteros, etc.

d. Sizes and Dimensions of Courts and Yards. — The minimum horizontal

dimension of courts and yards shall be not less than 2.0 meters. All inner
courts shall be connected to a street of yard, either by a passageway with a
minimum width of 1.20 meters or by a door through a room or rooms.

Every court shall have a width of not less than 2.0 meters for one and two-
storey buildings. However, this may be reduced to not less than 1.50 meters
 in cluster living units such as quadruplexes, row-houses and the like one or
two storeys in height with adjacent courts with an area of not less than 3.00
square meters. Provided, further, that the separation walls or fences, if any,
shall be not higher than 2.00 meters. Irregularly shaped lots such as
triangular lots and the like whose courts may be also triangular in shape may
be exempted from having a minimum width of 2.0 meters, provided that no
side thereof shall be less than 3.0 meters.

e. Abutments. — Abutments may be permitted on all sides provided that:

a. A fire wall starting from the ground level and extending at least 0.30
meters from the roof line is constructed.

b. There shall be no opening on the party fire wall.

c. The fire wall shall have a minimum of one-hour fire resistive rating.

3. Building Design Standards

a. Space Standards. — Spaces within the dwelling structure shall be
distributed in an economical, efficient and practical manner so as to afford
the maximum living comfort and convenience and to insure health and safety
among the occupants. It shall provide complete living facilities for one family
including provisions for living, sleeping, laundry, cooking, eating, bathing and
toilet facilities.

b. Floor Area Requirement. — The minimum floor area requirement for

single-family dwelling shall be 20.00 square meters.

c. Ceiling Heights
1. Minimum ceiling height for habitable measured from the finished
floor line to the ceiling line. Where ceilings are not provided, a
minimum headroom clearance of 2.00 meters shall be provided.

2. Mezzanine floors shall have a clear ceiling height of not less than
1.80 meters above and below it, provided that it shall not cover 50% of
the floor area below it.

d. Openings
1. Doors
a. A minimum of one entrance/exit shall be provided where the
number of occupants is not more than 10; two (2) entrance/exits
where the number of occupants is greater than 10.

b. Doors shall have a minimum clear height of 2.00 meters.

Except for bathroom doors and doors in the mezzanine which
shall have a minimum clear height of 1.80 meters.

c. Minimum clear widths shall be the following:

Main Door 0.80 meters
Service Door/
Bedroom Door 0.70 meters
Bathroom Door 0.60 meters

2. Windows
A. Rooms for habitable use shall be provided with windows with a
total free area of openings equal to at least 10% of the floor area
 of the room.

B. Bathrooms shall be provided with window/s with an area not

less than 1/20 of its floor area.

C. Required windows may open into a roofed porch where the

porch:
a) Abuts a court, yard, public street or alley, or open water
course and other public open spaces;
b) Has a ceiling height of not less than 2.00 m.

e. Interior Stairs. — The stairs shall ensure structural safety for ascent and
descent, even in extreme cases of emergency. It shall afford adequate
headroom and space for the passage of furniture.
1. Width. — Stairways shall have a minimum clear width of 0.60
meters.

2. Rise and Run. — Stairs shall have a maximum riser height of 0.25
meters and a minimum tread width of 0.20 meters. Stairs treads shall
be exclusive of nosings and/or other projections.

3. Headroom Clearance. — Stairs shall have a minimum headroom

clearance of 2.00 meters. Such clearance shall be established by
measuring vertically from a place parallel and tangent to the stairway
tread moving to the soffit above all points.

4. Landings. — Every landing shall have a dimension measured in the

direction of travel equal to the width of the stairway. Maximum height
between landing shall be 2.60 meters.

5. Handrails. — Stairways shall have at least one handrail on one side

provided there is a guard or wall on the other side. However, stairways
have less than four (4) risers need not have handrails, and stairs with
either a guard or wall on one end need not be provided with a handrail
on that end.

6. Guard and Handrail details. — The design of guards and handrails

and hardware for attaching handrails to guards, balusters or masonry
walls shall be such that these are made safe and convenient.

a. Handrails on stairs shall not be less than 0.80 meters nor more
than 1.20 meters above the upper surface of the tread, measured
vertically to the top of the rail from the lending edge of the tread.

b. Handrails shall be so designed as to permit continuous sliding

of hands on them and shall be provided with a minimum
clearance of 38 mm. from the wall to which they are fastened.

c. The height of guards shall be measured vertically to the top

guard from the leading edge of the tread or from the floor of
landings. It shall not be less than 0.80 meters and no more than
1.20 meters. Masonry walls may be used for any portion of the
guard.
 7. Winding and circular stairways. — Winders and circular stairways
may be used if the required width of run is provided at a point not more
than 300 millimeters from the side of the stairway where the treads are
narrower but in no case shall any width of run be less than 150 mm. at
any point. The maximum variation in the height of risers and the width
of treads in any one flight shall be 5 mm.

8. Ladders. — The use of ladders be allowed provided that the

maximum distance between landings shall be meters.

f. Roofing. — Roofing material that is impervious to water shall be provided.

g. Electrical Requirements. — There shall be provided at least one light outlet

and one convenience outlet per activity area.

h. Fireblocks. — When any two (2) living units abut each other, a fireblock
shall be required in which case the fireblock shall be the masonry
construction (e.g., cement hollow blocks, bricks, reinforced concrete, etc.),
at least 4" thick, and shall extend from the lowest portion of the wall
adjoining the 2 living units up to the point just below the road covering or
purlins.

i. Abutments. — Whenever a dwelling abuts on a property line a fire wall

shall be required. The fire wall shall be of masonry construction, at least 4"
thick, and extend vertically from the lowest portion of the wall adjoining the
living units up to a minimum height of 0.30 meters above the highest point
of the roof attached to it the fire wall shall also extend horizontally up to a
minimum distance of 0.30 m. beyond the outermost edge of the abutting
living units.

No openings whatsoever shall be allowed except when the two abutting

spaces of two (2) adjacent living units are unenclosed or partially open, e.g.,
carports, terraces, patios, etc.; instead a separation wall shall be required.

B. Multi-Family Dwellings
1. Plot Planning
a. Access to the property. — Direct vehicular access to the property shall be
provided by means of an abutting improved public street or alley.

b. Access to the dwelling. — An independent means of access shall be

provided to each dwelling, or group of dwellings in a single plot, without
trespassing adjoining properties. Each dwelling must be capable of
maintenance without trespassing adjoining properties. Utilities and service
facilities must be independent for each dwelling unit.

Each dwelling unit shall be provided with a sanitary means for the removal of
garbage and trash.

c. Access to living units. — An independent means of access to each living

units shall be provided without passing through any yard of a living unit or
any other yard.

d. Non-residential use. — Portions of the property may be designed or used

for non-residential use provided the type of non- residential use is
harmonious or compatible with the residential character of the property.
Some examples of allowable non-residential uses are garages, carports,
cooperative store, and structures for the homeowners' association.

Any non-residential use of any portion of the property shall be subordinate to

the residential use and character of the property. The floor area authorized
for non-residential use, whether in the principal dwelling structure or in any
accessory building, shall not exceed 25% of the total residential area.

The computation of the non-residential area shall include hallways, corridors

or similar spaces which serve both residential and non-residential areas.

e. Open Space Requirements. — Portions of the property shall be devoted to

open space to provide for adequate light, ventilation and fire safety.
1. Setbacks from the property line shall be maintained, the minimum
of which shall be the following:

Total Open
Kinds of Lot
Space Required

Interior 50% 50%

Inside 20% 20%

Corner/Through 10% 10%

Lot abutting 3 or more streets, alleys, rivers,

5%
esteros. 5%

MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENT PER STOREY

1&2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.7 5

2. Distance between building shall also be adequately maintained to

ensure light and ventilation.

In general, the minimum distance between 2 buildings in which the

taller buildings has not more than two (2) storeys shall be 4.00
meter. And the minimum horizontal clearance between the two roof
eaves shall be 1.50 meters.

The minimum distance between two buildings wherein the taller

building has three (3) or four (4) storeys, shall be 6.00 meters. And
the minimum horizontal clearance between the two roof eaves shall
be 2.00 meters.

The minimum distance between buildings with more than four (4)
storeys shall be 10 meters. The minimum horizontal clearance shall
be 6 meters.
 Except, however, in cases when the two sides of the buildings facing
each other are blank walls, i.e., either there are no openings or only
minimal openings for comfort rooms, the minimum distance between
the buildings shall be 2.00 meters. And the horizontal clearance
between the roof eaves shall be 1.00 meter.

In the measurement of distances between two buildings,

measurement shall be made where the distance between the two
buildings is shortest.

f. Parking Requirements. — For multi-family dwellings, a minimum of one (1)

parking space for every twenty (20) living units shall be provided.

2. Building Design Stamps

a. Living Units. — In general, all building design standards for the single-
family dwelling shall apply for all living units of multi-family dwellings, except
that, the minimum floor are of living unit in multi-family dwellings shall be
36.00 square meters.

b. Exits. — Exit requirements of a building or portion thereof shall be

determined by the occupant load which gives the largest number of persons.
No obstruction shall be placed in the required width of an exit except
projections permitted by these implementing rules and regulations.

The occupant load in any building or portion thereof shall be determined by

multiplying the no. of living units by six (6).

1. No of Exits. — Every multi-family dwelling or usable portion thereof,

shall have at least one exist. Floors above the first storey shall have at
least two exists, which shall be remote from each other, irrespective of
the occupant load in the same storey.

The number of exits required from any storey of a building shall be

determined by using the occupant loads of floors which exit through
the level under consideration as follows: 50% of the first adjacent
storey above (and the first adjacent storey below, when a storey below
exits through the level under considerations) and 25% of the occupant
load in the storey immediately beyond the first adjacent storey. The
maximum number of exits required for any storey shall be maintained
until egress is provided from the structures. For purposes of this
Section basement or cellars and occupied roofs shall be provided with
exits as required for storeys.

2. Width. — Exits serving living units with occupant load of 50 or less

shall have a minimum width of 0.80 meters. For every additional
occupant load of 25 or fractions thereof, and additional width of 0.15
meters shall be provided. The total exit width required from any storey
of a building may be divided approximately equally among the
separate exits, provided the minimum width of 0.80 meters is
maintained.

The total exit width required from any storey of a building shall be
determined by using the occupant load of that storey plus the
percentage of the occupant loads of floors which exit through the level
under consideration as follows: fifty (50) of the occupant load in the
 first adjacent storey above and the first adjacent below when a storey
below exits through the level under consideration and twenty-five (25)
percent of occupant load in the storey immediately beyond the first
adjacent storey. The maximum exit width from any storey of a building
shall be maintained.

3. Arrangement of Exits. — Distance between any two exits shall be

such that they shall be remote from each other and as arranged and
constructed to minimize any possibility that both may be blocked by
any one fire or other emergency condition, provided that it shall not be
less than one fifth the perimeter of the area served, measured in a
straight line between the exits.

4. Distance to Exits. — No point in a building shall be more than 45.00

meters from an exterior exit door, a horizontal exit, exit passageway,
or an enclosed stairway, measured along the line of travel. In a
building equipped with the complete, automotive fire extinguishing
system the distance from exits may be increased to 60.00 meters.

5. Automatic Smoke Detection Alarm Initiating Device. — Automatic

smoke detection alarm initiating devices shall be installed in every
family dwelling unit located and adjusted to operate reliably in case of
abnormal accumulation of smoke in any part of the protected area.
Installation of smoke detection alarm initiating device shall be
approved for the particular application, location and spacing.

c. Corridors and Exterior Exit Balconies. — The provisions herein shall apply
to every corridor and exterior exit balcony serving as a required exit for an
occupant load of more than fifty (50).
1. Width. — Every corridor or exit balcony shall not be less than 1.20
meters in width.

2. Projections. — The required width of corridors and exit balconies

shall be unobstructed. Doors in any position shall not reduce the
required width of the corridor by more than one-half.

3. Access to Exits. — When more than one exit is required, they shall
be so arranged to allow going to either direction from any dead end
point.

4. Dead Ends. — Corridors and exterior exit balconies with dead ends
are permitted when the dead end not exceed 12.00 meters in length.

5. Construction. — Walls of corridors above the first storey shall be of

masonry (e.g. CHB, bricks, titles, etc.). Ceilings shall likewise be fire-
resistive Provided, however, that this requirement shall not apply to
corridors formed by temporary partitions.

Exterior exit balconies shall not project into an area where protected
openings are required.

6. Openings. — Where corridor walls are required to be fire-resistive,

every interior door opening shall be protected as set forth in generally
recognized and accepted requirements for dual purpose fire exit doors.
The total are of all openings other than doors, in any portion of an
 interior corridor wall shall not exceed twenty-five (25) per cent of the
area of the corridor wall of the room being separated from the
corridor.

7. Ramps. — Changes in floor elevation of less than 300 meters along

any exit serving a tributary occupant load of 10 or more shall be by
means of ramps. The maximum allowable slope for ramps is fifteen
(15) percent.

d. Common Stairways. — Except for stairs or ladders used only to serve as

access to equipment, every stairway inside a multi-family dwelling serving
two or more living units shall conform to the following design requirements:
1. Width. — Stairways serving two or more living units with an
occupant load of 50 or less shall have a minimum clear width of 0.90
meters. Stairways serving living units with an occupant load more than
50 shall not be less than 1.00 meter in width.

2. Rise and Run. — Stairs shall have a maximum riser height of 0.20
m. and minimum tread width of 0.25 m. Stairs shall be exclusive of
nosing and/or other projections. The maximum variation in the height
of risers and the width of treads in any one flight shall be 5 m.

3. Landings. — Every landing shall have a dimension measured in the

direction of travel equal to the width of the stairway, however, such
dimension need not exceed 1.20 meters when the stair has a straight
run. Landings shall not be reduced in width by more than 100
millimeters by a door when fully opened.

4. Basement Stairways. — When a basement stairway to an upper

storey terminate in the same exit enclosure, an approved barrier shall
be provided to prevent persons from continuing on to the basement.
Directional exit signs shall be provided.

5. Distance between Landings. — There shall not be more than 3.60

meters vertical distance between landings.

6. Handrails. — Stairways less than 3.00 m. in width shall have at

least one handrail on one side, provided there is a guard or wall on the
other side. Stairways measuring 3.00 m. to 3.50 m. in width shall
have two handrails. Stairways more than 3.50 m. wide shall have at
least one intermediate handrail for every 3.00 m. of required width.
Intermediate handrails shall be spaced approximately equal within the
entire width of the stairway. Except that stairways having less than
four (4) risers need not have handrails and stairs with either a guard
or wall on one end need not be provided with a handrail on that end.

7. Handrail Details. — Handrails shall be placed not less than 0.80 m.

nor more than 1.00 m. above the nosing or treads. Ends of handrails
shall terminate in newel pests or safety terminals.

8. Distance to Stairs. — Per floors above the first storey, the maximum
travel distance from the exit door of a living unit to the stairway shall
be 24.00 meters.
 9. Stairway to Roof . — In every building four or more storeys in
height, one stairway shall extend to the roof unless the roof has a
slope greater than 1 in 3.

10. Headroom. — Every common stairway shall have a headroom

clearance of not less than 2.00 meters. Such clearance shall be
established by measuring vertically from a plane parallel and tangent
to the stairway tread nosing to the soffit above all points.

e. Utilities and Services. — To ensure healthful and livable conditions in the

project, basic utilities and services shall be provided, the minimum
requirements of which shall be:
1. Water Supply. — Water supply shall be adequate in amount and
reasonably free from chemical and physical impurities; a main service
connection and a piping system with communal faucets to serve the
common areas like the garden, driveways, etc. shall be provided. Pipes
branching out from the main water line shall service the individual
units which shall be provided with individual water meters.

2. Power Supply/Electrical Service. — If available in the vicinity, a

main power service shall be provided with a main circuit to service
common lighting as well as common power needs of the dwelling. Like
the water system, however, branch circuits with separate meters shall
service the individual living units.

3. Drainage System. — Surface run-offs shall be channeled to

appropriate repositories.

4. Sewage Disposal System. — Sewage disposal may be accomplished

by any of the following means:
a. Discharge to an existing public sewerage system.
b. Treatment in a community disposal, plant, or communal
septic tank.
c. Treatment in individual septic tanks with disposal by
absorption field or leaching pit.

5. Garbage Disposal System. There shall be provided adequate

services for the regular collection and disposal of garbage and rubbish.

C. General Construction Requirements

1. Structural Requirements
All construction shall conform with the provisions of the latest edition of the
Philippine Structural Code.

2. Electrical Requirements
All electrical systems, equipment and installation shall conform with the provisions
of the latest edition of the Philippine Electrical Code and the requirements of the
electric utility that serves the locality.

3. Sanitary Requirements
All sanitary systems, equipment and installation shall conform with the provisions
of the latest edition of the National Plumbing Code.

4. Construction Materials
The use of indigenous materials for site development and construction of dwellings
 shall be encouraged, as long as these are in conformity with the requirements of
these Rules and ensures a building life span of at least 25 years, or in a
correspondence to loan terms of payment.

Sec. 9. Variances/Exemptions. — Variances from these standards and requirements may be

granted when strict observance hereof will cause unnecessary hardship to the owner/developer
or prejudice intended beneficiaries such as in the case of regional
considerations/characteristics, peculiarities of the location and other relevant factors.

RULE IV
APPLICATION AND APPROVAL OF PLANS AND BUILDING DESIGNS

Sec. 10. Approval Required. — No development of economic and socialized housing projects
shall be allowed without having complied with the standards and approval procedures set forth
in these Rules.

Sec. 11. Approval of Proposed Residential Houses of Average and Low-Income

Earners. — Individual lot owners who are average and low-income earners as defined by BP
220 may construct their individual residential houses in the manner provided by these rules,
provided that:

1. They secure project approval from the Ministry of Human Settlements prior to their
construction; and

2. They utilize MHS approved stock plans or they submit their proposed building plans to
the Ministry for approval.

Whenever applicable, the procedures and documents required under this Rule in the case
of other housing projects shall also be observed in case of individual residential projects.

Sec. 12. Establishment of an Integrated Approval System. — There is hereby established

and INTEGRATED APPROVAL SYSTEM which shall be applicable exclusively to the evaluation and
approval of all proposed economic and socialized housing projects whether the development is
for a house and lot or for a house or lot only.
Upon the effectivity of these Rules, all proposed economic and socialized housing projects shall
be required to secure only the INTEGRATED APPROVAL set forth herein which shall take the
place of permits and clearances required under Presidential Decree Numbers 957, 1216, 1096
and 1185 and their implementing rules and regulations.

Sec. 13. Where Application for Integrated Approval Made. — Applications for integrated
approval shall be made with the Ministry of Human Settlements through its regulatory arm, the
Human Settlements Regulatory Commission which is hereby authorized to prescribe application
requirements and impose the necessary conditions on approvals and applications.

Sec. 14. How Application Made. — Application for Integrated Approval shall be made by
accomplishing in duplicate copies an application form duly prescribed by the Commission.

The application form shall be accompanied by the following documents:

a) Development cost estimate and payment scheme for amortization;

b) Statement of potential and funding sources, preferably attested to by an accountant;

c) Program of development, indicating phasing and schedule;

 d) Locational Clearance issued by the Commission;

e) Certified xerox copy of owners certificate of title or other sufficient evidence of

ownership; if applicant is not the owner, authority to develop and sell;

f) At least two (2) sets of sketch plan and site development plan, showing general pattern
and layout of development, including location of streets and proposed access roads, power
and other utility lines, residential areas and open spaces for parks, playgrounds and
community facilities;

g) Location and vicinity map, drawn to a required scale, indicating location, intensity and
nature of surrounding land uses within one (1) kilometers radius;

h) Written options to avail of the MHS Stock Plans, indicating specific model(s) desired, or
in the absence thereof, at least two (2) sets each of the following:
1. Architectural drawing
2. Detailed structural plans and specification including cost estimates
3. Detailed engineering drawing

i) Certification from the Ministry of Agrarian Reform that the Land is not tenanted and/or
is not covered by operation land transfer;

j) Sworn statement as to nature, number and income level of beneficiaries.

Sec. 15. Evaluation of Land Development and Structural Design Components of

Project. — Should the project be found locationally viable, the Commission shall proceed to
determine whether the land development scheme and building design is in accordance with the
standards set forth in these Rules.

Where the developer or applicant has opted to avail of the pre-approved plans of the
Commission, there shall be no necessity for evaluating building design except with respect to
the suitability thereof to project site and its harmony/compatibility with the land development
scheme. Should the design be found unsuitable/incompatible, the developer may be asked to
alter/revise his choice. The Commission may extend technical assistance in the choice of the
appropriate model.

Where the developer does not avail of said plans and presents his own design and
specifications, the Commission shall evaluate the building component of the project as to
structural, fire safety and functionality. The review of such building plans and specifications
shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in these Rules.

Sec. 16. Pre-Approval of Building Plans. — The Commission shall formulate model building
plans and design or may approve plans submitted by duly qualified professionals which plans
shall be considered pre-approved and may be utilized by the developer/proponent.

Sec. 17. Validity of Development Approval. — Development permits shall be valid for a
period of one (1) year and should activity be not commenced within said period, the grantee of
the permit may apply for its revalidation within the next succeeding year.

Thereafter, no development shall be allowed unless a new application for approval is filed.

Sec. 18. Survey and Approval of Subdivision Plan. — Upon the issuance of Integrated
Approval to an economic and socialized housing project, the developer shall refer the final
subdivision plan together with the parcellary map to the Bureau of Lands for the conduct of
verification survey and approval of the subdivision scheme. Upon accomplishment thereof, the
Bureau shall submit its finding to the Commission.

RULE V
REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIALIZED HOUSING PROJECTS

Sec. 19. Registration of Project. — No subdivision or condominium intended for economic

and socialized housing shall be sold unless it has been registered and issued a license to sell in
accordance with these Rules.

Upon receipt of the Survey Returns and Approval of Subdivision Plan from the Bureau of Lands,
the Commission shall notify the developer of economic and socialized housing project, which
have been granted Integrated Approval to submit the following documents to have his project
registered under these Rules.

1. Certificate of Title or other sufficient evidence of ownership;

2. Affidavit attesting that the data submitted in the Original Application Forms and
attachments thereto have remained the same, or if there have been any changes,
incorporating therein the nature and surrounding circumstances thereof;

3. Articles of incorporation or partnership or association, with all amendments thereto,

and existing by-laws, if developer is a corporation, partnership or association;

4. If property is mortgaged, mortgage contract and status of loan certified by mortgagee;

in addition an undertaking by mortgagee to release the mortgage on any subdivision lots
or condominium units as soon as full purchase price is paid;

5. Submit certification of availability of water supply, if proponent/developer intends to

utilize existing water system; or permit from the National Water Resources Council, if he
intends to put up a centralized deep well distribution system; or certificate of water
potability, if he intends to leave the establishment of individual wells to lot/unit owners
from the appropriate government agency.

Sec. 20. Notice of Publication. — Upon evaluation of the completeness and veracity of the
documents submitted, this Office shall cause the publication at the expense of the applicant a
Notice of Pending Application for Registration and License to Sell in one newspaper of general
circulation in English or in Pilipino reciting therein that an application for registration and
License to Sell for the sale of subdivision lots and condominium units has been filed with the
Commission and that the aforesaid application papers as well as the documents attached
thereto are open to inspection during business hours by interested parties. In addition, a 3 x 6
billboard notice of the project shall be posted on the project site until the issuance of the
License to Sell.

Upon completion of the publication, the proponent shall submit Proof of Publication executed by
the Publisher and an affidavit attesting to the posting of the Billboard Notice on the site.

Sec. 21. Registration of Project. — Ten days from the completion of the publication and
submission of the proof of publication, the Commission shall, in the absence of an opposition to
the Registration of the Project, issue a Certificate of Registration. No opposition shall be
entertained after the above period.

Sec. 22. Opposition to Registration. — Complaints and opposition to the registration shall
be filed with the Commission within ten (10) days from the date of publication. Proceedings for
registration and license to sell shall be, in the meantime, suspended upon an initial finding that
the same is meritorious.

Sec. 23. License to Sell. — No owner or developer shall sell any disposable subdivision lot or
condominium unit in a registered property without a license to sell issued by the Commission.

Upon submission of a Performance Bond in the forms of a Surety Bond to the amount of Ten
Percent (10%) of the total estimated development cost of the project issued by a duly
accredited bonding company and acceptable to the Commission, or a certificate of guarantee
from any bank or financing institution of good standing addressed to the Commission for the
total development cost, the Commission shall cause the issuance of a License to Sell for the
project.

Whenever it shall appear that the Performance Bond is, or for any cause has become worthless,
inadequate or insufficient after the License to Sell has been issued, the owner/developer shall,
after due notice, be required to give an additional performance bond or replace the worthless
bond within ten days from receipt of such notice. Meanwhile, the License to Sell shall be
deemed suspend or revoked.

Sec. 24. Monitoring of Project. — The Commission shall have the power to monitor projects
granted Integrated Approval and License to Sell under these Rules to ensure faithful compliance
with the terms, standards and conditions thereof. It may exercise visitatorial powers and in
case of violation or non-compliance of the terms, standards and conditions set forth in the
approval and the license issued, it may institute revocation proceedings and impose appropriate
fines and penalties.

RULE VI
COMPLAINTS, HEARINGS AND PENALTIES

Sec. 25. Authority to Issue Rules and Procedures. — The Commission is hereby authorized
to issue Rules of Procedure to govern the conduct of Hearings before it on complaints or
proceedings against owners, developers, dealers, brokers and salesmen arising under these
Rules. Until the issuance of such Rules, the present Rules of Procedure to govern the conduct of
Hearings before the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission shall apply.

Sec. 26. Mediation/Conciliation of Complaints. — It shall be mandatory on the part of the

Commission to conduct mediation or conciliation on complaints or opposition filed with it before
the same could be subjected to a formal hearing.

Sec. 27. Suspension of License to Sell/Cease and Desist Order. — The Commission may,
in its discretion or upon notice and hearing immediately suspend the owner's license to sell and
issue a Cease and Desist Order pending investigation and hearing of the case for the following
reasons:
a. Upon verified complaint filed by a buyer of a subdivision statement lot/house or any
interested party;

b. In its opinion, any information in the registration statement filed by the owner/dealer is
or has become misleading, incorrect, inadequate or incomplete or the sale or offering for
sale of the project may work or tend to work a fraud upon prospective buyers;

c. When it appears to the Commission that the owner/dealer is engaged in any act or
practice which constitute or shall constitute a violation of the provisions of these Rules.
 The suspension order/cease and desist order may be lifted if, after notice and hearing, the
Commission is convinced that any deficiency in the sworn registration statement has been
corrected or supplemented, or that the sale to the public of the subdivision project shall
neither be fraudulent nor result in fraud. It shall also be lifted upon dismissal of the
complaint.

Until the final entry of an order of suspension, the suspension of the right to sell the
project, through binding upon all persons notified thereof, shall be deemed confidential
unless it shall appear that the order of suspension has in the meantime been violated.

Sec. 28. Revocation of the Registration Certificate and License to Sell. — The
Commission may, motu propio, or upon verified complaint filed by a buyer revoke the
registration and license to sell of any subdivision project or subdivision lot/house in said project
or condominium unit if upon examination of the affairs of the owner or dealer, during a hearing
conducted it shall appear there is prima facie evidence that the said owner or dealer:

a. Is insolvent; or

b. Has violated any of the provisions of the law and its rules and regulations or any
undertaking of his/its performance bond; or

c. Has been or engaged in fraudulent transaction.

Sec. 29. Administrative Fines and Penalties. — Violation of any of the provision of these
Rules and Standards shall be subject to the Fines and Penalties as provided for under PD's 957,
1216, 1096 and 1185.

RULE VII
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 30. Conformance to the Requirements of other pertinent laws, rules and
regulations. — Unless otherwise amended or expressly provided, the provisions of Presidential
Decree 957 and its Implementing Rules on the following Sections are hereby adopted in these
Rules:
a. Submission of Semestral Reports on Operations
b. Advertisement
c. Time of Completion
d. Extension of Time for Completion
e. Alteration of Plans
f. Non-Forfeiture of Payments
g. Registration of Conveyances
h. Mortgages
i. Take-over development
j. Phases of Subdivision
k. Realty Tax and Other Charges

Sec. 31. Non-Development. — Failure on the part of the owner or developer to develop the
project in accordance with the approved project plans and within the time herein specified shall
subject the owner/developer to administrative sanctions and penalties.

Sec. 32. Organization and Registration of Homeowners. — The owner or developer of a

socialized and economic housing project shall initiate the organization of a homeowners
association among the buyers and residents of the project for the purpose of promoting and
protecting their mutual interest. Said homeowners association shall register with the
Commission and the latter is hereby authorized to accredit and determine the legitimate
homeowners association of the housing project for purposes of applying the pertinent
provisions of these Rules.

Sec. 33. Donations of Roads, Open Spaces and Water Supply. — The owner or project
developer shall donate the roads and open spaces found in the project to the local government
of the area after their completion had been certified to by the Commission and it shall be
mandatory for the said local government to accept such donations. Parks and playgrounds may
be donated to the duly accredited Homeowners Association of the project with the consent of
the city or municipality concerned under PD 1216.

The water supply system of the project may likewise be donated to the duly accredited
homeowners association after certification by the Commission of its completion and of its being
operational. Should the homeowners not accept the donation, the owner or developer of the
project shall collect reasonable rates to be determined by the Commission in consultation with
the National Water Resources Council or the Local Utilities Administration. The proceeds thereof
shall be used exclusively for the maintenance and operation of the water system by the
developer.

Sec. 34. Fees. — Until such time that the Commission shall have adopted new schedule of fees
for economic and social housing projects, it shall apply and collect the fees provided for under
the implementing Rules of PD's 957, 1096 and 1185.

Sec. 35. Authority to Issue Supplemental Rules, Directives and Interpretative

Memorandum and Circular. — In the implementation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 220 and these
Rules and Standards, the Commission, through its Chief Executive Officer, is hereby authorized
to issue supplemental rules, directives and interpretative memorandum and circulars.

Sec. 36. Separability Clause. — The provision of these Rules are hereby declared separable,
and in the event any of such provisions are declared null and void, the validity of all other
provisions shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 37. Effectivity. — These Rules shall take effect thirty days after its last publication in two
newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines for at least once a week for two consecutive
weeks.

Promulgated, 11 June 1982, Makati, Metro Manila.

APPROVED:

(SGD.) IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS

Minister, Ministry of Human
Settlements
Chairman, Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission

ATTESTED:

(SGD.) ERNESTO C. MENDIOLA

Commissioner and
Chief Executive Officer!
!
2. DAR AO 20 GUIDELINES ON AGRICULTURAL
LAND USE CONVERSION
 MALACAÑANG
Manila

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 20

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 20

INTERIM GUIDELINES ON AGRICULTURAL LAND USE CONVERSION

WHEREAS, R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law" (CARL),
implements the policy of the State to promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian
reform;

WHEREAS, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the agency tasked to implement the CARL,
is authorized by law (Title XI, Book IV E.O. No. 292, Series of 1987) to approve or disapprove
conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses such as residential and industrial
conversions in accordance with law;

WHEREAS, Sec. 20 (a) R.A. No. 7160. otherwise known as the "Local Government Code of 1992",
empowers local government units (LGUs) to reclassify agricultural lands in cases (1) where the
land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the
Department of Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value
for residential, commercial, or industrial uses as determined by the sanggunian concerned;

WHEREAS, Sec. 20(c) of the Code also provides that the requirements for food production human
settlements, and industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration is preparing plans for
future use of land resource;

WHEREAS, pending adoption of comprehensive guidelines on land conversion to implement Sec.

20 of the Code, it is deemed necessary to promulgate interim guidelines on agricultural land
conversion based on existing guidelines adopted in accordance with law;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
vested in me by law do hereby direct the observance by all agencies and LGUs concerned of the
following interim guidelines on agricultural land use conversion:

1. All agricultural lands classified hereunder shall not be subject to and non-negotiable
for conversion:
(a) All irrigated lands where water is available to support rice and other crop
production, and all irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other
crop production but are within areas programmed irrigation facility rehabilitation
by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and National Irrigation Administration
(NIA), and

(b) All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm funding
commitments at the time of the application for land use conversion.

2. All agricultural lands other than those referred hereunder as non-negotiable for
conversion may be converted only upon strict compliance with existing laws, rules and
regulations.

This Administrative Order shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation.

Done in the City of Manila, this 7th day of December, in the year of our Lord, nineteen
hundred and ninety-two. (Dec. 7, 1992)
!
3. EO 71 DEVOLVING THE POWERS OF HLURB
TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PLANS
 MALACAÑANG

Manila

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 71

DEVOLVING THE POWERS OF THE HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY

BOARD TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION PLANS, TO CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES
PURSUANT TO R.A. NO. 7160, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LOCAL
GOVERNEMENT CODE OF 1991

WHEREAS, RA 7160 provides that the sangguniang bayan or sangguniang panlungsod,

respectively, shall, subject to national law, process and approve subdivision plan for residential,
commercial, or industrial purposes or other development purposes;

WHEREAS, PD 933, EO 648, S. of 1981, as amended by EO 90, S. of 1986, and

Presidential Decree 957, and other related laws provide for the rule-making standard setting,
enforcement and monitoring and adjudication and settlement of disputes over subdivision,
condominium and other estate development projects;

WHEREAS, RA 7279, otherwise known as the Urban and Housing Development Act of
1992, in effect, reaffirms the above powers and functions of the HLURB;

WHEREAS, there is a need to ensure the effective and efficient devolution of powers to
local government units, and provide for an orderly and smooth transition as well as definition of
future interrelationships between the national and local government units;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of

the powers vested in me by law, upon the recommendation of the Oversight Committee created
under SECTION 533 of RA 7160, do hereby order and direct;

SECTION 1. - Cities and municipalities shall heretofore assume the powers of the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) over the following:

(a) Approval of preliminary as well as final subdivision schemes and development plans
of all subdivisions, residential, commercial, industrial and for other purposes of the public and
private sectors, in accordance with the provisions of PD No. 957 as amended and its
implementing standards, rules and regulations concerning approval of subdivision plans;

(b) Approval of preliminary and final subdivision schemes and development plans of all
economic and socialized housing projects as well as individual or group building and occupancy
permits covered by BP 220 and its implementing standards, rules and regulations;

(c) Evaluation and resolution of opposition against the issuance of development permits
for any of the said projects, in accordance with the said laws and the Rules of Procedure
promulgated by HLURB incident thereto;
 (d) Monitoring the nature and progress of land development of projects it has approved,
as well as housing construction in the case of house and lot packages, to ensure their faithfulness
to the approved plans and specifications thereof, and, imposition of appropriate measures to
enforce compliance therewith.

In the exercise of such responsibilities, the city or municipality concerned shall be guided
by the work program approved by the Board upon evaluation of the developers’ financial,
technical and administrative capabilities;

Moreover, the city or municipality concerned may call on the Board for assistance in the
imposition of administrative sanctions and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the institution of
the criminal proceedings against violators;

(e) Assessment and collection of fees incident to the foregoing.

SECTION 2. - The HLURB shall retain such powers and functions not otherwise
expressly provided herein or under existing laws.

SECTION 3. – Without prejudice to the Board’s overall monitoring, enforcement and

visitorial powers, local chief executives shall designate appropriate local officials who meet or
possess the qualifications, standards and criteria set by the HLURB as enforcement officers who
shall have full power to monitor, investigate and enforce compliance with these provisions of
national laws and standards whose implementation have been devolved to the local government
in accordance with this Order.

Relative to the remaining provisions of the said laws, said officials shall, upon request of
local chief executive concerned, be authorized by the Board to initiate preliminary monitoring
and investigative activities, and issue initial notices to enforce compliance with the Board’s
mandates, orders and decisions. In all such cases, the enforcement officer shall endorse the
records of the case, together with his actions thereon to the Board for its final disposition and
further enforcement actions.

In the exercise of his responsibilities under this Order, the said enforcement officer shall
be under the functional supervision of HLURB, which shall promulgate standard operating
procedures, policy guidelines and instructions for the guidance of said officials and call their
attention to effect such remedial measures as may be necessary.

SECTION 4. - If in the course of evaluation of applications for registration and licensing

of projects within its jurisdiction, HLURB finds that a local government unit has overlooked or
mistakenly applied a certain law, rule or standard in issuing a development permit, it shall
suspend action on and return the application with a corresponding advice to the local government
concerned, so as to afford it an opportunity to take appropriate action thereon. Such return and
advice must likewise be effected within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt by HLURB of
the application.
 SECTION 5. - The following rules shall apply upon the effectivity of this Order.

(a) HLURB shall cease accepting new applications for preliminary approval and
development permit of subdivision projects unless the provisions of the next paragraph
hereunder are applicable, and the city or municipality concerned shall commence accepting and
acting on new applications referred to in paragraph 1 of this Order;

(b) In those cases where the city or municipality concerned have not made any response
to notices of devolution sent by the HLURB, or which have signified their unpreparedness to
immediately assume the devolved functions, as of the said date, HLURB shall continue to act on,
process and approve such applications, until receipt of a subsequent notice from the local
government concerned, in the form of a resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan/Panlungsod that is
ready, desirous and willing to immediately assume such functions; Provided, that, the local
government concerned shall give the HLURB adequate advance notice of their desire to take
over such responsibility, and provide for a transition period of at least thirty (30) days from the
orderly transfer of records and other pertinent documents and materials;

(c) All applications for development permit that are in the active file of HLURB (i.e.,
awaiting responses or documentary requirements) shall forthwith be transferred to the local
government concerned for further processing and continuation of actions, unless the provisions
of the preceding paragraph are applicable.

To ensure orderly transition of functions, HLURB shall, upon effectivity of this Order,
reiterate its communication to the local government concerned, and shall continue to act on all
applications until receipt of response of readiness form the local government concerned.

SECTION 6. - HLURB is hereby directed to extend adequate technical and legal

assistance and training activities to local government units who express the need therefore.

SECTION 7. - If any of the provisions of this Order are declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or inoperative, the remainder hereof not affected thereby shall continue
to remain in force and in effect.

SECTION 8. - This Executive Order supersedes any and all other Orders inconsistent
herewith, and shall take effect immediately upon its publication in two (2) newspapers of general
circulation.

Issued in the City of Manila, this 23rd day of March 1993.

(Sgd.) PRESIDENT FIDEL V. RAMOS

By the President:

(Sgd.) EDELMIRO A. AMANTE, SR.

Executive Secretary
4. EO 72 PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE CLUP
 MALACAÑANG

Manila

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 72

PROVIDING FOR THE PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND

USE PLANS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CODE OF 1991 AND OTHER PERTINENT LAWS.

WHEREAS, RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC), provides that
local government units (LGUs) shall, in conformity with existing laws, continue to prepare their
respective comprehensive land use plans enacted through zoning ordinances which shall be the
primary and dominant bases for the future use of land resources;

WHEREAS, the LGC further provides that the requirements for food production, human settlements,
and industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration in the preparation of comprehensive land use
plans;

WHEREAS, PD 933 and EO 648, S. of 1981, as amended by EO 90, S. of 1986, empower the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLRB) to review, evaluate, and approve or disapprove land use plans
of cities and municipalities;

WHEREAS, the aforesaid laws likewise authorize the HLRB to prescribe the standards and guidelines
governing the preparation of land use plans, to monitor the implementation of such plans, and to
adjudicate and settle the disputes among LGUs over their land use plans and zoning programs;

WHEREAS, RA 7279, otherwise known as the Urban and Housing Development Act of 1992, in effect,
reaffirms the above powers and functions of the HLRB;

WHEREAS, there is a need to delineate the powers and responsibilities of the LGUs and the HLRB in
the preparation and implementation of comprehensive land use plans under a decentralized framework
of local governance;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested
in me by law, upon the recommendation of the Oversight Committee created under Sec. 533 of the
LGC, do hereby order and direct:

SECTION 1. Plan formulation or updating. − (a) Cities and municipalities shall continue to formulate or
update their respective comprehensive land use plans, in conformity with the land use planning and
zoning standards and guidelines prescribed by the HLRB pursuant to national policies.

As a policy recommending body of the LGU, the city or municipal development council (CDC/MDC)
shall initiate the formulation or updating of its land use plan, in consultation with the concerned sectors
in the community. For this purpose, the CDC/MDC may seek the assistance of any local official or field
officer of NGAs operating in the LGU.

The city or municipal planning and development coordinator (CPDC/MPDC) and/or the city or municipal
agriculturist, if there is any, shall provide the technical support services and such other assistance as
may be required by the CDC/MDC to effectively carry out this function.

1
The comprehensive land use plan prepared by the CDC/MDC shall be submitted to the sangguniang
panlungsod or sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, for enactment into a zoning ordinance. Such
ordinance shall be enacted and approved in accordance with Articles 107 and 107 of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the LGC.

(b) The comprehensive land use plans of component cities and municipalities shall be formulated,
adopted, or modified in accordance with the approved provincial comprehensive land use plans.

(c) Cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila shall continue to formulate or update their respective
comprehensive land use plans, in accordance with the land use planning and zoning standards and
guidelines prescribed by the HLRB pursuant to EO 392, S. of 1990, and other pertinent national
policies.

(d) Provinces shall formulate and update their respective comprehensive land use plans in accordance
with the national standards and guidelines.

As a policy recommending body of the province, the provincial development council (PDC) shall initiate
the formulation or updating of its land use plan, in consultation with the concerned sectors in its
component units. For this purpose, it may seek the assistance of any provincial official or field officer of
NGAs operating in the province.

The provincial planning and development coordinator (PPDC) and/or the provincial agriculturist (PA)
shall provide the technical support services and such other assistance as may be required by the PDC
to effectively carry out this function.

The comprehensive land use plan prepared by the PDC shall be submitted to the sangguniang
panlalawigan for enactment into an ordinance. Such ordinance shall be enacted and approved in
accordance with Articles 107 and 108 of the IRR of the LGC.

SECTION 2. Plan review and approval. − (a) Pursuant to Section 468 (a−2−vii) of the LGC, the powers
of the HLRB to review and approve the comprehensive land use plans of component cities and
municipalities are hereby devolved to the province. Such powers shall be exercised by the sangguniang
panlalawigan, subject to national standards and guidelines.

(b) There shall be established in every province a Provincial Land Use Committee (PLUC) to assist the
sangguniang panlalawigan in reviewing the comprehensive land use plans of component cities and
municipalities. The PLUC shall review such plans to −

1. Ensure that land use plans of component cities and municipalities are consistent with the
provincial comprehensive land use plan and national policies, standards, and guidelines;

(2) Recommend solutions to settle disputes among component units over alternative uses of land
resources;

(3) Promote the community−based program for sustainable development; and

(4) Ensure that such plans are supportive of the objectives set forth in the Urban and Housing
Development Act of 1992.

For purposes of policy coordination and uniformity in operational directions, the PLUC shall be attached
to the PDC.

2
Any local planning and development coordinator and other officials of component units and field officers
of NGAs operating in the province or region may be called upon by the PLUC to assist in the review of
said plans. The technical secretariat of the PDC shall provide the necessary support services to the
PLUC.

(c) The PLUC shall be composed of the provincial planning and development coordinator as chairman,
the provincial agriculturist, a representative of non−governmental organizations (NGOs) that are
represented in the PDC, and representatives from the following NGAs, as members:

1. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board;

2. Department of Environment and Natural Resources;
3. Department of Agrarian Reform;
4. Department of Trade and Industry;
5. Department of Public Works and Highways;
6. Department of Tourism; and
7. Department of the Interior and Local Government

The PLUC shall call upon the concerned CPDC or MPDC whenever their respective land use plans are
deliberated by the Committee.

The PLUC, through the chairman, shall submit its findings and recommendations to the sangguniang
panlalawigan, which shall be considered by the said sanggunian in making its decision.

(d) The Regional Land Use Committee (RLUC) shall review the comprehensive land use plans of
provinces, highly−urbanized cities, and independent component cities. It shall review such plans to
ensure their consistency with the Regional Physical Framework Plan (RPFP) and national policies set
forth by the NLUC.

(e) Pursuant to LOI 729, S. of 1978, EO 648 S. of 1981, and RA 7279, the comprehensive land use
plans of provinces, highly−urbanized cities and independent component cities shall be reviewed and
ratified by the HLRB to ensure compliance with national standards and guidelines.

(f) Pursuant to EO 392 S. of 1990, the comprehensive land use plans of cities and municipalities of
Metropolitan Manila shall be reviewed by HLRB to ensure compliance with national standards and
guidelines.

(g) Said review shall be completed within three (3) months upon receipt thereof otherwise, the same
shall be deemed consistent with law and, therefore, valid.

SECTION 3. Plan implementation. − (a) The authority of the HLRB to issue locational clearances for
locally−significant projects is hereby devolved to cities and municipalities with comprehensive land use
plans reviewed and approved in accordance with this Order. Such cities and municipalities shall
likewise be responsible for the institution of other actions in the enforcement of the provisions thereof.
For this purpose, they may call on the HLRB and such other NGAs for any legal and technical
assistance.

Based on established national standards and priorities, the HLRB shall continue to issue locational
clearances for projects considered to be of vital and national or regional economic or environmental
significance. Unless otherwise declared by the NEDA Board, all projects shall be presumed
locally−significant.

(b) All fees and other charges previously collected by the HLRB for the issuance of locational

3
clearances shall now accrue entirely to the city or municipality concerned.

(c) Within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Order, the HLRB shall design and install an
information system to monitor −

1. changes in the actual use of land resources; and

(2) the implementation of comprehensive land use plans by LGUs with a view to ensuring compliance
with national policies, standards, and guidelines.

SECTION 4. Provision of technical assistance. − (a) The HLRB is hereby directed to install new and
appropriate mechanisms for the extension of technical and other forms of assistance to cities and
municipalities to ensure that their land use plans conform to prescribed standards and guidelines and
are consistent with national policies and other issuances of the National Land Use Committee (NLUC).

SECTION 5. Transitory provision. − Provisions of Sec. 3 (a), to the contrary notwithstanding, cities and
municipalities with land use plans approved not earlier than 01 January 1989, shall issue locational
clearances; Provided, that said LGU shall update their respective land use plans within five (5) years
from the approval of such plans.

(b) The HLRB and the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) are directed to extend
technical and other forms of assistance to provinces to ensure that their land use plans are consistent
with pertinent national policies, standards, and guidelines.

In addition, other NGAs concerned with land use are hereby directed to extend such technical
assistance as may be requested by LGUs. Such assistance shall be extended at no extra cost to LGUs.

SECTION 6. Effectivity. − This Order shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila the 25th day of March in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
ninety−three.

(SGD.) FIDEL V. RAMOS

By the President:

EDELMIRO A. AMANTE, SR.

Executive Secretary

4
5. EO 90 CREATING HOUSING and URBAN
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
 MALACAÑANG
Manila

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 90

December 17, 1986

IDENTIFYING THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ESSENTIAL FOR THE NATIONAL SHELTER PROGRAM
AND DEFINING THEIR MANDATES, CREATING THE HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATING COUNCIL, RATIONALIZING FUNDING SOURCES AND LENDING MECHANISMS FOR
HOME MORTGAGES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, Government recognizes that shelter is a basic need for which low and middle income families,
particularly in urbanized areas, require assistance;

WHEREAS, Government has approved a six-year National Shelter Program which aims at providing increased
levels of such assistance on a nation-wide basis;

WHEREAS, there is a need to define the mandates of government agencies involved in housing and to better
coordinate and monitor their activities;

WHEREAS, there is also a need to establish a system that will provide the funds required for long-term housing
loans on continuous, self-sustaining basis;

WHEREAS, there is likewise a need to encourage private sector participation in low-cost housing and finance;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, do hereby order:

Title I
HOUSING AGENCIES AND MANDATES

Sec. 1. Key Agencies. To ensure the accomplishment of the National Shelter Program, the following primary
government housing agencies, any provision of existing laws and their respective charters to contrary
notwithstanding, are hereby mandated to:

a) National Housing Authority The National Housing Authority shall be the sole government agency
engaged in direct shelter production. It shall focus its efforts in providing housing, assistance to the lowest
30% of urban income-earners through slum upgrading, squatter relocation, development of sites and
services and construction of core-housing units. In addition, it shall undertake programs for the
improvement of blighted urban areas and provide technical assistance for private developers undertaking
low-cost housing projects. Development of its existing properties for housing projects for income-earners
above the lowest 30% may be continued provided that funds generated thereon are utilized for the
attainment of its primary mandate.

b) National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation The National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation shall
be the major government home mortgage institution. Its initial main function is to operate a viable home
mortgage market, utilizing long term funds principally provided by the Social Security System, the
Government Service Insurance System and the Home Development Mutual Fund to purchase mortgages
originated by both private and public institutions that are within government approved guidelines. It also
charged with the development of a system that will attract private institutional funds into long-term
housing mortgages.

c) Human Settlements Regulatory Commission The Human Settlements Regulatory Commission;

renamed as the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, shall be the sole regulatory body for housing
and land development. It is charged with encouraging greater private sector participation in low-cost
housing through liberalization of development standards, simplification of regulations and decentralization
of approvals for permits and licenses.
 d) Home Financing Corporation The Home Financing Corporation, renamed as the Home Insurance and
Guaranty Corporation, shall assist private developers to undertake low and middle income mass housing
production and encourage private institutional funds and commercial lenders to finance such housing
development and long-term mortgages through a viable system of guarantees, loan insurance and other
incentives.

Sec. 2. Support Agencies. To ensure that the funds required for long-term housing loans are available on a
continuous and self-sustaining basis, the following support agencies, any provision of existing laws and their
respective charters to the contrary notwithstanding, are hereby mandated to:

a) Home Development Mutual Fund The Home Development Mutual Fund will continue to administer
provident fund contributions collected from member employees and employers, utilizing funds not
required for provident benefits for housing loans for members, and, in addition, will be charged with the
development of saving schemes for home acquisition by private and government employees.

b) Social Security System The Social Security System shall be the primary provider of funds long-term
housing mortgages for low and middle-income private sector employees.

c) Government Service Insurance System The Government Service Insurance System shall be the
primary provider of funds for long-term housing mortgages for low and middle-income government
employees.

Title II
THE HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL

Sec. 3. Creation; Main Function; Principal Office. There is hereby created a Housing and Urban Development
Coordinating Council, hereinafter referred to as the Council, under the immediate control and supervision of the
President of the Philippines, charged with the main function of coordinating the activities of the government
housing agencies to ensure the accomplishment of the National Shelter Program. The Council shall have its
principal office in Metropolitan Manila.

Sec. 4. Composition. The Council shall be composed of the following:

a. A Chairman, who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines;

b. The Head of the primary government agencies and the support agencies for funding for housing
enumerated above;

c. One representative each from the National Economic and Development Authority, the Ministry of
Finance, the Ministry of Budget and Management, the Ministry of Public Works and Highways and the
Development Bank of the Philippines; and

d. Two representatives from the private sector to be selected by the Council.

Sec. 5. Powers and Functions of the Council. The Council shall have the following powers and functions:

a. To formulate national objectives for housing and urban development and to design broad strategies for
the accomplishment of these objectives;

b. To determine the participation and coordinate the activities of the key government housing agencies in
the national housing program;

c. To monitor, review and evaluate the effective exercise by these agencies of their assigned functions;

d. To assist in the maximum participation of the private sector in all aspects of housing and urban
developments;
 e. To recommend new legislation and amendments to existing laws as may be necessary for the
attainment of government's objectives in housing;

f. To formulate the basic policies, guidelines and implementing mechanisms for the disposal or
development of acquired or existing assets of the key housing agencies which are not required for the
accomplishment of their basic mandates;

g. To exercise or perform such other powers and functions as may be deemed necessary, proper or
incidental to the attainment of its purpose and objectives.

Sec. 6. Powers and Functions of the Chairman. The Chairman of the Council shall serve as ex officio
Chairman of the governing Boards of the key housing agencies. To assist him in the fulfillment of his duties, the
Chairman is hereby authorized to create a Council Secretariat with a staff of qualified personnel.

Sec. 7. Council Secretariat. The Secretariat shall be headed by a Secretary-General to be appointed by the
Chairman of the Council. The Secretary-General shall be an ex officio member of the Council and shall be
responsible for the execution and administration of its approved policies and measures.

Sec. 8. Appropriations. To cover initially the expenses of the Council and the Secretariat, the unappropriated
funds of the Ministry of Human Settlements for the Shelter Secretariat shall be utilized together with
proportionate contributions of the key government housing agencies which is set at TEN MILLION PESOS
(P10,000.00). Thereafter, the necessary funds shall be appropriated every Fiscal Year in the General
Appropriations Act.

Title III
RATIONALIZING THE FUNDING SOURCES AND LENDING MECHANISM FOR HOME MORTGAGES

Sec. 9. Funding Sources. To enable the Social Security System, the Government Service Insurance System
and the Home Development Mutual Fund to provide improved benefits to their members and to generate the
necessary long-term funds for housing, a rationalization of all employer and employee contributions for all social
insurance and provident fund benefits is hereby directed to include the following:

a. Raising the Social Security System maximum compensation, inclusive of the Cost of Living
Allowances, as a basis for contributions from P1,000.00 to P3,000.00;

b. Making contributions to the Home Development Mutual Fund voluntary on the parts of both employees
and employers;

c. Instituting a single mandatory contribution rate for employees and employers for all social insurance
programs.

Sec. 10. Home Development Mutual Fund as Voluntary Fund. In the implementation of the above
rationalization program, the following shall govern the operations of the Home Development Mutual Fund:

a. All existing contributions together with their accumulated earnings shall be retained in the Home
Development Mutual Fund until their maturity in accordance with existing rules and regulations.

b. Membership in the funds for new private and government employees and their respective employees
shall be voluntary after December 31, 1986.

c. After December 31, 1986, existing members, both employees and employers, shall have the option to
continue or discontinue new Fund contributions.

d. To encourage provident fund savings for home acquisition, all government instrumentalities, agencies
and corporations shall match the voluntary contributions made by government employees in accordance
with existing ratios. Private employers are urged to match the contributions of their employees who opt to
continue their membership in the Fund.
Sec. 11. Implementing Rules. The Presidential Commission on Government Reorganization (PCGR) is hereby
instructed to draft implementing rules for the rationalization of the Home Mortgage Financing System and for the
new Home Development Mutual Fund guidelines to take effect on January 1, 1987. The National Economic and
Development Authority is hereby instructed to coordinate the drafting of the implementing rules for the
rationalization of all social insurance programs to take effect not later than March 31, 1987.

Sec. 12. Home Mortgage Financing Corporation. Complementary to the rationalization of the Funding
Sources as above provided, an integrated home mortgage financing system is hereby adopted with the
following features:

a) Landing Guidelines Amounts financed, interest rates, and terms on home mortgages to be purchased
by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation shall be determined by the Council on
recommendation by its technical staff which shall include representatives of the funding institutions.

b) Allocation of Fund Contributions For 1987, the total amount to be made available for long term
mortgages under the National Shelter Program will be P4.2 billion. The Social Security System, the
Government Service Insurance System, and the Home Development Mutual Fund will contribute a total of
P3.4 Billion, to be allocated by the National Economic and Development Authority among the agencies in
an equitable manner. The National Government shall contribute the balance of funds required.
Thereafter, each institution, on recommendation of the Council, shall set a fixed percentage of their
annual investible funds for long-term home mortgages. These funds shall be made available to the
National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation under terms which ensure their repayment.

c) Lending rates Chargeable to the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation Funds shall be used by
the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation principally to extend mortgage loans for the members
of the funding agencies. For this, the agencies will charge the National Home Mortgage Finance
Corporation annual interest equivalent to the average interest rate charged to members under terms
approved by the council less a reasonable spread to cover the National Home Mortgage Finance
Corporation's administration costs as well as adequate provisions for loans losses. The funding agencies
may also make direct loans or purchase securities from the National House Mortgage Finance
Corporation. In this event, interest rates and terms shall be as agreed between the National Home
Mortgage Finance Corporation and the funding Institution.

Sec. 13. Interim Arrangement. A phasing-in process for the implementation of the Home Mortgage Financing
System as above provided shall be determined and implemented by the Council over a period not to exceed six
months. In the interim, the Social Security System, the Government Security Insurance System and the Home
Development Mutual Fund shall continue with their home mortgage lending activities provided that the
beneficiaries, lending packages, rates, terms and procedures shall be made uniform and in accord with the
National Shelter Program not later than December 31, 1986. Such loans shall be considered as partial
compliance with each agency's funding commitments for the year.

Title IV
OTHER PROVISIONS

Sec. 14. Special Provisions. To further assist the housing agencies in the fulfillment of their primary
objectives, the following are directed to be undertaken:

a. The Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, within its area of jurisdiction, shall immediately
take over water and sewerage systems completed by the National Housing Authority.

b. The direct housing development activities of the Human Settlement Development Corporation's
housing and construction materials subsidiaries as well as the Land Investment Trust administered by the
Home Financing Corporation shall be phased out within a period of three (3) years from the effectivity of
this Executive Order. All concerned agencies shall, not later than March 31, 1987, submit to the Council
their respective phasing-out programs. Whatever net proceeds realized therefrom shall be turned over to
the National Government.
 c. The Social Security System and the Government Service Insurance System shall be allowed to engage
in bridge development financing of low and middle income mass housing projects;
The National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation shall be recapitalized so that its unimpaired capital
after realistic provisions for losses amounts to P500 million.

e. The Home Financing Corporation shall be recapitalized to enable it to fulfill objectives.

Sec. 15. Separability. The provisions of this Executive Order are declared to be separable and if any provision
or the application thereof is held invalid or unconstitutional, the validity of other provisions shall not be affected.

Sec. 16. Repealing Clause. All laws, orders, issuances, corporate charters, rules and regulations or parts
thereof inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Sec. 17. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately. lawphi1.net

Done in the City of Manila, this 17th day of December, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred eighty-six.

!
6. EO 648 REORGANIZING THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
REGULATORY COMMISSION
 MALACAÑANG
Manila

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 648

February 7, 1981

REORGANIZING THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS REGULATORY COMMISSION

WHEREAS, it is the national policy to promote innovative land development and land use control measures as
a technology for building communities;

WHEREAS, it is necessary to provide full support to the government's policies and programs on Human
Settlements through effective land use and development control measures by strengthening the regulatory arm
of the Ministry of Human Settlements;

WHEREAS, under Presidential Decree No. 1416, the President is empowered to undertake such organizational
and related improvements as may be appropriate in the Light of Changing Circumstances and New
Developments.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested
in me by the Constitution and the Authority vested in me by the Presidential Decree No. 1416, do hereby order
and ordain:

ART. I.
TITLE
Sec. 1. Title. This shall be known as the Chapter of the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.

ART. II.
DECLARATION OF POLICIES

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policies and Objectives. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state to implement
an integrated program of land use control for the entire country in accordance with the following objectives:

a. To foster the growth and renewal of our Urban and Rural communities in an integrative manner that
promotes optimum land use, adequate shelter, and environmental protection/all these/towards the
development of man as a total human being.

b. To bring about the optimum use of land as a national resource for public welfare rather than as a
commodity of trade subject to price speculation and indiscriminate use.

c. To enforce, implement, coordinate, streamline, improve and optimize land use policies and regulations
on human settlements, including the implementation and enforcement of the regulatory aspect of the
Urban Land Reform Program, the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer's Protective Decree, Land Value
and Building Rental regulations and other related laws.

ART. III.
DEFINITIONS

Sec. 3. Definitions. For the purpose of this Order and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, the
terms of words used herein shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, mean or be understood to mean as
follows:

a) "Commission" means the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.

b) "Commission proper" refers to the Commissioners of the Commission appointed by the President and
its ex-officio members provided for in section 6 of this Order.

c) "Function" includes powers and duties.

 ART. IV.
ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTITUTION, POWERS, DUTIES

Sec. 4. Creation of the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.

a) There is hereby established a Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, hereinafter referred to as
the Commission, with powers and attributes of a quasi-judicial body which shall be attached to the
Ministry of Human Settlements.

Sec. 5. Powers and Duties of the Commission.

a) Promulgate zoning and other land use control standards and guidelines which shall govern land use
plans and zoning ordinances of local governments; the zoning components of civil works and
infrastructure projects of the national, regional and local governments; sub-division or estate development
projects of both the public and private sectors; and urban renewal plans, programs and projects: provided
that the zoning and other land use control standards and guidelines to be promulgated hereunder shall
respect the classification of public lands for forest purposes as certified by the Ministry of Natural
Resources.

b) Review, evaluate and approve or disapprove comprehensive land use development plans and zoning
ordinances of local government; and the zoning component of civil works and infrastructure projects of
national, regional and local governments; subdivisions, condominiums or estate development projects
including industrial estates, of both the public and private sectors and urban renewal plans, programs and
projects: Provided, that the land use Development Plans and Zoning Ordinances of Local Governments
herein subject to review, evaluation and approval of the commission shall respect the classification of
public lands for forest purposes as certified by the Ministry of Natural Resources: Provided, further, that
the classification of specific alienable and disposable lands by the Bureau of Lands shall be in
accordance with the relevant zoning ordinance of Local government where it exists: and provided, finally,
that in cities and municipalities where there are as yet no zoning ordinances, the Bureau of Lands may
dispose of specific alienable and disposable lands in accordance with its own classification scheme
subject to the condition that the classification of these lands may be subsequently change by the local
governments in accordance with their particular zoning ordinances which may be promulgated later.

c) Issue rules and regulations to enforce the land use policies and human settlements as provided for in
Presidential Decrees No. 399, 815, 933, 957, 1216, 1344, 1396, 1517, Letter of Instructions No. 713, 729,
833, 935 and other related laws regulating the use of land including the regulatory aspects of the Urban
Land Reform Act and all decrees relating to regulation of the value of land and improvements, and their
rental.

d) Ensure compliance with policies, plans, standards and guidelines on human settlements promulgated
in paragraph (a) of this section.

e) Conduct public hearings relating to its functions.

f) Act as the appellate body on decisions and actions of local and regional planning and zoning bodies
and of the deputized officials of the Commission, on matters arising from the performance of these
functions.

g) Promote, encourage, coordinate and assist private enterprises and government agencies and
instrumentalities in planning, developing and coordinating human settlements plans and programs by
furnishing legal, technical and professional assistance.

h) Develop and implement prototype projects supportive of its regulatory functions either by itself or as
part of an inter-agency group or by contract with such appropriate public or private entities as it may
deem proper.

i) Call on any government employee or any department, bureau, office, agency or instrumentality of the
government or private entities and organizations for cooperation and assistance in the exercise of its
functions.
 j) Adopt rules of procedures for the conduct of its business.

k) Staff its organization with appropriate and qualified personnel in accordance with that is deemed proper
or necessary to achieve the objectives of the Commission.

l) Make or enter into contracts of any kind of nature to enable it to discharge its functions under this
Order.

m) Acquire, purchase, own, lease, mortgage, sell or otherwise dispose of any land, or any improvements
thereon, or property of any kind, movable and immovable, exercise the right of eminent domain by
expropriating the land improvements thereon, which in the opinion of the Commission, are vital and
necessary to develop and implement prototype projects supportive of its regulatory functions.

n) Charge and collect fees in the performance of its functions.

o) Impose administrative fine not exceeding Twenty-Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) for any violation of its
charter and of its rules and regulations.

p) Issue orders after conducting the appropriate investigation for the cessation or closure of any use or
activity and to issue orders to vacate or demolish any building or structure that is determines to have
violated or failed to comply with any of the laws, presidential decrees, letters of instructions, executive
orders and other presidential issuances and directives being implemented by it, either on its own motion
or upon complaint of any interested party. lawphi1.net

q) Cite and declare any person, entity or enterprise in contempt of the Commission in the following case:

1) Whenever any person entity or enterprise commits any disorderly or disrespectful conduct
before the Commission or in the presence of its members or authorized representatives actually
engaged in the exercise of their official functions or during the conduct of any hearing or official
inquiry by the said Commission, at the place or near the premises where such hearing or
proceeding is being conducted with obstruct, distract, interfere or in any other way disturb, the
performance of such functions or the conduct of such hearing or proceeding;

2) Whenever any person, enterprise or entity fails or refuses to comply with or obey without
justifiable reason, any lawful order, decision, writ or process of the Commission. In connection
therewith, it may in cases falling within the first paragraph hereof, summarily impose a fine of an
amount not exceeding P2,000.00 and order the confinement of the violator for a period that shall
not exceed the duration of the hearing or proceeding or the performance of such functions, and in
cases falling within the second paragraph, hereof, it may, in addition to the administrative fine
abovementioned, impose a fine of P500.00 for each day that the violation or failure or refusal to
comply continues, and order the confinement of the offender until the order or decision shall have
been complied with;

In case the offender is a partnership, corporation or association or enterprise, the above fine shall
be imposed on the assets of such entity and the president, managing partner or chief executive
officer shall be ordered confined.

r) Perform such other functions and activities which are necessary for the effective accomplishment of the
abovementioned functions.

No injunction or restraining order shall lie against the Commission upon the ex parte motion or petition filed by
any person or entity in the exercise by the Commission of its regulatory functions in support of the
implementation of the Urban Land Reform Program as declared in Proclamation Nos. 1893 and 1967 and of
other programs or projects as may be declared by the president as national priority.

Decisions of the Commission shall be appealable to the President of the Philippines whose decision shall be
final subject only to review by the Supreme Court by certiorari or on questions of law.
Sec. 6. Commission Proper.
a) Composition
The powers of the Commission shall be vested in a nine-man commission hereinafter referred to as the
Commission Proper which shall consist of the following members:

(i) The Minister of Human Settlements or in his absence the Deputy Minister, who shall act as
Chairman.

(ii) Four full-time Commissioners to be appointed by the President, one as the chief executive
officer, and three who shall be assigned specific functions by the Commission Proper;

(iii) The Deputy Minister of Justice;

(iv) The Deputy Director-General of the National Economic & Development Authority;

(v) The Deputy Minister of Local Government and Community Development; and

(vi) The Deputy Minister of Public Works, as members.

The four full-time Commissioners and the Deputy Minister of Justice are hereby constituted as the
Executive Committee of the Commission, and said committee shall act for and in behalf of the
Commission Proper subject to the ratification of the latter.

Where a Ministry has more than one Deputy Minister. The Minister shall designate which Deputy Minister
shall be a member of the Commission.

The Commission Proper shall maintain its secretary who shall be a lawyer, to be appointed by the
Chairman upon recommendation of the chief executive officer. He shall have the same rank, salary and
privileges as the directors of the Commission.

(b) Qualification and Tenure

Three of the full-time Commissioners shall be lawyers, while the other full-time Commissioner shall have
a background or experience in planning, management or architecture or related fields. These
Commissioners shall at least have been engaged in the practice of their respective professions or
specialization or employed in an appropriate office for a period at least five (5) years. All the full-time
Commissioners shall be appointed by the President for a term of six years each: Provided, however, that
in the initial appointments, the chief executive officer shall have a term of six years, while the three others
shall have terms of five years, four years and two years respectively, as fixed in their respective
appointments.

c) Salary and Privileges

The full-time Commissioners shall receive such salary and enjoy the privileges in accordance with
existing laws. The ex-officio Commissioners shall be entitled to receive such honoraria and per diems as
may be determined by the Commission Proper in accordance with existing laws and regulations.

Sec. 7. Duties and Responsibilities of the Chief Executive Officer. The Chief Executive Officer shall have
the following duties and responsibilities.

a) To execute and/or administer the policies and measures approved by the Commission Proper.

b) To appoint and maintain an adequate technical, legal and administrative staff; subject to the approval
of the Commission Proper after the initial organization of the Commission. The Commission Proper may
delegate this appointing power to the Chief Executive Officer.

c) To direct, manage and supervise the day-to-day operations and internal administration of the
Commission in accordance with the policies laid down by the Commission Proper.

d) To establish the internal organization of the Commission subject to the approval of the Commission
Proper.
 e) To prepare the agenda for the meetings of the commission proper.

f) To submit, for the consideration of the Commission Proper the policies and measures which he
believes necessary to carry out the purposes and provisions of this order.

g) To enter into contracts or agreements pursuant to policies or guidelines set by the Commission.

h) To represent the Commission in all dealing with other offices, agencies, and instrumentalities of the
government, persons and entities, public or private, domestic, foreign or international, unless the
chairman provides otherwise;

i) To represent the Commission, either personally or through counsel, in any legal proceedings or actions;

j) To exercise such other duties and responsibilities as may be vested in or assigned to him by the
Commission Proper.

Decisions of the Chief Executive Officer shall be appealable to the Commission Proper.

The Chief Executive Officer may delegate any of his administrative responsibilities to other officials or
employees of the Commission subject to the approval of the Commission Proper.

ART. VII.
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 8. Transfer of Functions. The regulatory functions of the National Housing Authority pursuant to
Presidential Decrees No. 957, 1216, 1344 and other related laws are hereby transferred to the Commission,
together with such applicable personnel, appropriation, records, equipment and property necessary for the
enforcement and implementation of such functions. Among these regulatory functions are:

(1) Regulation of the real estate trade and business;

(2) Registration of subdivision lots and condominium projects;

(3) Issuance of license to sell subdivision lots and condominium units in the registered units;

(4) Approval of performance bond and the suspension of license to sell;

(5) Registration of dealers, brokers and salesman engaged in the business of selling subdivision lots or
condominium units;

(6) Revocation of registration of dealers, brokers and salesmen;

(7) Approval or mortgage on any subdivision lot or condominium unit made by the owner of developer;

(8) Granting of permits for the alteration of plans and the extension of period for completion of subdivision
or condominium projects;

(9) Approval of the conversion to other purposes of roads and open spaces found within the project which
have been donated to the city or municipality concerned;

(10) Regulation of the relationship between lessors and lessees; and

(11) Hear and decide cases on unsound real estate business practices; claims involving refund filed
against project owners, developers, dealers, brokers or salesmen and cases of specific performance.
Sec. 9. Income. Authority is hereby vested on the Commission to directly utilize income generated from fees,
fines, charges and other collections in the performance of its functions to defray operating expenses and
provide allowances for its personnel.

Sec. 10. Professional and Technical Personnel. The professional and technical personnel of the Commission
shall be exempt from the wage and position classification of the Office of Compensation and Position
Classification.

Sec. 11. Administrative Fines. The Commission may prescribe and impose fines not exceeding ten thousand
pesos for violations of the provisions of this executive order or of any rule or regulations thereunder. Fines shall
be payable to the Commission and enforceable through writs of execution in accordance with the provisions of
the rules of court. This fines shall be in addition to such other administrative sanctions as the Commission may
impose.

Sec. 12. Penalties. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this executive order and/or any rule or
regulation that may be issued pursuant to this decree shall, upon conviction by the appropriate court, be
punished by a fine of not more than twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos and/or imprisonment of prision
correccional: Provided, that in the case of corporations, partnership, cooperatives or associations, the president,
manager or administrator or the person who has charge of the administration of the business shall be criminally
responsible for any violation of this decree and/or the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

Sec. 13. Repealing Clause. The provisions of Presidential Decree No. 933, P.D. No. 757 and P.D. No. 957 and
all other laws, Presidential Decrees, Letter of Implementation and Executive Order inconsistent herewith are
hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Sec. 14. Separability Clause. In case this Order or any part thereof is found to be unconstitutional or invalid for
any reason the remainder thereof not affected by declaration of invalidity shall remain in force and in effect.

Sec. 15. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.

Done in the City of Manila, this 7th day of February, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty one.

!
7. PA 21 PHILIPPINE AGENDA-21
 Social Threefolding:
Towards a New Concept and Practice of
Democracy and Societal Governance.
The Case of the Philippines
By Nicanor Perlas

1
 INTRODUCTION

This case study will not focus on one “project”. Rather it will deal with a “meta-project”,
a series of interrelated initiatives or “projects” undertaken in the past 10 years. The
objective of this meta-project is to conceptualize, implement, and mainstream a new
approach that would be mobilize a broad and diverse segment of society to achieve living
democracy and societal governance, and ultimately, comprehensive sustainable
development.

This meta-project was not originally conceived in the beginning as a meta-project. The
realization that it was a meta-project emerged during the course of trying to mainstream a
central aspect of this meta-project: Philippine Agenda 21 (PA21).

Because its nature requires the piecing together of its different elements through a decade
of time, the meta-project will be initially elaborated from the perspective of an individual
who has been intimately involved, in various leadership positions, with the different
phases and the totality of the “meta-project”.

CHALLENGES AND POINTS OF DEPARTURE

Taken as a whole, the meta-project had a number of challenges that it was responding to.
Table 1 summarizes the challenges faced by the meta-project and the approximate dates
these challenges surfaced and were addressed. Immediately following below is a
discussion on the context and details of these challoenges.

TABLE 1: CHALLENGES AND THEIR TIME PERIOD

CHALLENGE TIME PERIOD

Global Agenda 21 1992-1996
WTO 1994-1996, Onwards
APEC 1996
UNCSD 1998
PA21 Implementation/Sustainability 1998, Onwards
Democracy and Governance 2001, Onwards
Identity, Integrity, and Cohesion 2002, Onwards

1. Global Agenda 21 Challenge (1992-1994, onwards)

The Philippine government, under the leadership of President Corazon Aquino,

participated as a signatory to the global agreement known as global Agenda 21, inked at
the historical Earth Summit of 1992 held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The sustainable
development substance of global Agenda 21 potentially conflicted with a significant
number of existing and projected policies and programs of the Philippine government. In
addition, there were different and often conflicting understandings of what “sustainable

2
development” was. Finally, shortly after the Earth Summit, the Philippines had a new
political leadership under President Fidel Ramos.

Challenge: Given these circumstances, how does one align the national policies and
programs of government with global Agenda 21?

2. WTO Challenge (1994-1996, onwards)

Two years after the governments of the world launched global Agenda 21, they crafted
the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements in 1994. A former senior official
accurately described the WTO as the “constitution of the world”. The direction and
substance of the WTO, formerly inaugurated in 1995, basically diverged from that of
global Agenda 21, as can be seen in the continuing difficulties of the WTO to address
sustainable development issues. In addition, the WTO is obligatory while Agenda 21 is
voluntary. Furthermore, the WTO aimed and continues to bring in ever larger domains of
societal life, including culture and governance, under its control. This can be clearly seen,
among others, in the current debates surrounding the General Agreement on Trade in
Services (GATS).

Challenge: How does one ensure that Philippine commitments to the sustainable
development thrust of global Agenda 21 are not compromised with the entry of the
country into the World Trade Organization (WTO)?

3. The APEC Challenge (1996)

The proponents of the WTO were not satisfied with the huge victories they obtained with
the passage of the WTO and the subsequent global alignment of constitutions of nation
states and government policies and programs towards its principles. In particular, they
wanted to convert the 18-country Asia Pacific Economic Forum (APEC) into a WTO +
trade and investment liberalization area.. The proponents wanted radical liberalization for
APEC which, in 1996, constituted 52% of the world’s economy and included giant
economies like the USA, Japan, Mexico and China. They believed that, as APEC goes, so
will the WTO. As the WTO goes, so will the world.

Challenge: How does one address the inherent risks and opportunities associated with the
intent of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), including the Philippines, to be
the WTO + region of the world?

4. UN and UNCSD Challenge (1998)

The WTO challenged Agenda 21 as the overriding development framework.

Simultaneously it challenged the UN as the de facto center of world governance. For
example, instead of the FAO, the Agreement on Agriculture of the WTO became the
operative framework for organizing most countries around the world. Instead of
UNCTAD, the WTO became the reference and determinative body in world trade.

3
Increasingly, with the growth of the WTO, the UN became more and more
inconsequential in world affairs.

Challenge: How could one assist the UN from merely becoming an appendage of the
increasingly powerful WTO which was slowly marginalizing the different UN agencies?

5. The PA21 Implementation and Sustainability Challenge (1998, onwards)

The meta-project had achieved significant victories and gains. However, it faced two
significant challenges. First, while there was wide spread support for PA21, government
agencies implemented them in an erratic manner. A few seriously took up the challenge
of implementation and advanced the reality of PA21.. But most government agencies at
the national and local levels ignored its implementation. Second, there was a change in
the political leadership of the country. The new President of the Philippines, Joseph
Estrada, had a totally different agenda of governance and development. Support for PA21
was not certain.

Challenge: What steps had to be undertaken so that PA21 increasingly becomes a reality
throughout the country? And what should be done to ensure that PA21 implementation
survives serious changes in political leadership?

6. The Challenge of Democracy and Governance (2000, onwards)

People Power II, the mass mobilization of Philippine civil society, ousted President
Estrada who was very corrupt and had dictatorial tendencies. Vice-President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo replaced him as the new President of the Philippines. However,
President Arroyo, instead of aligning herself with the aspirations of People Power II, has
shown herself to be but another traditional politician, a “trapo”. She quickly dissipated
the gains of People Power II. Her administration has also shown a lukewarm interest in
PA21. Her coordinator for the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD),
the main champion for PA21, centralized power into himself and overturned its long-
established tri-sectoral, consensus decision-making protocol.

The minimal, even dismal results of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) mirrored, as the global level, the crisis of democracy and governance in the
Philippines. At the WSSD, global Agenda 21 lost steam, compared with the WTO. The
global crisis in democracy and governance and the on-going decline of the nation state
had claimed a prominent victim, the global movement for sustainable development
among the governments of the world.

The structural limits to the advancement of sustainable development substance and

processes had clearly expressed themselves.

Challenge: Who should and how could one take the key ideas of PA21 as a basis for
transforming the nation state and ushering in a new and more vibrant practice of societal
governance and democracy?

4
TABLE 2: KEY QUESTIONS OF CHALLENGES OF META-PROJECT

CHALLENGES KEY QUESTIONS

Agenda 21 How does one align the national policies and programs of
government with global Agenda 21?
WTO How does one ensure that Philippine commitments to the sustainable
development thrust of global Agenda 21 are not compromised with
the entry of the country into the World Trade Organization (WTO)?
APEC How does one address the inherent risks and opportunities associated
with the intent of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC),
including the Philippines, to be the WTO + region of the world?
UNCSD How could one assist the UN from merely becoming an appendage of
the increasingly powerful WTO which was slowly marginalizing the
different UN agencies?
Implementation/ What steps had to be undertaken so that PA21 increasingly becomes a
Sustainability reality throughout the country? And what should be done to ensure
that PA21 implementation survives serious changes in political
leadership?
Democracy and Who should and how could one take the key ideas of PA21 as a basis
Governance for transforming the nation state and ushering in a new and more
vibrant practice of societal governance and democracy?
Identity/Integrity How could one initiate a process of radical social transformation on
Cohesion the basis of inner transformation?

7. The Challenge of Identity, Integrity, and Cohesion (2002, onwards)

In the 1990s, especially towards the end of the millennium, global civil society had joined
the ranks of government and business as one of the three key networks of forces that
shape the globalization process and the destiny of national and global affairs. However,
almost simultaneously with this epochal emergence, the cracks in the inner integrity of
civil society also showed itself. Among others, civil society leaders in the Philippines lost
their bearings and integrity upon entering the citadels of government. Increasingly
internal conflicts made it difficult to achieve trust, coherence and solidarity, among the
key ingredients for maintaining itself as a key social force in life and future of the
Philippines. The inner limits to comprehensive sustainable development have been
reached.

Challenge: How could one initiate a process of radical social transformation on the basis
of inner transformation?

The different challenges are summarized in Table 2 above. The responses to these
challenges and their results follow next.

5
THE STORY LINE – RESPONSES TO CHALLENGES AND RESULTS

The story of the meta-project can be succinctly characterized into seven (7) phases of
“implementation”. Each of these phases or “sub-projects” addresses the various
challenges listed above. Table 3 below summarizes the responses to the various
challenges and the results.

There are two fundamental approaches that frame the seven phases of “implementation:.

The first approach is a state-centered approach. In this approach, the state is viewed as
the key institution for social change towards sustainable development. This approach
recognizes the legislative, executive, and regulatory power of the state to mobilize its
resources to achieve sustainable development. Most historical and current approaches,
whether communist or capitalist, rely on the state-centered approach. This approach
frames the first 5 phases of the meta-project.

The second is the society-centered, social threefolding approach. It recognizes the

instability involved in relying solely on the state to advance the social objectives of a
country. It recognizes the limits of representative democracy especially is the state is
weak and corrupt. It understands the hierarchical tendencies and power-orientation of
state decision-making processes. It factors in the potential for policy conflict and demise
with the take-over of a new administration. It therefore relies on advancing the
involvement of business and civil society institutions in issues of societal governance. It
recognizes that we now live in a tri-polar world where the three social forces of state,
market, civil society determine the direction, process and ultimate fate of societal
policies, including comprehensive sustainable development. The society-centered
approach recognizes the importance of the state but supplements it by mobilizing
networks of social power involving civil society and market forces. The last two phases
of the meta-project use the society-centered, threefolding approach.

In addition, the society-centered approach recognizes the importance of the quality of

people and leadership actively engaged in the process of comprehensive sustainable
development and social threefolding. People with vision, integrity and skills are the
ultimate foundation for achieving sustainable development. Just like a tall, sturdy and
mighty tree, the society-centered approach roots deep as it external spreads out to society.

6
TABLE 3: RESPONSES TO THE CHALLENGES AND THEIR RESULTS
CHALLENGE RESPONSE
State-Centered Approach
Global Agenda 21 Institutionalize participatory,
multi-stakeholder process for
dealing with complex social
issues
WTO Larger framework to embed
economic arrangements
within larger social goals
APEC Acid test for Philippine
Agenda 21 (PA21)
UNCSD Begin social threefolding at
UNCSD by involving civil
society
PA21 Implementation and SIAD Framework, Entry
Sustainability Points, Identification of Key
Allies, Strategic MOAs
Society-Centered, Three-
folding, Inner Approach
Democracy and Governance Transforming the Nation
State: Independent Civil
Society and Market
Initiatives on PA21
Identity, Integrity, Cohesion Inner Transformation and
Leadership
RESULTS
Philippine Council for
Sustainable Development,
Office of the President
Philippine Agenda 21,
blueprint for sustainable
development of country
Governing Philippine
Commitments in APEC
with PA21, Blunting US
attempt at radical liberaliz-
ation in APEC
Tri-sector dialogues now
permanent feature at
UNCSD sessions. One
basis for new UN policy
on GPPN and tri-sector
partnerships
PA21 endorsed by Estrada
and Macapagal-Arroyo
administration. Increased,
even if still weak imple-
mentation
ONGOING: Associative
Economics, meta socio-
cultural movement.
Threefolding network
BEGINNING: Festival of
best practices; intensive
courses on inner change,
leadership, social trans-
formation.
7
Phase 1 - Establishment of the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development

Both government and civil society leaders rose to the challenge of global Agenda 21.
Upon his assumption of office as President of the Philippines, one month after the Earth
Summit, Fidel Ramos invited the leaders of civil society to meet with him. He invited
those who had participated in the events in Rio. In that meeting, he requested civil society
to draft an Executive Order for his approval. This Executive Order would lay out the
approach for aligning the various government laws, policies and programs with global
Agenda 21.

Both government and civil society proponents of Agenda 21 proposed the creation of a
Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD). President Ramos approved the
idea and signed Executive Order 47, Series 1992, establishing the PCSD and specifying
its powers and responsibilities. Among others, EO 47, which had and still has the force of
administrative law, directed the heads of over a dozen government agencies to sit down,
with the context of the PCSD, with their counterparts in civil society. The PCSD would
draw ideas from a wide and diverse range of perspectives. In this way, the PCSD hoped
to align the nation’s development policies with its voluntary commitments to global
Agenda 21.

To ensure that the proposals of the PCSD would directly influence the direction of the
Philippines towards sustainable development, President Ramos directed his Cabinet
Secretary (Minister) for Socio-Economic Planning, also Director General of the National
Economic Development Authority (a constitutional body), to sit as Chair of the PCSD. In
this way, the PCSD would embed the economic policies of the country within the
framework of sustainable development.

Phase 2 - Creation of the Philippine Agenda 21

The PCSD was a good beginning. However, the diverse range of perspectives and
opinions proved to be contentious and seemingly irreconcilable. There were few things
that representatives of government and civil society could come to a common
understanding and agreement. In addition, the PCSD had to handle the challenge of the
WTO marginalizing its sustainable development agenda.

Under these conditions, the PCSD agreed that it was important to draft its own version of
Agenda 21. The heart of Philippine Agenda 21 (PA21) is its Principles of Unity, a
framework that the diverse range of stakeholders in the PCSD could agree on. This was a
central innovation of PA21 as it solved, at the framework level, both the Global Agenda
21 and the WTO challenges explained above.

A number of substance and process innovations are contained in PA21. First, it advanced
an analysis of development problems that was comprehensive and moved beyond just a
focus on environment. Second, it situated this interactive matrix of forces producing

8
unsustainable development within the context of the accelerated rate of globalization that
was taking place around the planet. Of specific significance here was a direct
consideration of the negative and positive impacts of globalization including the WTO
and other trade and investment arrangements. Third, it advanced seven dimensions of
development that had to be considered if the various challenges facing the Philippines
were to be adequately addressed. PA21 has a concept of comprehensive sustainable
development that has seven dimensions: ecological, economic, political, cultural, social,
human, and spiritual.

PA21 is also clear that the government alone cannot address these seven dimensions of
comprehensive sustainable development. Rather PA21 advocated the full involvement of
all key social forces in Philippine society. In particular, PA21 encouraged the interaction
and partnership, where appropriate, of the autonomous and independent forces of
government, business, and civil society. This approach, the PCSD later characterized, as
social threefolding.

The PCSD arrived at this social threefolding framework on the basis of the actual roles
that business, government and civil society were already playing in Philippine society.
Many development aspects of Philippine social life resulted from either the antagonistic
or harmonious interaction of these three key forces of Philippine social life. In addition,
PA21 understood that these three key forces and institutions correspond to the three key
realms of social life – the economy, polity, and culture. PA21 situated business interests
within the context of the economy, government imperatives within polity, and civil
society concerns with culture. This difference in social context explained why these three
key social forces had different objectives and characteristics,

In effect, PA21 advocated a new concept of governance and a new approach to

democracy. PA21 supplemented representative democracy with direct and participatory
democracy. PA21reconceptualized governance as the process of bringing together the
three key institutions of Philippine society and, out of this meeting, develop a vision and
a concrete response to the various challenges facing Philippine society.

In line with this new understanding of democracy and governance, PCSD organized over
two dozen regional and national consultations on PA21. Finally, after more than 18
months of discussions and debates, the Philippine President Fidel Ramos approved PA21
as the “blueprint for sustainable development” of the Philippines. President Ramos
characterized PA21 as one of the most consultative documents in the history of policy
making. He then directed all government agencies to align their policies, programs, and
projects with PA21 and implement these PA21-influenced initiatives all over the country.
PA21 became the overriding framework of development in the Philippines.

9
Phase 3 - Governing Philippine commitments in APEC with PA21

While happy with these developments, civil society wanted to test the resolve of the
Ramos government in putting PA21 into action. Civil society looked for an “acid test” for
PA21. It found its ideal testing ground in APEC.

APEC, as explained above, wanted to create a radical zone of trade and investment
liberalization in Asia and the Pacific region. This intent of radical liberalization
contradicted many of the principles of sustainable development as embodied in
Philippine Agenda 21.

Civil society organized a national consultative conference on globalization and APEC

and developed a consensus position in terms of demands from government in connection
with APEC. Civil society challenged the Philippine government to have all its trade and
investment commitments in APEC governed by the PA21.

Civil society groups, representing around 5000 organizations, authorized two leaders of
civil society to negotiate with government regarding their expectations of government
commitments in light of PA21. They negotiated with the Deputy Secretaries and
Secretaries (Deputy Ministers and Ministers) of Trade and Industry, Socio-Economic
Planning, and Agrarian Reform. They discussed with the leaders of the APEC negotiating
panel of the Philippine government as well as with the heads of the Technical Working
Groups. Eventually they and over a hundred of their colleagues had a dialogue with the
President of the Philippines who, at that time in 1996, was also the Chairman of APEC.
Civil society scored a decisive and major victory in its negotiations with government in
connection with APEC. President Ramos directed all his Cabinet ministers involved with
APEC to incorporate PA21 language and civil society suggestions in the official
documents of APEC. These included the Philippine commitments in APEC, the official
Statement of Trade Ministers of APEC, and the Statement of Leaders of APEC. This last
statement is the combined document of the Heads of States and Governments in APEC.

The Philippine commitments contained an overriding statement, a chapeau, which said

that all its commitments in APEC were government by sustainable development
considerations as embodied in PA21. The document then went on, in specific sections, to
show how trade liberalization had to be circumscribed under the broader context of
sustainable development. Among others, civil society advocacy saved the livelihoods of 3
million rice farmers who were going to be subject to full blast liberalization.

In addition, more than half of the Statement of APEC Leaders contained references to
sustainable development and/or its principles. This constituted an increase of more than
100% as compared with the Statement of APEC Leaders issued in Indonesia in 1994.

PA21 had demonstrated that it was possible to contextualize the operational details of
trade and investment liberalization and facilitation under the broader and more
comprehensive framework of sustainable development.

10
There was also a side benefit to the Philippine effort in APEC. The US government had
planned to use the Philippine chairmanship of APEC to make the Asia-Pacific region a
WTO + economic zone. However, as a result of the last minute re-orientation of
Philippine priorities, the US agenda lost out in the 1996 meeting of APEC leaders. A
month later, in the fist meeting of WTO Ministers in Singapore, the US admitted that,
from that point on, they would focus their efforts on obtaining radical liberalization
within the framework of the WTO.

Phase 4 - Advocating for Social Threefolding at the UNCSD

The Philippine experience with APEC raised its expectations that it could achieve a
similar result at the level of the UN, specifically at the UN Commission on Sustainable
Development (UNCSD). From its experience, the Philippines understood that the first
key step in enabling the UN to deal with the marginalizing force of the WTO was to
strengthen, in an appropriate manner, civil society participation in UN deliberations.

The PCSD agreed that the UNCSD 6th Session in 1998 was a good time to introduce
social threefolding processes at the level of the UN. The Philippine Government was
Chair of the 6th Session. As was the case in APEC, the Philippines realized that the
position of Chair enabled it to introduce innovations into high level official proceedings.
In addition, the President of the Philippines also designated the government Chair of the
PCSD to be the head of the Philippine Delegation, and therefore Chair of the UNCSD 6th
Session. Finally the official Philippine Delegation to the UNCSD included civil society
and business leaders, thereby ensuring that a threefolding perspective would enter not
only in the Philippine position but also at the level of the UNCSD.

The Philippine Chair of the PCSD and the UNCSD 6th Session developed his approach
together with civil society, business, and government colleagues in the PCSD. As such,
when he actually took over his position as Chair of the UNCSD 6th Session, he had the
full support not only of business and civil society colleagues from the Philippines, but
also from the latter’s networks.

The Philippine innovation in the 6th Session of the UNCSD was a success. The Philippine
Chair organized discussion and debate sessions where government leaders had a chance
to directly hear the often contrasting perspectives of business and civil society in
connection with the range of issues under deliberation. In this way, government
ambassadors and ministers heard concerns that they now had to weigh and balance before
finally coming up with final policy language.

The initiative was not without its challenges. The experiment was on the brink of failure
when business leaders almost walked out under what they felt was a stream of unfounded
civil society criticisms and tactics including what business believed to be distorted press
releases. However, the Philippine Chair managed to bring the dialogue partners back to
the official session where frank and open discussions continued.

11
Through this social threefolding process and its involvement of civil society, the UNCSD
increased its understanding, among others, of the double-edge nature of the WTO and its
potential marginalizing impact on the UN system. This pioneering effort, along with the
Global Public Policy Network initiative within the UN, ultimately resulted in the
mainstreaming the tri-sectoral process aspect of social threefolding within the UN
system. This took place when Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN, convinced the
Heads of States and Governments of the world to sign, as official UN policy, a tri-
sectoral approach to addressing pressing global social issues.

Phase 5 – Getting PA21 mainstreamed throughout the country through SIAD,

Strategic Entry Points, Key Allies, and Memorandum of Agreements (MOA)

All proponents of PA21 admired its comprehensive scope and its innovations in both
substance and process. However, they were also concerned that PA21 remained mostly at
the level of being a framework of development as it had a mixed record of
implementation.

In a meeting addressing this problem, the PCSD identified the lack of a framework for
the implementation and localization of PA21. PCSD then commissioned a consultant to
draw up a proposed framework for implementation of PA21 and subject this draft
framework to a national process of consultation. PCSD then directed the consultant to
subject the draft framework to discussion and debate in the various committees of the
PCSD. After this process of consultation and consolidation, the PCSD as a whole would
then make their comments and suggestions for incorporation in the final draft of the
framework. The PCSD would then have a final meeting to discuss and approve this final
draft.

Through this process, the PCSD developed the SIAD framework. SIAD is the acronym
for Sustainable Integrated Area Development. SIAD is the framework for the
implementation and localization of Philippine Agenda 21. The PCSD published a manual
on SIAD to facilitate its adoption by local government units. This manual is called SIAD
GUIDEBOOK; A Framework for the Localization of Philippine Agenda 21.

The SIAD approach emphasized the importance of strategic “entry points” to

comprehensive sustainable development and social threefolding embodied in PA21.
Efforts addressing all the 7 dimensions of comprehensive sustainable development would
be too complex and would require enormous amounts of financial resources, talent and
community mobilization to achieve program goals. Societal development, as a complex
reality, therefore requires the identification of certain strategic initiatives that can
gradually grow within one dimension to encompass the other dimensions of development.
One can, fro example, start with an economic or a cultural initiative and then, from there,
gradually address the other dimensions of development.

The entry point approach is a radical departure from the sectoral approach to
development. The term, “sector” implies development focused just on that sector and is
thus a dead-end approach within the context of comprehensive sustainable development.

12
The term, “entry point” strongly implies a process of development that leads beyond the
starting point to the broader pursuit of other related goals. The power of the “entry point”
concept is that it honors the sector approach as a starting or entry point while, at the same
time, envisioning further evolutionary stages of development arising out of the starting
point. As will be seen below, one of the most powerful entry points in the process of
comprehensive sustainable development through social threefolding is micro financing
for the micro enterprises of the poor.

Drafting this SIAD Guidebook was only the first step. The PCSD now had to have the
new framework approved by the President of the Philippines. In addition, the PCSD also
had to convince the President to encourage all local government units to take the SIAD
framework into consideration in all local planning for development.

In this next task, however, the PCSD had to contend with a new, unfamiliar, and
uncertain political development. For the past six years of its life, the PCSD could rely
President Ramos for support. The President was relatively interested and active in the
promotion of PA21. However, in 1998, President Ramos finished his term as President of
the Philippines. Joseph Estrada replaced Ramos as the duly-elected President.
Unfortunately, for PCSD, Estrada had quite a different agenda and style of governance.

The replacement of the Ramos government with the Estrada government introduced a
whole new style of governance in the Philippines. Estrada was not interested in the PCSD
and in sustainable development. He did not hold regular meetings of his Cabinet. Instead
he surrounded himself with his favorite Cabinet members and held impromptu drinking
and policy meetings that lasted late into the night. He basically delegated most the task of
running the executive branch of government to his Cabinet members while concentrating
on a few areas of state life that he preferred to focus on. And to make matters worst, due
to these developments, there was growing disinterest in the PCSD itself especially from
the side of government.

The fragmented nature of state governance required a new approach. One had to find in
the new government key allies who would help advance PA21 and SIAD. Through time,
these key allies were found.

The most important ally was a close personal adviser of the new President. Having come
from advocacy work in civil society in the area of environment, she was open and
supportive of advancing Philippine Agenda 21. The leader of the civil society groups
around the PCSD worked with this presidential adviser to have the SIAD framework
approved by the new President and to encourage its use by local government units
throughout the country.

After several months of close coordination, the adviser convinced President Estrada to
issue a new Memorandum Order strengthening PA21, the PCSD, and advancing SIAD
for use by local government agencies in their local development planning. President
Estrada, in turn, that PA21 was one of the few key policies of the previous administration

13
that he was going to retain. PA21 had temporarily survived the change-over in
government and advanced further, through SIAD, its efforts towards localizing PA21.

Building upon this positive development, some civil society groups entered into
Memorandum of Agreements (MOAs) with selected sympathetic government agencies
open to make PA21 a reality in the ground.
However, these promising new beginnings were cut short. Barely over a year after the
election of the new President, large-scale street protests broke out over the direction that
President Estrada was taking the country. These began the increasing wave of protests
and demonstrations that accompanied the escalating involvement of President Estrada in
questionable deals and decisions. After 2-1/2 years in office, People Power II where
millions of citizens took to the streets, removed Estrada from office. Today, Estrada is
still in jail and he is the midst of defending himself against plunder and graft and
corruption.

Phase 6 – Transforming the Nation State through a new Concept of Democracy and
Societal Governance. Meta Social-Cultural Movement -and Associative Economics

Even before the Estrada government, some leaders in civil society were beginning to
realize the fragility of totally relying on the fortunes of government to advance the lofty
vision and ideals of PA21 for the Philippines. The subsequent developments after People
Power II, including the coming into power of the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
administration and the dismal results at the WSSD discussed above, emphasized the dead
end nature of total reliance on the state to achieve sustainable development.

Those that truly cared for PA21clearly realized that the state can only be one area of
possibility, especially in connection with those in the state that had retained their idealism
and integrity. In addition civil society and business had to undertake independent
initiatives in PA21 if the latter is to increasingly take hold

At this point, the meta-project takes on a new character. First proponents of PA21 moved
beyond the state-centered approach to development. They inaugurate a society-centered
approach. Second, they launch several initiatives to demonstrate the possibility of a
society-centered approach.

Before taking a close look at three of these initiatives, it is important to point out the
following. These three initiatives no longer speak directly about Philippine Agenda 21.
They cannot since these movements now include individuals and groups that did not
participate in the formulation and implementation of PA21. However, as will be shown
below, the essence of PA21 lives and breathes through these initiatives. As such it shows
how the spirit of PA21 is alive and is finding new ways of realizing itself.

In moving towards a society-centered approach, there is also a shift to an appreciation of

building long-term strategic initiatives, in addition to projects that address immediate,
pressing needs. State-centered approaches tend to foster short-term approaches, where
rewards are relatively immediate. Society-centered approaches, on the other hand, see the

14
importance of beginning today what may fruit only many years later. However, this long
term perspective gives constancy, comprehensiveness, large scale impact, and
sustainability. We can glean this from the three initiatives that we will now consider.

Pagbabago Movement

Let us start with the Pagbabago Movement. “Pagbabago” in Filipino language means
“renewal”. This movement aims to mobilize millions of Filipinos to achieve
comprehensive sustainable development through social threefolding. The Pagbabago
Movement intends to be a national force in three years and “the” major social force in the
Philippines in five years. By that time, they expect to have thousands of groups or
“nodes”, in network language, all over the Philippines.

The Pagbabago Movement explicitly advocates all of the seven dimensions of

comprehensive sustainable development and see social threefolding as one of their key
modes of “transformative action”. Here is a quote from their “Kartilya” or charter
exemplifying their approach.

“In this historic struggle, we bind ourselves to a set of core principles by which we define
ourselves, our movement, our aspirations, and our actions.

“Comprehensive sustainable development. Comprehensive sustainable development

means sustainability and integration of the various principles and realms discussed above:
social (love of country poverty eradication, and global cooperation), economic (economy
of solidarity), political (good democratic governance), cultural (culture of freedom,
creativity and vibrancy), ecological (ecological soundness), human (human development
and servant leadership) and spiritual. We will undertake the complex but necessary task
of harmonizing all these dimensions of development to create a new Philippines
responsive to the needs of its citizens and the earth. . . . .

“Social Threefolding. Acknowledging the complexity of the problems we seek to solve, it

is clear that no single social institution can carry out the task of comprehensive
sustainable development. Therefore the new revolution will encourage, where
appropriate, the debate, dialogue and/or partnership between government, business, and
civil society, the three key institutions of social life active in politics, economics and
culture, respectively. Together, these three, and all the diverse sub-sectors within them,
bring with them a wealth of different perspectives, resources, and experiences essential in
making comprehensive sustainable development a reality.

”Creation of Autonomous Cultural, Political and Economic Movements. Government's

power to direct and compel, business’s power to produce and create, and civil society's
power to conscienticize and mobilize for causes, are indispensable instruments for social
transformation. Each one influences the substantive directions of the two others. To shift
the on-going, often conflicted process of dialogue towards a healthier direction, our

15
movement will undertake the parallel development and operation of organized,
autonomous but interactive streams of cultural, political and economic action – with all
sharing the concerns, commitment and principles of our new revolution.

“. . . . We are the Pagbabago Movement. Our name says who we are. Pagbabago –
renewal, rebirth, regeneration.

”Ours is an activist path of inner transformation and sacrifice, placing our talents and
capacities in the service of the Divine, our fellow human beings, society and nature, to
finally realize the Philippines of our dreams.

”We will succeed despite all obstacles for our spirit cannot be broken. We will succeed
because we have prepared well for this moment. We will succeed because we know there
are millions of other Filipinos who share our frustrations at the festering social decay of
our country. We will succeed because we know that these millions believe with us that
there are ways out of the darkness of decline towards the bright light, the liwanag, of a
new and better Philippines.

“These millions were out with us in the streets all over the country, risking their lives
during many recent mass manifestations of our nation's unquenched desire to obtain the
outstanding promise of our revolutions. These millions realize that the current circus and
gross superficiality and violence of Philippine politics and the bankruptcy of many of the
social institutions of the country will never embody the broadness of spirit and the social
ideals that they bring. These millions yearn for a new all-encompassing social movement
that would create new inner and social arrangements that truly embody the spirit that they
bring and the ideals they hold for a new Philippines.

”They will therefore arise in great numbers the moment they sense that a new wind is
blowing and that a new social order is about to be born. And, then, they will come and
they will participate with commitment and passion to join the new revolution that is
destined to radically transform the old, decaying social order. Then they will end the long
litany of failures that have plagued the history of our nation for they will bring to a
successful completion the unfinished revolution that our country deserves.”

PARTNERS

Not as ambitious as the Pababago Movement, but nevertheless having a potentially strong
impact on the direction of Philippine society, is PARTNERS, a socio-cultural network
advancing comprehensive sustainable development and social threefolding. PARTNERS
is the acronym for Philippine Advancement and Renewal through Threefolding
Networking, Education, Research, and Service.

The Description Paper of PARTNERS explicitly refers to PA21 and the latter’s social
threefolding approach. PARTNERS is convinced of the urgent need to mainstream
comprehensive sustainable development and social threefolding in Philippine society. But
for PARTNERS, the approach is not necessarily initially to build a mass movement but

16
rather to bring together outstanding practitioners in the field to mutually reinforce each
other’s efforts.

It is important to note that the initiatives of a significant number of the beginning

members of PARTERS alone already influence the lives of thousands of people. Taken
together, the projects of the beginning members of PARTNERS influence the lives of
tens of thousands of people. The thirteen beginning PARTNER members are active in the
following entry points of comprehensive sustainable development and social
threefolding: micro-finance, sustainable agriculture, eco-cultural tourism, training of
local government executives, cultural education plan of the Philippines, technical
assistance in sustainable development, global networking, information management, local
governance, and other areas.

PARTNERS also has another difference when compared with the Pagbabago Movement.
PARTNERS is an autonomous geographic node member of the Global Network for
Social Threefolding or GN3. Geographic nodes of GN3 now exist in Israel, Japan,
Philippines, South Africa, France, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway,
East Coast USA, West Coast, USA.

GlobeNet3 envisions a world where, increasingly, by the second decade of this century,
in different parts of the planet, human beings are working to realize their full human and
spiritual potentials. Simultaneously, out of their enhanced capacities, they are
transforming societies so that the three autonomous societal realms of economy, polity,
and culture, through their key institutions (business, government, and civil society
respectively) harmoniously interact with and mutually support each other in a united
effort to bring about comprehensive sustainable development, especially poverty
eradication, at the local, national, and global levels.

The mission of GN3, as a cultural network, and which PARTNERS shares, is to:

• foster an understanding of the globalization process as a deep spiritual,

social and ecological challenge to humanity and the planet and advance, in
this context, social threefolding substance and processes, including a
spiritual understanding of social dynamics, as an appropriate response to
these challenges of elite globalization and opportunities for comprehensive
sustainable development in various parts of the world

• Encourage and deepen the role of individuals and civil society as

countervailing and/or creative forces for social transformation, and, in this
context, emphasize the importance of a conscious inner path of spiritual
development for strategic, balanced and effective social activism.

• Develop, facilitate, and/or promote best practices in comprehensive

sustainable development and social threefolding partnerships among
business, government and civil society, where appropriate and feasible.

17
 • link up with individuals, institutions and networks that also want to
advance threefolding

• develop a knowledgeable, horizontal, loose, cohesive and financially

stable global network, made up of capable partners, to achieve all mission
elements and the vision of GlobeNet3.

PARTNERS sees itself as a network active in the cultural realm of society. It is a

network, a meeting place where partners exchange ideas and experiences related to social
threefolding and comprehensive sustainable development. Their involvement in
PARTNERS helps develop greater clarity, enthusiasm, skills for their work in their own
institutions, whether this work be in business, or in government, or in civil society.

PARTNERS intends to mainstream social threefolding for comprehensive sustainable

development in the Philippines by the Year 2009 or earlier.

Lifebank, Associative Economics and Comprehensive Sustainable Development

Individuals active in PA21 have also initiated projects in the economic realm. The most
important of this is the micro-finance project of Lifebank, which now reaches more than
7000 families, most of whom are below the poverty threshold.

Lifebank, in its core values and beliefs, has stated: “We are committed to the principles
of sustainable development as embodied in Philippine Agenda 21 (PA21) and shall
endeavor to foster its realization in all aspects”

In its vivid description of its vision and mission, Lifebank writes: “We are the first
financial institution in the Philippines to fully embrace the framework of sustainable
development (SD) as embodied in Philippine Agenda 21 (PA21) and Sustainable
Integrated Area Development or SIAD as its implementing strategy.” And in so doing,
Lifebank also commits itself to “forging threefolding partnerships with socially
responsible government and civil society and other business institutions.”

Lifebank ultimate aims to involve, within the next ten years, over 1 million poor families,
either directly through the bank or in network with other similarly inclined banking
institutions, in establishing a new kind of economics. This is associative economics, an
economics of cooperation (not necessarily cooperatives) instead of competition.
Producers, traders, creditors, and consumers, instead of competing, actually evolve ways
to enhance productivity and appropriate wealth creation through solidarity.

While it is establishing this associative economic level, Lifebank will also start the
process of addressing the cultural and human development needs of its partners. Already
the bank, in addition to its support for sustainable livelihoods, has started exploring
health and education programs for the benefit of the poor. It will not wait for government
action but will build in these initiatives in connection with its lending and networking
activities. Lifebank also looks forward to situations where it can network with

18
progressive local chief executives and officials so that the whole community can mobilize
to help the poor and eradicate poverty.

Phase 7 – Creating and Sustaining Radical Social Transformation on the Basis of

Inner Transformation

Ironically, as it becomes clear what it would take to radically but peacefully transform
nation states to truly serve its people, inner limits simultaneously assert their challenge.

Already the Pagbabago Movement has to face this challenge early in its life. Recently,
the movement split internally due to debates over organizational protocols. The
movement sought to do away with the stigma of traditional politics. However, some
founding members have already yielded to the pragmatic temptation to brush aside its
own principles and procedures to accommodate a privileged few whom the former group
wanted to seek favors from.

In the end, the transformation of social life depends on the transformation of individuals.
The social problems of today cannot be solved on the basis of the same consciousness
and behavior that created these problems. Creating ideal social arrangements is only half
of the solution. The other half lies in embarking systematically on individual
transformation and linking this strategically with social change.

The meta-project is launching, initially, two initiatives that would address this challenge.
The first is a national conference and festival on best practices in comprehensive
sustainable development and social threefolding. Proponents will identify and assess best
practices all over the country and highlight these in plenary presentations, workshops,
and exhibits in the conference/festival. They will give higher consideration to best
practices that are based, among others, on conscious inner transformation.

PARTNERS will launch this initiative next year. Through this event, it hopes to dispel
the rapidly growing sense of pessimism about the future of the Philippines and replace
this with a positive vision for the future and the farther reaches of Filipino excellence.
Simultaneously, they hope to demonstrate how individuals and groups can advance
comprehensive sustainable development and social threefolding. With extensive media
coverage, they will these PA21-like vision and ideas a kind of societal exposure that
PA21 never had in the 6 years of its existence. PARTNERS also hopes to demonstrate
how society-centered approaches for country development will look like and why,
ultimately, it is the best approach for the transformation of Philippine society.

Individual members of PARTNERS will also set up a second initiative, a network of

educational centers in the three major island regions of the Philippines – Luzon, Visayas,
and Mindanao. These educational centers will be the training grounds for in-depth
training in research, information, advocacy and action on comprehensive sustainable
development through social threefolding. They will have a strong emphasis on the “inner

19
ecology” and spiritual development of the human being and how inner change is the
foundation for radical social transformation.

PARTNERS members will start construction of the educational centers early next year.
PARTNERS will link these centers with GlobeNet3 centers around the world, especially
in Japan. In this way, PARTNERS hopes to empower individuals to truly access their
inner spiritual capacities and place these in the service of countries within the context of
globalization and the new realities of the 21st century.

Summing Up

An interesting perspective opens up when we summarize this discussion by reversing the

flow of Table 3 Instead of Global Agenda 21, one starts at the bottom, with the challenge
of identity, integrity, and social cohesion. Table 4 details the result of this reversal.

TABLE 4: SOCIETAL TRANSFORMATION INCLUDING A LIVING

DEMOCRACY/NEW GOVERNANCE ON THE BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL CHANGE

INITIATIVE LEADS TO RESULTS

1. In-depth training Inner transformation and new Integrity, consistency and
leadership social cohesion among
social actors
2. Effective Social Transformation of Nation Living Democracy and
Movements in all three key State New Governance, among
spheres of society others
3. PA21 and similar A thousand flowers of SIAD, Accelerated transforma-
initiatives - implementation Alliances, Entry Points for tion of Philippine society
by key actors in society comprehensive SD towards PA21 vision
4. PA21 governs Philippine Application in APEC, WTO, Philippine strategic
involvement in world UN, and dealings with World presence in world affairs.
affairs Bank, IMF, donors and others Shapes globalization and
embeds it in RP vision.

Table 4, based on the learning of the past 10 years, gives us the following understanding
of social change. At Level 1, in-depth transformation is the foundation for all social
change which aims to be comprehensive and sustainable. When a critical mass of change
agents in society is reached, these change agents are now able to launch movements in
the cultural, political, and economic life of society (Level 2). Once these movements
reach a certain stage of vibrancy and scale, then the process of transforming the nation
state begins. Among others, living democracy starts to emerge and new forms of societal
governance becomes more and more prominent.

At Level 3, the new societal governance of the Philippines, facilitated by the state and
composed of actors from civil society, government, and business, re-activates PA21 and
supports PA21-like initiatives throughout the country, especially in the cities and at the
local levels. This results in thousands of initiatives in sustainable development. The

20
network of these initiatives gradually start making a significant impact on the country as
a whole, moving it closer to its vision of the future embodied in PA21.

This vision states:

“Philippine Agenda 21 envisions a better quality of life for all through the development
of a just, moral, creative, spiritual, economically vibrant, caring, diverse yet cohesive
society characterized by appropriate productivity, participatory and democratic processes,
and living in harmony within the limits of the carrying capacity of nature and the
integrity of creation. . . . .

“Operationally, sustainable development is development that draws out the full human
potential across ages and generations and is, at the same time, ecologically friendly,
economically sound, politically empowering, socially just and equitable, spiritually
liberating, gender sensitive, based on holistic and integrative science, technologically
appropriate, builds upon Filipino values, history, culture and excellence, and rests upon
strong institutional foundations.”

Once this vision is operational in Philippine society, then (at Level 4) the country can
engage in world affairs in a strategic and effective way. Global forces will no longer
drive internal developments in the country. The Philippines now has a conscious vision
and framework to harness the forces of globalization for its own ends and benefits. It now
has the inner strength, that have very deep roots, to interact with global institutions and
processes in ways that are mutually beneficial and respectful.

Kindly note later initiatives build upon the success of earlier ones. It is impossible, for
example, to achieve a living democracy and a new governance without the emergence of
active social movements in culture, the economy, and in polity. Social movements, in
turn, depend upon successfully encouraging people of vision, integrity and skills to
actively involve themselves in nation building.

This flow of initiatives is the ultimate lesson of the meta-project. One can tactically
engage in any of the levels and can achieve results. But these results will not be long
lasting and systemic unless they are ultimately grounded in individual transformation and
society-centered approaches to social change.

The path to the future is now clear. It is daunting and will require continued work and
perseverance to achieve. But it is doable path and, unfortunately, the most likely path that
will lead to comprehensive sustainable development and a better world.

21
LONG TERM IMPACT

In addition to and in further elaboration of the results described above, the meta-project
has had a number of long-term impacts.

• The institutionalization of the Philippine Council of Sustainable Development,

which was created in 1992 and still exists today, even if in a weaker form.

• The creation of Philippine Agenda 21 (1996) and its localization framework,

SIAD, (1999), both of which are still providing a framework for the pursuit and
implementation of sustainable development by business, government and civil
society, both at the national and local levels.

• The framing and advancement of the sustainable development framework within

APEC (partial internalization) and the moderation of liberalization efforts in
APEC starting in 1996 in the Philippines, carried on by Canada in 1997, further
moderated by the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998.

• The partial entry of PA21 elements in a number of Philippine laws, including the
Clean Air Act, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, the Social Reform and Anti-
Poverty Act, and the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act.

• The creation of the Business Agenda 21, involving over 150 business corporations
and associations, directly inspired by PA21 and assisted by the PCSD.

• The influence of the PCSD and PA21, cited as a best practice by the UNCSD, on
the establishment of other councils for sustainable development in other countries.
Mongolia, for example, patterned its council for sustainable development after the
Philippines, including its threefolding processes. The PCSD and/or leaders
connected with it facilitated the establishment and/or networking of sustainable
development councils in the Asia Pacific region and helped create a global
planning framework, similar to SIAD, for use by the Earth Council based in Costa
Rica.

• The continuation until today of the tri-sector dialogues at the UNCSD after the
Philippines, as Chair, started this process in 1998.

• The continuing global diffusion of the Philippine framework for comprehensive

sustainable development and social threefolding through books and international
conferences. One particularly important result is the formation of the Global
Network on Social Threefolding (GlobeNet3) with active network centers in
Japan, Israel, South Africa, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark,
Sweden, USA, and the Philippines. Through these nodes and their work, social
threefolding-related activities continue to flourish and increasingly reach a large
number of audiences.

22
 • Structural and society-centered approach to advancing comprehensive sustainable
development. This is one of the most valuable lessons of the 10 years of
experience of the meta-project trying to realize sustainable development in
Philippine society. This will enable the sustainable advocacy and implementation
of sustainable development itself.

OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES

Within this generalized story line, there were and are specific operational challenges and
strategies that need to be highlighted. One can summarize them in Table 5.

TABLE 5: OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIC RESPONSES

OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES STRATEGY

Global Agenda 21 - none
WTO – lack of understanding in legislative
and executive branches on seriousness of
WTO threat
APEC – obtaining the commitment of
President Ramos as Chair of APEC.
Unclear alternatives.
UNCSD – resistance of some countries to
involvement of civil society
Implementation and Sustainability – lack of
interest in new PCSD Chair; erratic policy
environment
Democracy and Governance – lack of
quality tine among founding members of
social-cultural movement
Inner Quality – none so far
Maintain harmony among stakeholders
Testimonies in House and Senate, PA21
framework in PCSD, articles in the media,
and public debate and discussions
Massive support from civil society;
Negotiations with key advisers; plans for
massive protest. Completed Staff Worki.
Ground-working of G-77 and some key
allies among industrialized countries
Block appointment of Cabinet member in-
charge of PCSD; identify sympathetic
government ally in key positions
Increasing investment of time among those
who can afford to do it. Completed Staff
Work.
Continue with implementation of plan

It is clear from Table 5 that operational challenges can be diverse. However, when one
looks closely at Table 5, one can immediately see that most of the operational challenges
are connected with people – either at the level of clarity of goals, or problematic
relationships, or a deficiency of skills to carry out the task. This, once again, highlights
the importance of deep human development to carry out the ambitious meta-project of
societal transformation.

On the “Strategy” side, one can also appreciate the importance of knowing the way
institutions operate, which knowledge again highlights the importance of capacity to do
the task and the human element involved. In the state-centered approach, the human
element is also important in terms of identifying key allies in government who truly
believe in similar goals and objectives as those advocating for specific policies.

23
The strategies also call for a combination of “inside” (negotiations) and “outside” (mass
media, demonstrations, etc.) approaches. The coming together of people united towards a
common cause is indispensable for most of the strategies. This approach was most
effective in APEC, where large scale demonstrations, encouraged by sympathetic media
coverage, created the context for serious and timely negotiations in the inside.

CRITICAL FACTORS SUPPORTIVE OF STRATEGIES

The Human Factor in Political Life

The human element was the most important critical factor in the success or failure of
strategies. In Global Agenda 21, WTO, and APEC, implementation and sustainability
challenges, there was a supportive President of the Philippines. When the next two
Presidents came in, there was lukewarm support for PA21.

Equally important for state-centered approaches, especially in the context of fluctuating

support from the President, is the presence of sympathetic and proactive members of the
Cabinet. They can be the bridge to the President. When this was present in the case of
Estrada, proponents were able to advance PA21. When this was absent in the case of
Macapagal-Arroyo, PA21 took several steps backward.

We can make a similar observation at the local level. There, for example, was the case of
the Province of Bohol. One of its governors took a serious interest in PA21 and SIAD. He
mobilized both a legislative and executive support for PA21 and SIAD. Together they
instituted the Bohol SIAD Council. However, when this governor recently lost elections,
his successor, who came from the rival political party, set aside most of the policies of the
previous governor. The Bohol SIAD Council, even if created by a provincial ordinance
(local law), is currently dormant today.

This political instability is one of the key problems that the society-centered approach to
democracy and governance hopes to solve. In this approach, there is continuous large-
scale mobilization and engagement of citizens in all walks of life. If this prevails, then the
very practice of politics itself will shift and results will be generated, not only from the
political sphere of society, but also from the cultural and economic spheres as well. (See
related paper on what it would take to change a nation state.)

The Human Element in Civil Society Dynamics

The importance of the human element also shows itself within the dynamics of civil
society in the cultural sphere. It is a rare government that listens to wisdom, whether this
comes from an individual or a mass movement. Individuals wishing to have an impact
therefore have to be active in civil society formations. Civil society groups, in turn, have
to organize themselves both at the local and the national level. Only in this way will they
gain the respect and attention of both the state and the market. Both these latter
formations have already attained the status of a social force by virtue of power, in the
case of the state, and by virtue of wealth, in the case of business. When civil society

24
groups are well organized, then they wield cultural power and can become the third major
social force in society.

The rise and fall of fortunes in civil society within the meta-project of PA21 realization,
is directly connected with the strength of its inner cohesion and understanding of its own
nature. The greatest disruptors of this cohesion are quarrel over funds, lusting after
political power, especially in situations where civil society leaders become government
officials, and lack of inner integrity (for example, promising one thing and doing
another).

When there is no inner cohesion, then the state can easily make decisions that can split
the ranks of civil society. This was the case, for example, when civil society was divided
over allowing government to dictate who they should be negotiating with. In this case,
government did not like to negotiate with a civil society leader because the latter did not
accept any compromises. Furthermore, this leader and his supporters agreed that
government had no business telling an autonomous social formation who their negotiator
should be. Nonetheless, a few opportunists within the ranks of civil society saw this as a
chance to lay claim to their own prominence and agreed with government interference.

This internal conflict almost split up the civil society network active in PA21 advocacy.
The withdrawal of the claims of the opportunists saved the day. But, in the end, this
withdrawal was too late. Flawed policy agreements between civil society and government
surfaced under the leadership of the opportunists.

Media

Another critical factor is the support or non-support of the media. The backing of media
is especially important in situations where government agencies are resistant to change. A
significant part of the civil society success in the APEC debates was the intensive and
extensive coverage of media of the APEC debate, and later on, the negotiations between
civil society and government.

Because government can only truly thrive in an atmosphere of legitimacy, government is

very sensitive to media coverage. A Senator of the Republic of the Philippines (RP) once
observed that media drove 85% of the agenda of the Philippine Senate.

However, media is not as important as principled and proactive leadership in all key
institutions of society. The actual creation of the PCSD and PA21 did not require the
intervention of media. It totally depended on the principled meeting of leaders from civil
society, government, and, later, business to move PA21 forward.

Capacity for Development Innovation

Another factor critical to the strategies was the capacity of participants in the various
processes to generate the necessary substantive response to the challenges they were
facing. In the case of the Global Agenda 21, the idea of a multi-stakeholder council

25
where leaders can listen and respond to many different views and perspectives proved
successful in responding to this challenge. The WTO challenge required crafting of an
entirely new document which was, in effect, a new development framework unique to the
Philippines, a framework which subsequent intellectual developments (for example, in
institutional economics) basically supported.

From Multi-Stakeholders to Tri-Sector Stakeholders

A major development innovation is the introduction of social threefolding in the pursuit

of sustainable development in the Philippines.

The move away from a state-centered approach towards the involvement of “major
groups” in the Global Agenda 21 was a good beginning. This introduced the age of multi-
stakeholders in policy formulation.

While useful, the multi-stakeholder concept does not understand that all societies have
three essential dimensions (culture, politics, and economics) and that the three social
forces (civil society, government, and business) that have emerged at the dawn of the 21st
century are situated within the three spheres of society. Thus, an in-depth understanding
of the various societal actors cannot be obtained if one does not realize, for example, just
as business is in the realm of the economy and government in politics, that civil society is
in the realm of culture and advances cultural interests (identity, values, conscience, etc.)
even if the former is often involved in policy advocacy.

Without these understanding, substantive aspects of comprehensive sustainable

development are missed. Development plans, for example, lack cultural elements because
development plans are often political and economic in their scope, reflecting the
elevation of government and business interests above those of civil society and citizens as
a whole. The concept of spirituality is also alien in most development plans, even in a
country like the Philippines where spirituality is a serious concern.

The introduction of social threefolding in PA21 solved this problem and facilitated the
entry of business in the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD). It also
broadened the scope of development to include the seven dimensions of development.
Social threefolding also spotted policy considerations which were often neglected even if
they were vital for the sustainable development of the country. These included policy
considerations in the area of culture, spirituality, and human development.

An interesting side effect of the social threefolding concept is that it developed greater
trust and harmony between government and civil society leaders. Government had an
inner suspicion that civil society organizations, especially advocacy NGOs, had a hidden
agenda of taking over government functions. Similarly, a significant number of civil
society had the mistaken notion that significant social change can occur only in the area
of politics. When the social context of both government and civil society became clear,
this framework helped developed a new understanding of why government, business, and

26
civil society should cooperate together, where feasible and desirable. Each had a piece of
the puzzle, not the whole.

PA21 captures the importance of social threefolding. “To humanize development, there
must be an interplay of market forces, state intervention, and civil society participation. . .
. The existence and recognition of the three key actors in multi-stakeholder or
counterparting processes, in turn, point to an equally significant reality: the functional
differentiation (not division) of modern society into three realms, interacting with but
independent from each other. These three essential societal dimensions – economy,
polity, and culture, are the realms where the key sectors [business, government, and civil
society] are active and from which the actors derive the substance for their dialogue and
interaction with each other. . . . This [threefolding] image of society animates the vision,
parameters, and strategies of sustainable development.”

“The multi-stakeholder or counterparting approach in Philippine Agenda 21 recognizes

that while these realms are functionally differentiated, they are interacting, dynamic and
complementary components of an integral whole. Creative social unity and harmony can,
therefore, only occur from a respect and appreciation of the mutually enhancing
perspectives and roles of the key actors in these dimensions of society and ultimately of
their free choice to collaborate towards achieving the higher, common good of society.”

NEW FRONTIERS UNDER CONSIDERATION

Viewing the meta-project as a whole and in summary, the most important frontier now
for the advancement of comprehensive sustainable development through social
threefolding is the realization of the society-centered and inner transformation-based
approaches discussed above. The reasons have already been discussed above. It only
needs to be emphasized that, in an age of decline of the nation-state, the complex terrain
of sustainable development, and the ever-present danger of succumbing to greed,
corruption and egoism in social affairs, a state-centered approach can no longer suffice. It
is now time to place a state-focused approach within the larger context of a living
democracy and a new governance brought about by the full mobilization of all the realms
of society, not just the political. And further, both the state-focused and the society-
centered approaches must be placed within the context of human beings and leaders
consciously trying to achieve their full human and spiritual potentials.For truly, nothing
else will if we want to have a future that is radically different from today and one that
leads us closer to comprehensive sustainable development.

TWO QUESTIONS FOR WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

Given all the above, I would like to end this case presentation on the Philippines with a
two questions for workshop participants.

1. What is your concept and strategy of effective, nonviolent, radical, and sustainable
social change and can you provide inspiring examples of how you are trying to achieve
this innovative social change in your own countries?

27
2. What are proven and effective strategies for developing the full human being,
including developing an awareness of shadow elements in one’s behavior and releasing
one’s spiritual potentials, an internal change process than are directly linked to profound
social transformation?

28
 Final Draft

ASSESSMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE AGENDA 21, THE PROSPECTS FOR A GREEN

ECONOMY, AND THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION
The 1987 Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development (PSSD) represents the country‘s first
roadmap towards achieving economic growth and environmental integrity—the twin pillars of sustainable
development (SD) in the 1980s. It was not until ten years later, when the Philippine Agenda 21 (PA21): A
National Agenda for Sustainable Development for the 21th Century was written in response to the 1992 Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro, that social development became the third pillar of sustainable development. Thus,
apart from providing enabling economic and environmental policies and integrating the idea of sustainable
development into the country‘s governance framework, the action agenda of PA21 specifically highlighted
investments in human and social capital, health, population management, and human settlements, while
recognizing the need to address the poverty of communities in forest-watershed, agricultural, coastal/marine,
and urban ecosystems.
The significance of PA21, however, lies not only in the integration of human development into the
operational concept of sustainable development but in its provenance. Launched on 26 September 1996 as a
state-initiated agenda, PA21 is a historic document that envisioned a better life for all Filipinos, laying down
fifteen principles as basis for crafting its action agenda—the primacy of developing the human potential;
holistic science and appropriate technology; cultural, moral and spiritual sensitivity; self-determination; national
sovereignty; gender sensitivity; peace, order and national unity; social justice and inter- and intra-generational
and spatial equity; participatory democracy; institutional viability; viable, sound and broad-based economic
development; sustainable population; ecological soundness; bio-geographical equity and community-based
resource management; and global cooperation. These principles also reflect the human and social development
goals of PA21.
The above principles and goals formed the basis of unity among various stakeholders—i.e. people‘s
organization, NGOs, and representatives of business, labor, health, urban poor, youth and other sectors. A series
of year-long discussions, consultations, review sessions and consensus building activities opened up spaces for
the stakeholders to proactively input into the agenda. Hence, what otherwise would have been another top-down
initiative by the executive branch generated support from both the development-oriented civil society
organizations on the ground and the market-oriented private sector groups, giving the promise of a bottom-up
process in the pursuit of sustainable development. Remarkably, the consultative process made it possible for the
resulting agenda document to stand as a collective expression of the nation‘s agenda vis-à-vis sustainable
development broadly conceived to include human development. This explains why those who finally penned
PA 21 constituted it as

―a people‘s covenant towards a transition to sustainable development … committing themselves to

social justice and inter- and intra-generational equity... achieved through equal access to development
opportunities and benefits across ages, social classes and geographical units… (because) sustainable
development is a shared, collective and indivisible responsibility which calls for institutional structures
that are built around the spirit of solidarity, convergence, and partnership between and among different
stakeholders.‖

1
 Final Draft

Incipient collaborative work on PA21 possibly began years before its September 1996 launching,
immediately after, if not before, the 1992 Rio Conference. The goodwill and solidarity that the conference and
post conference activities fostered among non-government organizations, people‘s organizations, labor
federations, and the representatives of management and the business sector made it easier for the Ramos
administration to direct the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD)—which was created in
1992—to oversee and monitor the operationalization of PA21, as well as to mobilize the Regional Development
Councils and local councils for sustainable development.

It was also easier to reinforce this directive with the 26 September 1996 Memorandum Order that
mandated ―all government agencies, departments and instrumentalities …to adopt and translate the principles
and action agenda in their respective work plans, programs and projects‖ while the DILG was tasked to
coordinate and monitor the localization of PA 21 with the LGUs. Thus, with PCSD at the helm of promoting
convergence among government agencies, fostering partnership between civil society groups, local
governments, and communities, PA21 served as a compass towards a path for a more sustainable future for
Filipinos, if not a blueprint and action agenda for the much needed change.

The action agenda (AA) of PA21 identified the critical issues and concerns in each of the country‘s five
ecosystems—forest/upland, agricultural/lowland, coastal/marine, freshwater, and urban ecosystem—as well as
those cross-cutting concerns that transcend ecosystems. For each ecosystem or cross-cutting concern, the AA
spelled out strategies for integrating the SD principles. It further specified the time-bound qualitative and
process-related targets in the implementation of these strategies over a 30-year period—i.e. within the short-run
from 1996 to 1998; the medium term from 1998 to 2005; and the long term from 2005 to 2025—as well as the
institutions involved in the implementation.
In addition to the government‘s PA21 commitments, the Philippines also entered at different times into
other multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs)—the United Nations Framework Convention on
Biological Diversity (UNCBD) in 1993; the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) in 2000; the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2003; and the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2006. Together with PA 21, these MEAs together with new social and
environmental legislations, like the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, the Clean Air Act of 1999, the
Clean Water Act of 2004, comprise the country‘s agenda for sustainable development.
Now into the 7th year of the 20-year long-term period stipulated in PA21 and on the eve of the second
Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in June 2012, what has PA21 achieved? To answer this question, it is imperative
for the nation to take stock of its past actions vis-à-vis its commitments and to chart future directions towards
sustainable development. In this regard, the National Economic Development Authority has commissioned the
drafting of a report with a three-fold agenda: 1) to provide a rapid assessment of the implementation of
Philippine Agenda 21 and the country‘s fulfillment of its UN Conference on Environment and Development
commitments; 2) to outline, given the country‘s present state of natural resource and ecosystem
(un)sustainability, how to proceed towards the green economy (GE), and define its contours for the country; and
3) to elaborate on the requirements and institutional framework for sustainable development (IFSD).
The specific objectives of the commissioned draft report are as follows:

To assess in broad strokes, the progress made over the last 15 years in the implementation of the AA—
e.g. the government policies, programs and activities undertaken in connection with PA21;

2
 Final Draft

To identify the gaps in implementation that have to be filled and the existing and emerging challenges
that continue to limit the pace of the country‘s movement towards sustainable development, as well as
constrain its overall prospects for a GE;

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

To define the necessary institutional framework for sustainable development (IFSD).

In order to address these objectives, this commissioned report is divided into two major parts: 1) the
assessment of the implementation of the AA of PA21 and other UNCED commitments and the identification of
implementation gaps; and 2) the institutional and organizational requirements of a GE and the strategic options
for meeting these requirements.
At the outset, it is important to note three points that affect this assessment because of the implications
they bear for the outcomes of the Action Agenda. First, since the launching of PA21 in 1996, particular
economic, environmental and social problems, such as population growth, social disparities, pollution and the
deterioration of the environment and the country‘s natural capital have persisted and may have even worsened.
Second, new challenges and risks in the form of climate change, the increasing cases of natural and human-
made disasters, the unsustainable use of freshwater, and the depletion of groundwater sources, especially in
growing urban areas, now confront the country, further complicating an already highly complex situation.
Third, the regime change in 1998 altered government priorities somewhat. Economic interests unsupportive of
sustainable development seem to have figured more significantly. As a consequence, as PCSD went into an
apparent hiatus under the Arroyo administration, PA 21 lost its national prominence, leaving only blocs within
civil society and particular segments of the bureaucracy—i.e. government agencies assigned to work on social
and environmental issues—to pursue SD independently within their limited spheres of influence.

Part 1
AN ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE PHILIPPINE AGENDA 21
AND UNCED COMMITMENTS

Methodology for an Objective Assessment

Methodologically, an objective assessment of an intervention (or set of intervention measures) requires

the following information and processes:

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

a clear articulation of the desired goals and expected outcomes of the identified interventions;
a discussion of the interventions, how they are informed by the baseline conditions and how they relate
to the desired goals. A prior analysis of problems would expectedly ensure that the specified
interventions are adequate to address the problems at hand or that there will be no intervention gaps and
omissions. With an adequate analysis of the situation, the only requirement for attaining the desired
goals is the proper implementation of the identified interventions, i.e. the provision of logistical
requirements and effective monitoring and response mechanisms to oversee and direct the intervention
process.
3
 Final Draft

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

The Limitations

In applying the above assessment methodology to PA21, it is important to understand that its nature and
provenance pose major constraints to the satisfaction of each of the methodological requirements and thus, to an
overall assessment. Nevertheless, this report accepts the following limitations as given, and made the necessary
adjustments to enable the assessment to proceed.

One, there is no explicit analytical discussion of the baseline conditions that require intervention. In the
section ―Where are we now?‖, PA21 merely provides a listing and brief discussion of trends in demography,
culture, the economy, urbanization, human development, the environment and politics, which portray, in broad
strokes, a picture of baseline conditions1. Additional inputs to the baseline scenario may also be inferred from
the ―issues and concerns‖ heading of the action agenda for each ecosystem and from the economic,
environmental or social problems mentioned in the general observations or trends. While the document brought
out many problems, it must be noted that some of them hardly received attention and thus had no corresponding
interventions. These include uneven growth across regions, jobless growth and exclusion, rising public debt,
and corruption, among others.

Two, in the absence of an analytical discussion of baseline conditions, proponents of PA21 may have
proposed intervention measures, based either on their own implicit notion of baseline conditions or on their own
interpretation or understanding of some parameters and strategies found in the section ―How do we get there?‖
The lack of an explicit analysis of some problems, as illustrated in the discussion of policy gaps and omissions
in a later section of the report, has made it necessary to evaluate some of the proposed interventions in terms of
their adequacy and empirical grounding.

Three, while an implicit analysis may have guided some of the proposed interventions, the gaps and
omissions of the intervention measures in the Action Agenda (AA) may also be due to the failure to
systematically use the available parameters and strategies for sustainability (in the section ―How do we get
there?‖) for either directly formulating intervention measures or defining the purpose or expected output of such
measures. For instance, the following statements on parameters and strategies for sustainability suggest the
intervention measures or approaches that could have figured in the AA list of interventions.

(A) precautionary approach is adopted in economic and environmental management with emphasis on
preventive rather than mitigating measures;
Economic enterprises must internalize social and ecological responsibility by carrying out business
activities within the framework of sustainable development;
The biological limits to natural resource productivity are scientifically researched and established and
become the bases for strategic policy decisions on societal use of the country‘s natural resources;
Deep social and ecological considerations are directly embedded in the long-term development
framework, policies, and activities... in effect internalizing ecological and social costs,... and rejecting a
―grow now, pay later‖ approach;
1
The following trends and problems are listed: rapid population growth, spatial imbalances in population distribution, the pressures on
the family, the growth of social inequity and environmental degradation, high level of public debt, market distortions, trade deficits,
destructive mining, concentration of economic power, indiscriminate agricultural land and ecosystem conversion, threat to food
security, pollution, inadequate waste disposal, water shortage, deterioration of sanitation, and the lack of health and other basic
services.
4
 Final Draft

Unsustainable, as well as conspicuous luxury and excessive consumption are discouraged through
economic, as well as social and regulatory instruments;
Ecologically, economically and socially sound strategies and structures (must) replace energy- and
material-intensive, environmentally degrading, and economically inefficient patterns of production,
distribution and consumption;
Communities‘ access to and control of common natural resources, such as water and biodiversity is
assured;
The conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems and natural resources by self-reliant communities in
rural areas are given greater priority, and appropriate rural development is structurally linked and
balanced with urban development;
Multi-stakeholder and community-based sustainable development plans and programs are prioritized
over national plans and programs that undermine sustainable development.

In turn, the omission of the culling of such strategies either suggests that the available proposed interventions
were simply drawn from an unarticulated governance framework, or that the policy gaps and omissions reflect
the limitations of the existing or assumed governance framework for PA21.

Four, the entries under the ―issues and concerns‖ heading of PA 21 do not unequivocally state the
desired goals for each ecosystem or across all ecosystems. Some entries call attention to relevant problems or
they propound general solutions or intervention measures. Two cross-cutting concerns/issues—i.e. the
improvement of governance and the establishment of an enabling economic environment—express both the
problem and the general solution requiring specific interventions.
With regards to the ―strategies/action agenda‖ and ―targets‖ in PA 21, the entries do not consist solely of
intervention activities whose outcomes are directly related to the desired goals. As written, the PA21
―strategies/action agenda‖ consist of a mixed bag: general directions or solutions within a given area of concern;
the particular courses of action (reviews/ assessments, direct interventions, etc.) to address a problem; and the
existing or proposed policies and programs as well as the responsible agency. On the other hand, the ―targets‖
consist of the plans, policies (codes, proposed legislations and policy revisions), pilot or nation-wide projects, or
programs to be formulated, improved upon or implemented, together with the research to be undertaken and
agencies to be established, strengthened or capacitated. In other words, it is necessary to sift through the
strategies and targets to cull the proposed interventions for a particular goal.
Five, most of the ―strategies/action agenda‖ and ―targets‖ in PA 21 do not have objectively verifiable
indicators (OVIs)2. Although the AA strategies and targets were laid out in PA21 for the short, medium or long
term, it is not possible to monitor the timely implementation of interventions and whether or not they achieved
the desired effect—much less assess the commitment of the country to sustainable development and the
efficiency of the implementing government agencies and civil society groups—without the requisite indicators.
In other words, without measurable OVIs, the possible impacts of the agenda on the various spheres/areas of
concern for each ecosystem would be unknown, and its accomplishments un-specifiable. Under such
circumstances, this report can only provide an incomplete review of the implementation and progress of PA 21.

Interestingly, the task of specifying the indicators, risks, and responses to the contingencies and progress
of implementations could have fallen on the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development. But the window
of opportunity for the PCSD to have taken it on was open only for less than two years of the Ramos

2
Note that in the initial review of PA 21, the suggested set of core indicators consisted of general conventional national income-related
or sector statistics that are not directly pertinent to the intervention process, i.e. these are not relevant in monitoring the activities,
outcomes, purposes and the attainment of the desired state in PA21.
5
 Final Draft

administration from the launching of PA21 in September 1996, for another two years in the aborted term of the
Estrada administration and for a year or so into the Arroyo administration, after which the Council seemed to
have gone into a hiatus. In other words, elections, regime changes (including the impeachment of President
Estrada) and the attendant shifts in the priorities of each administration undermined what could have been five
years of uninterrupted implementation of PA21 under the auspices of the PCSD that could have set the terms of
its implementation and developed the appropriate OVIs and monitoring system.

The Adjusted Assessment Methodology

Given the above limitations that reflect a significant deviation from common practice, what is the
methodological basis for the assessment of PA21 in this Report? The following procedures document the
adjusted assessment methodology:

1. Cull the interventions and adopt a log frame format;

2. Link the proposed interventions to a sustainability criterion and define the desirable criterion state;
3. Determine the level of implementation and the adequacy of intervention or the presence of intervention
gaps and omissions;
4. Assess the impact of interventions with reference to a constructed set of indicators that show the
movement from an undesired baseline criterion state to an improved state;
5. Determine the ecosystem criteria scores, and finally,
6. Validate the assessment with experts.

Cull the Interventions and Adopt a Log Frame Format

First, the entries under ―strategies/action agenda‖ and ―targets‖ in PA21, including some entries under
―issues/concerns‖ are unpacked and sifted through, to extract the intervention activities that are necessary or
instrumental to the attainment of the desired state. The AA of PA21 is subsequently re-cast into a log frame
format where the extracted interventions specifically involving the implementation of policies, plans, projects
and programs (PPPP) constitute the first critical entries in the log frame. These entries thereby serve as the
means to either arrive at particular outputs or solutions or provide the necessary conditions that would combine
with other project outcomes to achieve a ―purpose‖ essential to the attainment of the ―goal‖ or desired state.

Table 1 illustrates a sample recasting of a portion of the AA into a log frame structure. The Table
differentiates the relevant intervention activities for the forest ecosystem from the strategies/action agenda items
or targets that may aptly be classified as the preliminary or accompanying activities of government agencies.
These preliminary activities constitute either the tasks prior to actual intervention (those already assumed in the
implementation of a PPPP intervention), or those merely carried out as regular governmental functions without
any consequence for a proposed intervention or the attainment of a desired state.

In the sample log frame, the ―goal‖ of rehabilitation and sustainable management of forestlands would
require at the onset preliminary ―activities or projects‖, such as the establishment of a comprehensive
management information system (MIS) for forestland delineation, valuation of biodiversity and other forest-
watershed use values, the assessment and policy formulation of alternative tenure instruments, and the
formulation of forest management plans. With these preliminary activities, the proposed PPPP can then be
implemented simultaneously or chronologically in the order of importance or prior work flow. Given particular
assumptions, these PPPP interventions once implemented are expected to lead to particular ―project results‖,
which in turn would contribute to conditions or ―purposes‖ strategic to the attainment of the goal or desired
state.
6
 Final Draft

Table 1: Illustrative Recasting of a Portion of the PA21 AA into a Log Frame

Goal or Desired State Rehabilitated forestlands and watersheds under sustainable management
Poverty alleviation

Purpose Forestlands under secure tenure;

Improved policy environment and enforcement-implementation capacity;

PPPP Output or Results Watershed management approach implemented on the ground;

Attainment of forestry-watershed plan objectives;
Expansion of community-based tenure;
Establishment of payments for environmental services;
Marketing of community-based agro-forestry products

Implemented Policies, Capacity building and organization of community based management;

Plans, Projects or A joint LGU-DENR MOA on community management;
Programs (PPPP) Provision of a community-based management (tenure) agreement to
identified communities;
Implementation of a forestry-watershed plan.

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

It may be noted that a log frame approach functions much like the Managing for Development Results
(MfDR) framework of the 2010-2016 Philippine Development Program (PDP). Based on an analysis of the
country‘s economic, social and environmental problems, the MfDR framework draws up a comprehensive
program of development strategies which identifies the policies, plans, projects, and programs to implement.
Like the log frame, the MfDR is a management tool that enables government to focus ―on development
performance as well as sustainable improvements in outcomes, and provides both the framework and practical
tools for strategic planning, risk management, progress monitoring, and outcome evaluation‖.

Link the Proposed Interventions to a Sustainability Criterion and Define the Desirable Criterion State

Second, having identified the interventions that serve as means to attain the goals of sustainable
development, these interventions must then be linked to a particular sustainability criterion. At least four criteria
may be identified: 1) natural capital/ resource stock, environmental quality and carrying capacity; 2) efficiency
of production or economic activity; 3) equity in access to natural and environmental resources and in the
distribution of benefits; and 4) poverty alleviation. These four goals/ criteria represent at least 5 out of the 15
PA21 principles mentioned earlier, namely ecological soundness; viable, sound and broad-based economic
development; inter- and intra-generational and spatial equity; and bio-geographical equity and community-
based resource management; and sustainable population. If realized, the fourth criterion (poverty alleviation)
may also help contribute to the partial realization of 3 other principles, specifically the development of the
human potential, social justice, and participatory democracy. In order to be realized, however, these three
principles must also have their own intervention measures. In other words, this assessment report would only be
able to directly cover the above four criteria or 5 principles. Regrettably, it cannot include other goals or
principles which do not have explicit intervention measures.
7
 Final Draft

Table 2 lists the various PPPP interventions that may be gleaned from PA21 and the MEAs, and
classifies them under a particular sustainability criterion, by ecosystem. The MEA interventions are dated on the
year they were introduced to dovetail with the earlier PA21 measures.
Table 2. List of PPPP Interventions from PA 21 and MEA, under each Sustainability Criterion, by
Ecosystem or Sector.
Forest Ecosystem
Purpose/Goal: Avert the expanding marginal, degraded, unproductive upland areas, and promote the
sustainable management of the remaining production forest.
Activities (Policies, Plans, Projects, Program) Indicator
Natural Delineate final forest boundaries 6 million ha of forest
Capital Stock Establish national and local forest tree seed Establishment of a seed center in
and centers; Produce high quality seed and planting Los Banos; production of 5 species
Environmental stocks;
Quality Undertake biological fertilization, enrichment
planting, ANR One MFPC per ‗hotspot‘ area
Establish effective Multi-sectoral Forest
Protection Committees; Involve CFMA and Rehabilitation at 10% a year
CADC recipients; Rehabilitate critical watersheds 30 tribes
Promote indigenous knowledge and technologies
Implement an integrated watershed management 20 critical watersheds; Effective
program forest cover in all critical watersheds
Equity in Expand community forests and implement all Area of CBFM, ISF, CFP, FLMA
Resource people-oriented forestry programs; Shift expired (7.38M hectares)
Access and TLA areas to community forest management
Benefits Improve/ reform policy on tenurial arrangements
Issue Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims after
preparing a development plan
Poverty Provide alternative sources of livelihood to uplift
Alleviation the socio-economic conditions of upland
and communities and establish upland livelihood
Eradication enterprises that provide technology, credit and
marketing assistance
Establish the Center for People Empowerment in Training of upland farmers &
the Uplands (CPEUs) extension workers in sustainable
Manage a trust fund for upland development farming
efforts
Production Establish industrial forest plantations 800,000 hectares
Efficiency Sustainably manage delineated production forest 2.48 million hectares; TSI in 75,000
areas; undertake TSI & enrichment planting (EP) ha annually & EP in 40,000 ha.
Establish the permanent production forest estates
Develop productive plantations in sub-marginal
lands
Prevent pest and disease problems; Pilot test
Promote agro-forestry technologies in upland
areas
Develop and establish the wood-based and the Inefficient mills phased out, number
local non-timber industries of non-timber industries

8
 Final Draft

Biodiversity
Purpose/Goal: Prevent the loss of biodiversity or strengthen biodiversity protection
Activities (Policies, Plans, Projects, Program) Indicator
Natural Implement the 1997 National Biodiversity Identified Key Biodiversity Areas
Capital Strategy and Action Plan; 2002 Philippine (KBAs)
Restoration Biodiversity Conservation Priorities of 2002;
Rehabilitate damaged marine, wetlands and
terrestrial (IPAS) areas;
Enhance biodiversity conservation efforts;
Identify critical habitats and species-rich areas for
inclusion in NIPAS
Identify & protect flora and fauna species in near- Establish biodiversity center, in-situ
crisis conditions conservation facility for wetland
Implement a community-based biodiversity habitats and conservation areas for
conservation education and research program wildlife relatives of crops
Provide community training, capability building Establish a Wildlife Rescue and
Strictly implement EO 247 (Prescribing guidelines Refuge Center in each critical area
and establishing a regulatory framework for the Establish a gene/seed bank for
prospecting of biological and genetic resources, animal genetic resources and
their products and derivatives for scientific and underutilized species
commercial and other purposes).
Prospective large-scale projects to be established
in NIPAS areas must be relocated.
Access Equity Resolve problems/ conflicts in the implementation
of the NIPAS law,
Increase IP representation.in PAMB
Poverty Promote alternative sustainable livelihood
Eradication activities for bio-resources-dependent
communities
Efficiency Promote the development of value-added
products;
Formulate and implement a National Ecotourism
Development Plan;
Unify DOE Energy Plan on geothermal production
with the NIPAS biodiversity Program

Coastal and Marine Ecosystem

Purpose/Goal: To ensure sustainable development of the country’s coastal and marine environment and
resources and alleviate poverty
Activities (Policies, Plans, Projects, Program) Indicator
Natural Rehabilitate degraded coral reefs and sea grasses; 10% of degraded areas must be
Capital Stock reforest mangroves, and manage swamplands restored every year.
and Evaluate Fishery Leasehold Agreement (FLA),
Environmental cancel unproductive or unsustainable ones and
Quality revert these to mangroves/ public domain
Develop anti-poaching illegal fishing plans at the
municipal level
Apply programmatic EIA for coastal and marine
development projects
Adopt monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS)
9
 Final Draft

system; enforce protection measures; penalize

violators Members of POs and NGOs
Modernize the Bantay-Dagat program deputized.

Develop and implement guidelines on the

management of adjacent watersheds
Implement the action plan for the protection of
marine environment from land-based activities &
the development plans of growth centers
Formulate an action plan for the protection of
marine environment from oil spills,
Establish a multi-sectoral monitoring team to One multi-sectoral team per province
assess the status of the area and evaluate impacts
of activities/ projects on the resource, environment
Recognize the primacy of fishing communities in
the management of and access to marine
resources.
Enable communities to manage coastal and marine
ecosystems.
Develop, improve mechanisms that would
increase or facilitate access to basic social
services. Also in PE
Comprehensive National Fishery Industry
Development Plan 2006
Access Equity Prepare and implement a coastal zone
management plan with the participation of
communities.
Develop mechanisms that provide equity of access
to coastal resources. EF
Provide access to basic social services
Poverty Implement a Comprehensive Coastal Zone
Eradication Management Plan with community participation
Delineate near shore areas for various purposes
Evaluate fishing methods and revise rules and
regulations on fishing methods
Monitor and control culture technologies in
relation to sustainability& environmental impact
Provide training for business enterprise
management. PE
Research, identify and provide alternative
livelihood
Promote the active participation of all sectors in
planning for the management of coastal resources/
ecosystems
Provide technical and financial assistance to
improve traditional knowledge of marine living
resources and fishing techniques
Comprehensive National Fishery Industry
Development Plan 2006

10
 Final Draft

Efficiency Delineate near shore areas for various purposes

Evaluate fishing methods and revise rules and
regulations on fishing methods
Implement EIA system on existing and proposed
development plans on economic growth centers
Promote the active participation of all sectors in
planning for the management of coastal resources/
ecosystems

Lowland/ Agricultural Ecosystem

Purpose/Goal: Address land degradation and promote a sustainable agriculture
Activities (Policies, Plans, Projects, Program) Indicator
Natural Identify agricultural lands non-negotiable for
Capital conversion; prohibit conversion of agricultural
Restoration lands with existing or planned irrigation facilities.
(Also in EQ)
Implement the National Action Plan (NAP) to MOA among DA, LGU and
combat desertification, land degradation, drought communities
and poverty (2004 -10; 2010-20)
Promote and, provide incentives for effective soil
and water conservation through various ways
Establish germplasm/ seed banks for indigenous
species, & reintroduce disease-resistant traditional
varieties
Implement alternative pest management activities Conduct training and establish IPM
and promote organic farming (Also in EF) demo sites.
Ban use of inorganic fertilizer
Promote diversified intensive farming systems
(Also in EF)
Equity in Implement CARP
Access and Provide security of tenure and efficient support
Distribution services (irrigation, credit, roads, harvest
facilities)
Promote community-based resource management
and cooperatives (Also in PE)
Poverty Implement projects to ensure the regeneration of
Eradication marginal lands for agriculture (NK)
Implement a food subsidy program tied up to the
participation in revised work program
Implement suitable agroforestry systems
Provide support services to ARCs
Increase the incomes and productivity of farmers
through the cultivation of high value crops
Provide incentives in support of sustainable
agriculture;
Provide accessible funding/ loan facilities to POs,
cooperatives
Establish an endowment fund for sustainable
agriculture (Also in EF, NK)
Increase nonfarm employment for small farmers,
fisher folks
11
 Final Draft

Efficiency Circularize regulations on land use conversion

Tax idle agricultural lands; Develop idle lands into
integrated production areas
Increase domestic food production (Gintong Ani) 1.2M ha for palay, 750,000 ha for
Encourage integrated crop and livestock farming corn
system One demo farm per district
Support the development of community-based full
cycle food processing technologies
Remove subsidies on output and input prices and
eliminate policy-induced costs of production;
Allocate public expenditure in rural infrastructure Unspecified percentage of the budget
and human resource development for sustainable
agriculture
Develop integrated financing for all agricultural
Construction of new irrigation and
operations
rehabilitation of existing system
Implement the Irrigation and Agricultural
(8,876 has)
Productivity Enhancement Act; Establish SWIP,
farm to market roads & provide extension service
Support the development of community-based full
cycle food processing technologies and support
services
Ban the marketing and use of persistent organic
pollutants (POPs)
Reintroduce the use of traditional varieties (NK)
Promote chemical free agriculture, organic
farming, and the use of environmentally-friendly
biological control techniques

Freshwater Ecosystem and Water Resources in the Urban Ecosystem

Purpose/Goal: Prevent the degradation of water quality and freshwater ecosystems
Activities (Policies, Plans, Projects, Program) Indicator
Natural Rationalize land use to prevent degradation,
Capital erosion, siltation of water bodies
Restoration & Formulate and adopt a national policy framework
Environmental for the sustainable use of freshwater ecosystem
Protection Integrate the development of water resources with
the conservation of the ecosystems (forests,
wetlands, watersheds) that affect the water cycle
(Also in EF)
Restore degraded freshwater ecosystems
Protect freshwater ecosystems from pollution and
degradation
Regulate the extraction of freshwater resources
Formulate a master plan for the management,
rehabilitation and protection of water bodies from
domestic wastes and industrial effluents
Assist small and medium-scale industries in water
treatment and recycling
Promote centralized waste water treatment
facilities for industrial zones
Promote the construction of common treatment
12
 Final Draft

facilities for domestic sewage

Provide adequate, efficient sewerage system and
septage treatment facilities
Relocate industries from urban watersheds
Protect and rehabilitate watersheds and its buffer
zones
Develop groundwater resources
Access Equity Expand the water supply distribution network and
upgrade existing facilities
Poverty (After PA21, the Philippine Water Supply Sector
Eradication Roadmap of 2008 was conceived. Only recently
did the poor become the target of the President‘s
Priority Program P3W of 2005.)
Efficiency Review, adopt and implement the Action Plan for
Overall Water Resources Management or the
Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap
Regulate the extraction of freshwater resources
Establish the appropriate frameworks and
strengthen the institutional capabilities to assess
water resources and provide flood and drought
forecasting services
Formulate Water Resources Master Plan
Expand the water supply distribution network and
upgrade existing facilities
Reduce non-revenue water

Metallic Mineral Sector

Purpose/Goal: Promote the growth of the industry and prevent the environmental disturbances due to
mining operations.
Activities (Policies, Plans, Projects, Program) Indicator
Natural Enforce payment of the Mine Waste and Tailings
Capital fee (1974)
Restoration ―Adopt a tree, adopt a mining forest‖ requirement
on mining firms
Establish a mine rehabilitation fund
Restore abandoned mines
Declare a moratorium on mining operations and
the granting of permits in environmentally-critical
areas
Access Equity Strengthen the criteria and guidelines for social
acceptability; ensure that mining investors obtain
FPIC from indigenous peoples in the planned
mining area
Require a comprehensive plan developed with
local stakeholders
Poverty (Prior to implementation of 1% royalty for host
Eradication IPs and the Social Development and Management
and Labor Program with funds amounting to 0.9% of direct
Protection mining and milling cost)
Involve the community in environmental
monitoring
13
 Final Draft

Ensure mine safety and control potential hazards

to mine workers
Provide safety net to mine workers
Minimize the risks from mine operations
Efficiency Add risk assessment in EIAs issued (Also in NK)
Provide incentives for value-added manufacturing
processes

Urban Ecosystem (Green Industry/ Cities with Transportation, Waste, Energy)

Purpose/Goal: Protect the quality of air and water resources; reduce the risks of natural
And man-made hazards; and address the poverty situation
Activities (Policies, Plans, Projects, Program) Indicator
Natural Green Industry/ City
Capital Strengthen/ improve EIS system to include risk
Restoration assessment
Improve policy enforcement, monitoring systems
and facilities
Assist small and medium-scale industries in water
treatment and recycling
Promote centralized waste water treatment
facilities for industrial zones
Relocate industries from urban watersheds
Improve the air quality monitoring network;
develop technologies to improve air quality
Phase out lead and reduce SOx emissions
Develop non-motorized transport modes
Review, revise or amend existing policies on air
pollution control
Formulate a geo-based physical framework plan
for geologically sensitive areas; adopt appropriate
measures in managing geo-hazards

Waste
Inventory industrial sources of waste which pose
risk to public health and environment
Strengthen the management of hazardous wastes
Develop regulatory measures for the collection
and disposal of industrial waste that pose threat to
public health
LGU development of a cost-effective garbage
disposal system
Formulate a solid waste management master plan
for municipalities/ cities
Develop sanitary landfill sites
Include waste management cost in LGU budget
Access Equity Green City
Upgrade, relocate slums, squatter settlements;
implement Shelter Program
Urban poor access to financial institutions for low-
cost housing
14
 Final Draft

Poverty Green City

Eradication Upgrade, relocate slums, squatter settlements;
and Labor implement Shelter Program
Protection Urban poor access to financial institutions for low-
cost housing
Efficiency Green Industry/ City
Improve policy enforcement and monitoring
system, facilities
Update the comprehensive land use plan;
formulate and implement a zoning plan for
industrialization
Provide incentives for the relocation of existing
industries in urban areas

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

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

Having culled and classified the proposed AA interventions under a particular sustainability criterion, it
is assumed that this set of interventions, properly implemented, will be sufficient to move an ecosystem/ sector
towards the desired state. Table 3 depicts the desired states or conditions for each sustainability criterion per
ecosystem or sector. Hence, over a unspecified period of time the implementation of these interventions will
enable the attainment of the desired end goal or improved environmental, resource economic and social
conditions.

Table 3: Desired State or Goals for each Sustainability Criterion per Ecosystem, Sector
Sustainability Forest, Coastal/ Freshwater, Agriculture, Mining Urban (city,
Criterion (Area Biodiversity Marine water Farm lands industry,
of Concern) resource waste, energy
Natural Zero rate of Zero loss of Control of Adequate area Rehabilitation The carrying
Resource Stock deforestation; mangroves, point and non- for food of abandoned capacity of the
and Reforestation/ sea grass, point security needs; mines; urban air shed
Environmental afforestation of coral reefs, pollution; Soil nutrient Depletion of and
Quality denuded fishery Water quality maintained or mineral infrastructure is
forestlands; biomass; maintained; restored; deposits that maintained and
Regeneration Restoration Waste water Improvement of covers the cost improved with
of natural and treatment; once degraded of the growing
forest; regeneration Adequate lands environmental population.
Protection of mangroves, reserve for degradation and
15
 Final Draft

Sustainability Forest, Coastal/ Freshwater, Agriculture, Mining Urban (city,

Criterion (Area Biodiversity Marine water Farm lands industry,
of Concern) resource waste, energy
forest for coral reefs basic human community
biodiversity and sea needs and in- livelihood
conservation, grasses; stream losses
water supply, indirect/
flood or ecological
erosion services (e.g.
control, habitat
protection maintenance,
from geo- aquifer
hazards, forest recharge, )
fires;
Attainment of
a desirable
forest cover

Equitable Tenure to Tenure to Water for all; Provision of Tenure to Movement to

resource access forest- sustainable Community land and secure compliant universal water
(as indicative of livelihood fishery or access to local tenure to miners; access,
inclusive growth) dependent mangrove water sources; landless Access to sanitation
households, resource users cultivators; mineral services; Waste
community- or common Access to reservation water and
based property domestic and lands which septage
management; managers; irrigation water; provide treatment;
Sustainable Coastal ecological/ non- Provision of
forest resource community use benefits or health,
management resource non-mining education and
management uses (e.g. agro- other social
forestry, services
geothermal,
ecotourism)
Efficiency of Harvesting at Harvesting at Moratorium Attainment of Vertical Use of
Production/ sustained sustained of water high potential integration renewable
economic activity yields in the yields; extraction in yield; Organic (value added energy;
production Preference for depleted farming; generation for Reduction of
forests; municipal aquifer areas Shift from mined ores) high-carbon
Forest use for fisheries to allow chemical-based Full activities;
non-timber versus large recharge; mono-cropping compensation, Increase in low-
production; commercial Groundwater to mixed if not full carbon
No licensees; abstraction at cropping, agro- mitigation of activities.
biodiversity No the recharge forestry and the negative
loss biodiversity rate; livestock; Land economic,
loss Wastewater use based on social and
treatment comparative environmental
advantage externalities
Poverty Reduced Alternative Water reserve Poverty Reduced Reduced
alleviation and poverty livelihoods in for basic alleviation of poverty number and
eradication incidence depleted needs; small farmers incidence proportion of
among areas; Cross- and landless among the urban poor
indigenous Reduced subsidies for farm workers indigenous
people and poverty the poor peoples and
upland incidence households upland migrants
migrants among small
fisher folks

16
 Final Draft

Determine the Level of Implementation, the Adequacy of Intervention or the Presence of Intervention Gaps
and Omissions

Third, the attainment of a given desired state or goal is constrained, however, by the level of
implementation of relevant interventions, the adequacy of interventions (i.e. the presence of intervention gaps
and omissions), and the impacts of developments in other criteria on the criterion in question. At the onset,
implementation necessarily starts with the near completion of preliminary activities and the introduction of the
necessary interventions, in some cases at the pilot level. It then proceeds at an appropriate time either to the
replication or extension of the successful pilot project to a larger spatial coverage, if not nationwide, at least
across the entire sector. At this stage, the adequacy of the intervention depends on the availability and efficacy
of the measures deemed necessary to change and improve the given undesirable state. In other words, whatever
intervention omissions and gaps that existed earlier would have been addressed.
Given the above identified interventions, the following observations on Table 4 may be inferred. One,
many of the listed strategies and targets in the AA are preliminary activities, i.e. actions that are pursued before
any direct, effective intervention can be undertaken. Only about a fifth to a quarter of the listed strategies and
targets are direct interventions in the log frame sense. Hence, in the areas or criteria where preliminary activities
persist or where there are effectively no interventions, one cannot expect any immediate improvement in the
given baseline condition.
Two, the available interventions are unevenly distributed across the various ecosystems/ sectors and
criteria. These interventions—31 in all—seem concentrated in lowland agriculture compared to the metallic
mineral, biodiversity, industry, cities and other urban (waste, transport and energy) sectors which have only
half—13 to 17—of the interventions in lowland agriculture. With regards to the different criteria across
ecosystems, greater attention is given to two criteria, namely natural resource/environmental stock and quality
and production efficiency, with the former generally enjoying more interventions than the latter, except in
agriculture. Conversely, fewer interventions have been undertaken for equity and poverty eradication. In
particular, the limited number of interventions to eradicate poverty was mainly directed to agriculture, while
biodiversity had only one intervention, green industry and cities two, and forest, coastal/ marine and mineral,
three. It was only with the 2005 P3W project that intervention for poverty alleviation was undertaken in the
freshwater ecosystem. Similarly, with regards to equity, there was no related intervention in the urban
ecosystem (waste, transport, energy) while the ‗freshwater‘ ecosystem had one intervention measure and the
other ecosystems two or three.

Table 4. Number of Interventions, by Criterion and Ecosystem, relative to the Number of Strategies and
Targets in PA21, with Indicators

Number of Number of Natural Equity Poverty Production Number of

PA21 Interventions Capital Stock in Access Eradication Efficiency Indicators
Ecosystem Strategies, Across All & &
Targets Criteria Environment- Distribution
al Quality
Forest 106 19 6 3 3 7 12/19
Biodiversity 76 15 10 2 1 3 4/15
Coastal/ 84 24 10 3 3 7 3/24
Marine
Lowland 111 31 7 3 8 13 4/31
17
 Final Draft

Agriculture
Freshwater 34 21 14 1 - 6 -
Metallic 64 13 5 2 3 3 -
Mineral
Industry, 17 10 2 2 3 -
Cities 114
Waste, 7 7 - - - -
transport, 4 - - - 4
energy 2 - - - 2
TOTAL 589 153 69 15 20 49

Three, only the forest, biodiversity, coastal/marine and agriculture ecosystems had indicators to monitor
the progress of some of the interventions. With the forest-watershed ecosystem having the most number of
indicators, the proper monitoring of implementation was more feasible compared to the other ecosystems and
sectors. No mechanism seemed to have been available for determining the developments of the interventions in
the freshwater, metallic mineral, waste, transport, energy, and other urban sectors.
While Table 4 indicates the relative presence of interventions implemented across the criteria in each
ecosystem/sector, it is also necessary to determine the quality of the intervention, the level of implementation
and the presence of intervention gaps and omissions. These features are expected to constrain, if not reduce, the
efficacy of the interventions, and thereby account for the lack of improvement or limited progress in the
ecosystem or sector. Unless the implementation problems and intervention gaps and omissions are resolved, the
desired goals are close to unattainable.
The following observations and questions represent some of the implementation problems and
intervention gaps and omissions in the following ecosystems/ sectors.

On the forest-watershed ecosystem and biodiversity

One, given the target set in the AA for natural capital and equity considerations through the promotion
of people-oriented forestry or a community forest tenure program—where a total area of 7.38 million hectares
was specifically targeted in 1996 for the establishment of Community-Based Forestry Management (CBFM),
Integrated Social Forestry (ISF), Community Forestry Program (CFP), and the Forest Lease Management
Agreement (FLMA)—does the existing reduced coverage of only 5.4 million hectares reflect the slow
implementation of the program or a policy reversal that manifests a change in the DENR‘s priorities?
Two, the plan to establish effective multi-sectoral forest protection committees and rehabilitate, starting
in 2002, the critical watersheds at the rate of 10% a year implies that these watersheds should have been fully
rehabilitated by the end of this year. If they are not close to being fully rehabilitated, what has constrained
forest protection and the rehabilitation of degraded critical watersheds? Have the direct and indirect
beneficiaries of critical watershed services (Napocor, NIA, water districts) been tapped for these interventions?

18
 Final Draft

Three, what has been the employment generation effect of the various interventions like forest
rehabilitation, watershed management, industrial forest plantation, livelihood projects from the use of trust fund,
and the wood-based and non-timber industries? Have these interventions significantly generated jobs for the
rural labor force? If not, then it seems that the PA21 interventions in the forestry sector have had limited impact
on rural unemployment.

Four, while PA21 did not explicitly mention the use of the integrated ecosystem-based management
approach as a major strategy for sustainable natural resource (NR) management—possibly due to its focus on
the particular functioning of an ecosystem—the approach might have been adopted more widely in time,
especially with the converging actions of environment- and development-oriented government agencies and the
role NR plays in the 2011-2016 Philippine Development Plan (PDP). Has an integrated ecosystem-based
management approach figured in the development and implementation of PPPP for forest-watershed
sustainability? The PDP, for instance, has used the approach to conceive of adaptation measures to different
climate change scenarios, as well as to incorporate vulnerability and adaptability to disaster risk and climate
change in the preparation of protected area management plans.

Five, although the AA discusses biodiversity separately from the forest ecosystem, they cannot be
managed and conserved separately. In line with the country‘s commitment to the Convention on Biodiversity,
the DENR drafted the Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities in 2002. Through the efforts of academe,
NGOs, donors, communities and government, the Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) for conservation priorities
were identified in 2006. Comprising more than twice the areas covered by the NIPAS, most KBAs have not yet
been proclaimed as priority protection areas. What is their status then? How will government and civil society
address the actual and potential economic uses of un-proclaimed KBAs; how will the economic gains be
reconciled/ balanced with the biodiversity losses? What must a national land use policy clearly articulate as the
basis and justification for forest protection, as well as the conditions that will make the allocation of forest lands
for conservation or development socially agreeable? If business/economic development is to coexist with
biodiversity conservation, what forms of biodiversity interventions would be considered adequate or sufficient?.
For instance, will biodiversity offsets, establishment of corridors, or forest habitat regeneration outside of the
project site be acceptable?

There are only two options to maintain biodiversity: either establish a protection area of the same size
and quality elsewhere or declare the targeted open pit area a ―No-Go‖ site in the interest of biodiversity
conservation. The declaration of a site as ―No-Go‖ depends on the determination of ―the critical level of
biodiversity‖ and the valuation of biodiversity. An area rich in biodiversity may be declared a protection area in
different ways: the affirmation by a body of experts, religious or moral leaders and the state of its aesthetic,
educational, ethical or religious value; the secular liberal democratic practice of voting; contingent valuation or
by legislation. Historically, expert judgment has been the main means for the establishment of protected areas.
If the richness of a country‘s biodiversity benefits all of humanity, what is the international community‘s
willingness to pay for its protection and conservation?

Coastal, marine ecosystem

In confronting the problem of fishery depletion and fishery habitat degradation, the AA includes a
number of proposed interventions: 1) regulations to stop and penalize illegal fishing methods; 2) policies to
implement a municipal and commercial fishery licensing system; 3) comprehensive management plans to
rationalize/reduce fishing effort, develop environment-friendly fishing methods, establish community fishery
resource management, and co-manage and protect coastal fishery areas by incorporating the watershed in

19
 Final Draft

management plans; 4) projects for mangrove reforestation and the rehabilitation of other fishery ecosystem, and
5) the establishment and enhancement of locally managed marine protected areas.
Where implemented, these interventions have yielded tangible benefits, such as the conservation of coral
cover, growth of biomass and fish stock, and improved livelihoods for small fisher folks. Their effective
implementation may have been boosted by certain conditions—e.g. local awareness of the ecological
relationship of forest-watersheds and the coastal, marine ecosystem; strong leadership at the local level; the
cooperation of the BFAR-DA and FMB-DENR with the LGUs; and the community organizing efforts of civil
society; and external assistance.
The absence of these conditions and the bias for particular interventions probably explain the unabated
fishery depletion and habitat degradation that combined to spawn greater competition for fishery and coastal
resource access and displace small municipal fisher folks. In particular, the failure to prevent commercial
fishery encroachment on municipal fishery grounds and establish equity in the licensing of municipal fishery
access, coupled with the conversion of mangroves, coastal zones and lakes to fishponds, aquaculture or
mariculture have restricted the access to the resource (fish biomass, fishing area, or habitat) or the livelihood of
small fisher folks. Apart from the inequity effect, the commercial production bias for aquaculture/mariculture
and the inability to regulate stocking practices have resulted in overfeeding, pollution and the further
degradation of lakes and municipal waters.
The failure to anticipate the adverse equity and natural capital stock effect of particular interventions and
omissions arises from the lack of analysis of the sector and the poverty of municipal fishers. Against this
backdrop, the Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan (CNFIDP) of 2006—albeit a bit
late in coming—is nevertheless a welcome development. It provides a holistic analysis on which this sector
roadmap or sector plan is based. The analysis recognizes how the larger economy outside of fishery resources—
e.g. credit, infrastructure investment, employment opportunities—impact on poverty in the sector. Beyond
contextualizing the problem in a good analysis, the CNFIDPO advances specific solutions. For instance, to
address the issue of inequitable access, CNFIDP proposes the provision of prior use rights through the
municipal registration and licensing system. .
The lack of analysis in PA21 of 1) the competition for local (marine, coastal) resources; 2) the
displacement of small fisher folks; and 3) habitat pollution partly accounts for the absence of intervention
measures, such as setting the total allowable catch based on the sustainable yield of the fishery stock; the use of
fishery charges to promote sustainable fishing; the imposition of charges on point- and nonpoint pollution
sources; and compensations for damages to coastal waters, marine resources, and habitats.
Another problem that PA21 did not anticipate is the threat of cheap fish imports, given the country‘s
decreasing catch from its depleted stock and degraded habitats. While this development highlights both the
urgency of restocking and restoring the ecosystem and the need for aquaculture growers and commercial fishers
to be more efficient and competitive, it also requires the provision of safety nets and alternative employment
opportunities for the families whose livelihoods have been displaced.
Lowland/ agricultural ecosystem

The ―issues and concerns‖ section of the AA refers to immediate priority tasks or problems in the
agricultural sector such as the pace of CARP implementation, land conversions, idle lands, watershed
deterioration, droughts and the increasing share of degraded lands. Even without any explicit analysis of the
causes of these problems, PA21 advanced ―strategies‖ like a nationwide assessment of land degradation; the
monitoring of soil erosion rates and sedimentation; and the formulation of an overall land use policy.
Interestingly, these strategies are more in the nature of ―preliminary activities‖ than direct intervention
20
 Final Draft

measures. Only with the country‘s ratification of the UNCCD on February 10, 2000 was a National Action Plan
(NAP) to Combat DLDD (NAP-DLDD) for the period 2004- 2010 formulated. This Plan was later updated for
FY2010-2020 as a land and water-centered action plan.
It is notable that the AA also proposed interventions for problems that are not explicitly stated. For
instance, while it does not single out the loss of biodiversity or poverty among small farmers as an issue,
interventions, like the ―establishment of seed banks for indigenous species‖ and ―increasing the incomes and
productivity of farmers through the cultivation of high value crops‖, respectively, are proposed. It is not certain
whether the proponents of these interventions were unaware of the grassroots organic farming movement that
scientists, farm organizations and civil society groups initiated a decade earlier to gather traditional seeds;
undertake field experimentation and development; and establish community seed banks to counter the ‗green
revolution‘s‘ HYV-chemical fertilizer technology, Or, if this local movement came to their awareness, whether
they wanted to replicate its process (now with PCSD blessing) in other localities and advance the position that
organic farming would alleviate the farmers‘ indebtedness/ poverty and improve the health of their families.
Organic farm products may not have been equated with high value crops in the discussions and
consultations of PA21, given the dominant commercial sector and the small farms dependence on chemical
fertilizers, inorganic pesticides and genetically-modified seeds (GMO). However, the AA proposals calling for
the introduction of disease-resistant traditional species; alternative pest management; the use of biological
control and organic fertilizers; the ban on inorganic fertilizers and POPs; and chemical-free agriculture suggest
a nascent advocacy for alternative farming within the existing agricultural system. Whether sustainable
agriculture through organic farming would prosper and expand beyond its small market and land use share is
dependent on several factors that include the trajectory of existing policies (like the Organic Act of 2010, EO
514 on biosafety); the influence of strong interest groups; and the capacity of the organic farming movement to
fend off the GMO threat, support the transition of small farmers to a new farming mode, and help them realize a
larger market share. The play of all these factors is dependent on the health and environmental consciousness of
the Philippine middle class.
Approved on March 17, 2006, Executive Order No. 514 ―Establishing the National Biosafety
Framework, Prescribing Guidelines for its Implementation, Strengthening the National Committee on Biosafety
of the Philippines, and for other Purposes‖ seeks to control the risks posed by organisms modified by
biotechnology. Whether this policy will effectively regulate the continued use, introduction and spread of new
GMO seeds like BT corn and possibly Golden Rice is a challenge considering the continuing debates within
circles of scientists and agriculturists on whether organic farming can be scaled up fast enough, if at all, to feed
a rapidly growing population.

While the biotechnology industry knows its bottom line and where to move the agricultural sector, it is
not clear whether government agencies (DA, DAR, DENR, DILG, DTI, DOST-PCARRD) have leveled off on
the kind of agriculture they envision for the country. Would convergence maintain the existing dual
asymmetrical structure? Or would their collaboration with LGUs, people‘s organizations, and civil society
groups in local development projects help promote sustainable agriculture? The strategic R&D technology
research agenda of PCARRD for agriculture—e.g. farming techniques under adverse conditions, the
development of high-yielding, environment-friendly traditional crops and botanicals, and broad-spectrum bio-
fertilizers, the refinement of water harvesting methods, and the improvement of integrated nutrient and water
management systems—seems oriented towards organic farming. But the challenge PCARRD confronts is how
to involve local farm communities in the field experimentation, adaptation, refinement and diffusion of these
new technologies since ―green technologies do not yield tangible benefits (economic) in the short term.‖

21
 Final Draft

On the other hand, the potential role of the other agencies in sustainable agriculture is the provision of
support for the successful adoption and effective linkage of production to market outlets. The NAP (2010-2020)
in particular faces similar prospects. It must create livelihoods for the affected communities and introduce
technologies that would not only reverse land degradation and mitigate the effects of drought in affected areas
but also improve the community‘s resilience to natural disasters. In its pilot stage implementation in four
barangays within the Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park, the UNDP-funded STREEM project
for the NAP is still in a more or less experimental phase.
Freshwater ecosystem

The most striking gap in the AA for the freshwater ecosystem is its inadequate policy framework and
resource management approach. While the AA mentions the need for an inventory of watershed areas and the
management of the freshwater ecosystem using an ecosystem management approach (EMA), it does not
explicitly link the conditions of forest watersheds to the freshwater ecosystem. Neither does it define what EMA
entails. What, for instance, is the unit of management? Is it the body of surface water, the aquifer, the river
basin, or the watershed? If each of these water bodies begs to be properly managed, what regulations and
economic policy instruments ought to be employed? If PA 21 adopts an integrated water resource management
(IWRM) framework as is supposed, would the IWRM policy measures be taken en toto or only in part?
The gap in the AA‘s water management approach is intended to be addressed in PA21 by
―operational[izing the] management for freshwater ecosystems‖. But this task is hardly a ‗strategy/action
agenda‘ which can be implemented on a given body of water, such as a river. The statement merely expresses
the need to identify and operationalize the best option for managing a freshwater ecosystem. As such, it is only
a ‗preliminary activity‘. Similarly, the ‗strategy‘ to ―integrate the development of water resources with the
conservation of the ecosystems‖ is not an ‗activity/ PPPP‘ for implementation but a mere guide, if not an
expression of intention to prevent water resource development from damaging the ecosystem. How this
intention translates into existing water policies and regulations is not clear. Moreover, the agenda document
does not discuss the policies and regulations that must be implemented.
The AA underscores the need for a national policy framework for the sustainable use of the fresh water
ecosystem. However, it does not cite the limitations of the 1976 Water Code and the Clean Water Act to justify
such need. In particular, it has no discussion of the following unresolved critical issues: 1) the equity issue in
water access; 2) the distribution of rights to both surface and groundwater sources according to beneficial use;
3) the assumed zero-value of raw water; 4) the provision of formal water rights on a perpetual basis (even
across generations) to water permit holders; 5) the absence of the formal rights of rural communities to
domestic water supply; 6) the non-provision of a reserve for basic human needs and ecological functions; 7) the
non-application of economic instruments to the critical phases of the water supply cycle, like a surface and
groundwater abstraction charge, pollution charge, tariffs for wastewater treatment, and the sustainability of
water infrastructure and watersheds; and 8) the diversion of all water-related fees and charges to the General
Fund away from the water sector or local watershed. In other words, there is hardly any discussion of how the
IWRM goals of equity in access, resource efficiency in use and sustainability can be attained through the
‗activities/ PPPP‘ in PA21.
The neglect of the above water management and policy areas characterizes the current situation.
Illustrative cases would show how to guide the process of policy and regulatory reforms in the water sector. For
instance, cost-recovery irrigation fees may be applied to reduce wastages, cover depreciation of irrigation
facilities, and sustain services. Similarly, the application of tariff setting based solely on cost recovery to cover
water supply services can be broadened to enable the provisioning of sanitation, sewerage and septage services.

22
 Final Draft

Thankfully, the principles of IWRM and the availability of the water road map make it possible to apply
the principles of IWRM and formulate a strategic program for water resource management that would promote
its equity, efficiency, and sustainability goals. In the absence of a comprehensive policy framework and
appropriate management approach to reach the desired state, it will be difficult to ascertain whether the sector
has moved to a less sustainable state. The question at hand then is ―have policy discussions and resolutions been
reached with regards to the IWRM policy issues and what have materialized in the PPPP?‖
The metallic mineral sector

The AA for the metallic mineral sector has two general objectives: 1) to promote the growth of the
mining industry, and 2) to address/prevent environmental disturbance due to mining operations and enhance the
country‘s capacity to manage such disturbances. The two objectives are also present in the Philippine
Development Plan, as reflected in the identified strategies: 1) to rationalize mining for national development,
and 2) to strictly enforce, if not assure, the industry‘s compliance with the laws and policies on environmental
conservation, protection and rehabilitation. With its expressed concern for the inadequate institutional
capacity/capability to implement the 1995 Mining Act, PA 21 reiterates the regulations and requirements
industry must comply with, such as the social acceptability of the project to the communities, the establishment
by the industry of a mine rehabilitation fund, its payment of the mine waste and tailings fee, the formation of
multipartite monitoring team, and the formulation of abandonment plans with adequate funds guarantees.
PA 21, however, does not go beyond existing policies and regulations which are assumed to adequately
address environmental disturbances/ damages. There is no discussion, for instance, of compensation for
damages, apart from the tailings fee and rehabilitation fund. In truth, PA21 has not questioned the limited
coverage and declining real value of the mine waste and tailings fee. The fund only provides for the cost of
repair of damaged privately-held property, and does not consider damages to public resources and the
environment. Moreover, at the very least it has not adjusted the fixed nominal fee rate set in1974.
The PDP recognizes the industry‘s potential threat to environmental conservation and thus recommends
measures to institute comprehensive resource valuation and ―safeguard the ecological and environmental
integrity of areas affected by mining operations‖. Operationally, this recommendation—when applied either
during the Environmental Impact Study (EIS), the application for an Environmental Compliance Certificate
(ECC) or while a mining firm is in operation—seems to translate into the establishment of an environmental
insurance or a damage compensation fund to cover either the estimated expected damages or the actual damage
costs. At the moment, this is not yet a policy issue.
It is worth noting that there are uncompensated costs due to mining, which have not been considered in
either the PA 21 or the PDP. These include 1) the costs of community displacement from their traditional
subsistence or livelihood sources; 2) the free use of water for mining operations and its diversion away from
the communities‘ domestic and farm needs; 3) the pollution of surface water and aquifers from acid rock
discharges, release of wastewater, toxic metals and effluents, and the risks of tailings leakages and overflows; 4)
the full cost of pollution of community water sources, natural habitats, farm and fish yields, marine
productivity, livelihood, health, mortality and biodiversity; and 5) the cost of tailings dam collapses on
livelihood, health and the environment in downstream areas. The internalization of the full economic, social and
environmental cost of mining implies drawing the fund from the miner‘s rent or excess profit which is likely to
trigger industry resistance.
The concern to ―safeguard the ecological and environmental integrity of areas affected by mining
operations‖—which implies measures to prevent biodiversity damages or losses—suggests either a policy to
establish ―No-Go‖ or protection areas—thereby extricating such areas from a mining concession area—or a

23
 Final Draft

provision to compel licensees to undertake ‗biodiversity offsets‘ within or outside the concession area. This too
is not yet a policy issue.
Apart from biodiversity concerns, there are other mining related problems that have not been the subject
of policy consideration. These include the need to contain acid mine drainage (AMD) and to prevent acid
forming hazardous wastes from the open pits; runoffs from acidic ore stockpiles; and other toxic chemicals from
contaminating surface water streams and leaching into the aquifer. ―Should mining companies be made to treat
surface water perpetually even after the life of the mine, or should they be required to prevent AMD from
starting at the very onset‖ is a policy question?
Finally, another policy question regarding the allocation of a substantial amount of public forest lands
for mineral reservations is whether it is an exclusionary policy that prevents other economic land uses such as
agroforestry, non-timber production, geothermal production, eco-tourism, and simply ecological protection.

Urban ecosystem (energy, water, waste, industry and cities)

The action agenda of PA21 cited myriad urban environmental problems—poor living conditions in
heavily populated and expanding slum communities; pollution of drainage systems and water bodies given the
non-treatment of domestic wastewater, sewage and industrial effluents; the resulting biological death of rivers;
the accumulation and inadequate collection and disposal of domestic and industrial waste, chemical and toxic
substances and hazardous wastes; the polluted city air; and the threats to life and property in densely populated,
disaster-prone or geologically hazardous areas. The persistence, and, in some instances, worsening of the
problems, that become palpable when major disasters strike, create the impression of a potential implosion of
the Philippine urban environment.
Culling from the discussion in the agenda document, two of the salient issues that underlie many of the
above manifestations of a degraded urban environment and the challenge of turning the situation around are 1)
the tremendous pressure of a rapidly growing population on the urban infrastructure and the carrying capacity of
its ecosystem; and 2) the extremely limited governance and environmental management capacity of the DENR
and the LGUs.
The rapid growth of the population in urban areas and the consequent expansion of slum communities
have been a constant feature of the country‘s postwar development. Scholars have attributed this condition to
internal migration due to the concentration of formal and informal income sources in the cities. Not even the
period of authoritarian rule from 1972 to the early 1980s succeeded in regulating population growth and the
flow of rural folks to the city to eke out a living. This is a far cry from the situation in authoritarian countries
with entrenched local registration systems that have effectively limited the in-migration to cities. It also deviates
considerably from the situation of liberal democratic states that have effectively controlled migration to cities
by a more even economic development across the rural and urban geographies of their countries.
Addressing the urban environmental issues enumerated in PA21 through various interventions demands
a relatively strong state—i.e. city and metropolitan governments as well as government agencies like the DENR
with the capacity to formulate the necessary policies, but more importantly, to enforce and monitor consistent
compliance to existing legislation (e.g. the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act). It also calls for a general
awareness of environmental issues and the vigilance of civil society to protect the urban environment.
The proposed interventions for the urban eco-system that are listed in Table 3 require different levels of
government involvement—from the least involvement to the necessary creation of some form of ―central
command‖—whether it be at the level of the nation, a metropolitan government or local city governments.
Consider the following observations:
24
 Final Draft

A few of the interventions simply entail government oversight or the extension of assistance to existing
service providers in their provision of environmental services, like the assistance to industrial zone
managers for the establishment of centralized waste water treatment facilities on a cost-recovery basis
for enterprises within a zone. A related but more challenging form of assistance is the linking of
dispersed small and medium scale industries in a given district as clients of the local water district that
would invest in wastewater treatment and recycling facilities.

Other interventions require more intensive government efforts such as relocating industries out of urban
watersheds, phasing out lead and reducing SOx emissions, or establishing garbage disposal systems at
the LGU level.

There are (development) plans/ interventions begging for measures that are not fully identified in PA21
to help realize sustainable development goals. These include 1) the relocation of slum communities and
the provision of public housing for the informal sector; 2) the development of a sustainable
transportation system in urban centers such as non-motorized transport—although there is no
infrastructure for it in most of the country‘s cities; and given the low cost of motorcycle, a high
preference for motorcycles exists among the lower income groups that usually constitute the majority of
the urban population; and 3) the development of sources of renewable energy at the local and national
level, such as solar energy for the urban poor similar to that provided by development-oriented Indian
social enterprises (e.g. SELCO, India)
A review of the planned actions/measures for the urban ecosystem in the AA also reveals that a number
of them are still at the preliminary activity level, some with proposed measures without a definite end
intervention in mind—e.g. monitoring population and emission levels; a review of existing air pollution
control policies; an inventory of industrial and hazardous waste sources to develop and strengthen
regulatory measures to protect public health. Although preliminary, these actions are nevertheless
important because of the usual dearth of information for policy making—e.g. the relationship of
population density, emission levels to health and mortality risks; the inventory of empirically validated
energy efficient technologies; which businesses generate industrial waste and hazardous waste; how
these businesses dispose of these wastes and who are or will be affected by these wastes.
What remain unclear are the next steps after the necessary information is obtained. For instance, once
population density or emission levels are known to exceed tolerable levels is it enough to simply relocate
informal settlers and industries, enforce anti-belching regulations, or disallow the importation of second hand
vehicles. Are these measures sufficient to reduce the number of vehicles on the road? Similarly, once
information on informal settlers is obtained, wouldn‘t relocation simply transfer the problems of domestic
waste, untreated sewage, industrial effluents, and other wastes?
On the technical or policy implications of procured data, once information on the cost of energy efficient
technologies is available, would it be used as marginal pollution abatement cost measure for setting pollution
charges? How will industrial and hazardous waste be treated? If bioremediation is not possible for particular
wastes, will such industrial wastes and hazardous waste be banned? Under what conditions will industrial and
hazardous waste be allowed, what disposal method is permissible? Will the ―polluter pay‖ principle be applied
to the generators of industrial and hazardous waste and under what terms, and will their victims be
compensated?
A major challenge in Philippine urban areas is how to transition to an ecosystem that provides a better
quality of life where there is socialized housing for the poor; waste water, sewage treatment and recycling of
water; sanitary landfills; reduced consumption of fossil fuel energy; and the availability and increased use of

25
 Final Draft

renewable energy, and a sustainable transport system. An equally important challenge is how to distribute the
costs of the benefits of clean air, water, sanitation services, and the environment among the beneficiaries in a
class divided society.
At the moment, the public expectation is that the responsibility for confronting these challenges or for
providing solutions to environmental problems falls squarely on individual LGUs or national government
agencies. As noted earlier, the complexity of the urban ecosystem in a country where courts can issue
injunctions against the implementation of environmentally sustainable interventions for a common good
suggests the need for central coordination that transcends political turfs and that harmonizes local and national
efforts to generate much-needed synergy for mitigating urban environmental degradation and decay.

Assess the Impact of Interventions and Construct a Set of Indicators that Show the Movement from
an Undesired Baseline Criterion State to an Improved State
Fourth, the impacts of the identified PA21 and MEA interventions must be assessed. Given the absence
of baseline data, as noted earlier, and the above implementation problems and interventions gaps and omissions,
it is methodologically impossible to conduct a strict quantitative assessment of the impact of the proposed
interventions. A more feasible alternative is a qualitative assessment of the state of ecosystem/ sector
sustainability or un-sustainability that considers the varying levels of implementation and the existing omissions
and gaps of the identified intervention measures and the resulting state of each criterion. The varying levels of
implementation and the accompanying or resulting state of each criterion are specified by their respective set of
indicator outcomes that would both be measured along a scale from 0 to 4. With regards to the level of
implementation, each level shall be associated with a particular score as follows:

A value of 0 represents either the baseline scenario condition ―without PA 21 or MEA‖ intervention
measures for a particular criterion, where the undesirable conditions persist. Or it signifies the condition
where existing proposed measures bear no positive impact because they have not been properly
implemented, partly due to weak governance and environmental management capacity.

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

A value of 2 is assigned when implementation at the pilot level has been successful, and now proceeds
at an extended scale, with some positive outcomes.

A value of 3 means that implementation at a nationwide scale yields significant accomplishments as

reflected in the criterion outcomes.

The highest value of 4 means that the desired outcomes or goals are fully realized.
Similarly, the relative effect of intervention may be represented by varying indicators for the four
sustainability criteria. In general, a 0-value is assigned for the baseline unsustainability condition or when the
problems of resource depletion, environmental degradation, worsening pollution, inefficient and unsustainable
resource and energy use, inequitable resource access, lack of inclusive growth, and unalleviated or growing
poverty persist, while a value of 4 means that the (most) desired outcome has been attained.
Table 5 specifies the indicators that would show the movement of a particular criterion from an
undesired state to an improved or more desirable state of sustainability. Necessarily this movement involves
26
 Final Draft

time, effort, leadership and collective action. The value obtained by a particular criterion thus reflects the
relative success or failure of interventions to move the ecosystem or sector to a higher level of sustainability.

Table 5: Rank Values for each Criterion or Area of Concern:

Score Resource and Efficiency of Equity in Access Poverty Implementation

Value Env. Stock & Economic and Distribution Eradication, Level
Quality Activity Alleviation
0 The degraded Unsustainable Access to a Worsening No intervention
resource or extraction; resource or to its poverty; measure is
polluted Inefficient resource benefits is High poverty proposed.
environment is and energy use; inequitable. incidence; Proposed measures
unattended. Zero resource The inequity is Lack of inclusive are not
Resource value; worsening. growth implemented.
depletion or Growing negative Reversal in equity Governance and
pollution is externality or policy. environmental
worsening. pollutive activity management
capacity remains
weak.

1 The depletion There is growth in Inequity is reduced Poverty growth is Implementation is

of the resource production but but remains averted, but a either on a pilot
stock or the externalities critical. significant scale with potential
degradation of remain. There is only proportion success, or on a
the environment Unsustainable and partial or remains poor. larger scale with
is moderately pollutive activities insignificant limited success,
reduced. are reduced. compensation for due to unresolved
Inefficiencies in damages. policy gaps and
resource and implementation
energy use are problems.
reduced.
2 Resource Further growth in An excluded A slight decrease Successful
depletion or employment significant sector in poverty implementation at
degradation is opportunities or segment of the incidence (e.g. the pilot level;
averted; without reducing population gains less than half of implementation
Steady state the resource stock partial access to those below the proceeds to a more
consumption is and raising economic poverty threshold extensive scale,
attained; pollution levels. resources. is raised above.) with some positive
Zero loss of Initial shift to low Partial rents revert outcomes.
natural stock carbon and use of back to the sector.
and biodiversity renewable energy The poor gain
access to water.
3 Increase in Greater value Inequitable access A significant Implemented
stock or added generated; is more decrease in nationwide with
carrying More significant significantly poverty incidence significant
capacity; Initial promotion of reduced, and the (more than half of accomplishments
improvements sustainable benefits more those below the as reflected in the
in resource production; widely shared (for threshold are four criteria, with
quality and Increased usage of at least half of the raise). Inter- the elimination of
productivity low carbon deprived generational most if not all of
technology and population). poverty is the intervention
renewable energy eradicated. gaps.

4 Full enrichment Sustainable Access is universal, Greater proportion Full

of stock, production, green and the benefits are of the middle accomplishment of
27
 Final Draft

Score Resource and Efficiency of Equity in Access Poverty Implementation

Value Env. Stock & Economic and Distribution Eradication, Level
Quality Activity Alleviation
carrying industries; more equitably class the desired
capacity, Externalities fully shared for most of outcomes across
sustainability internalized the deprived the four criteria.
population.

Determine the Ecosystem Criteria Scores and Validate the Initial Assessment
Fifth, with the above levels of implementation and the indicators for criterion outcome, it is possible to
assess the impact of interventions in the various ecosystems and sectors through the index values of the four
sustainability criteria. The index value of the various criteria can be more precisely assessed with the use of a
more articulated set of indicators that specify the movement of each criterion in each ecosystem or sector.
Grounded on the consultant‘s synthesis of various sector analyses and evaluation studies, this detailed basis for
scoring each ecosystem criterion is presented in Table 7. It is placed in Part II because the resulting profile from
this assessment provides the baseline conditions on which a new round of interventions may be applied, again in
an effort to move the ecosystem/ sector to an improved level of sustainability.
Given the above scoring scheme for assessing each ecosystem criterion, the observed outcome may lie
between two scores, and hence may be scored as a fractional value. Assuming that 1) each criterion (with a
maximum score of 4) is equally weighed at 25 percent3; and 2) that the overall ecosystem sustainability
condition can be captured by the sum of the four criterion scores, then the most desired state for each ecosystem
in absolute terms is given as 16 when the scores are unweighted (or 4 when the scores are weighted).
The observed ecosystem score bears the following implications: First, it suggests whether the
interventions and their level of implementation have been adequate (or not) in improving criterion conditions
and moving towards the desired sustainability state. Second, it also implies, given the interaction of the various
criteria, that if a criterion score is low (or relatively high), then there will be insignificant (or significant)
secondary benefits. Third, the deviation of the score from the maximum would signal how many more
interventions or how much implementation efforts have to be expended to improve sustainability conditions.
Lastly, the overall ecosystem/sector scores provide a measure of the relative status of an ecosystem vis-à-vis the
others, thus identifying the ecosystems in need of greater attention.
Having ranked each ecosystem/sector along the four sustainability criteria, the NEDA consultant‘s
preliminary assessment (using absolute values) was initially validated in the NEDA organized National
Validation Forum by the participants/ experts from relevant agencies and civil society groups. Their separate
assessments were presented to a small panel of experts and again validated to settle some of the minor
differences. Table 6 presents the final panel assessment.
The following observations regarding the assessments in Table 6 are worth noting. One, the lack of
effective interventions in the natural capital, environmental quality criterion for forestry-biodiversity and
mining and the efficiency criterion for the freshwater/ water resource sector have kept the ecosystem/ sector in
their existing unsustainability state. Two, on majority of all the criteria (17 out of 24), the ecosystems obtained a
score of 0-1 or 1, indicating either that they have not completely surpassed the unsustainability state or have
reached at least the initial stage of implementation, where intervention at the pilot level or over a larger area
continue to be constrained by policy gaps and omissions. Three, only four criteria scores (efficiency in coastal/
marine, poverty alleviation in both forestry and lowland agriculture, and equity in lowland agriculture) have at
3
The respective weighs for each criterion may be changed, for sensitivity analysis, to reflect its relative importance but they must all
sum to 100 percent.
28
 Final Draft

least moved beyond a score of 1 but have not quite reached 2. Four, out of the maximum ecosystem score of 16,
mining; the freshwater; and forestry-biodiversity ecosystems have the lowest score, thus rendering them the
least sustainable. With scores respectively ranging from 3.5-4.5 and 4.3-5.3, the relatively high scores of
coastal/ marine and lowland agriculture ecosystems merely indicate that they are the least unsustainable. In
particular, both have not completely moved out of the state of unsustainability, specifically in the following
criterion – poverty in the case of coastal and marine, and natural capital for lowland agriculture. It was only in
the equity and poverty alleviation criteria that agriculture was able to marginally move out of the
unsustainability state.
Table 6: Expert Panel Ranking of Ecosystem Sustainability, based on Absolute Scores

Ecosystem Natural Capital Equity in Efficiency in Poverty Ecosystem

Stock, Environ. Access Production Alleviation Score
Quality Activity
Forest, Bio- 0 1 0.5 1.2 2.7
diversity
Coastal, 1 1 1.5 0-1 3.5 – 4.5
marine
Freshwater, 1 0.5 0 1 2.5
resource
Lowland 0–1 1.8 1 1.5 4.3 -5.3
Agriculture
Metallic 0 0–1 0 – 0.5 0–1 0 – 2.5
Mineral
Urban 1 0–1 1 1 3–4

The overall outcome—no criterion score reached 2 out of a maximum of 4 and no ecosystem scored 8
out of 16—suggests that the available interventions in PA21 and MEA have not enabled the country and
environment to reach even the half-way mark of the path towards sustainable development.
Based on the study‘s assessment framework, the role and nature of the interventions partly accounts for
the low criterion and ecosystem scores. If the available interventions, despite their strategic importance, have
had little capacity to change or improve the conditions along the criterion in question, the low scores may be
attributed to the low level of PPPP implementation and the intervention gaps and omissions. Given the inter-
relationship among the various criteria, the low scores may have also resulted from the very little improvement
in the condition along the other criteria related to the criterion in question.
Another explanation for the limited sustainability outcomes, however, may be inferred from the earlier
discussion of the omissions and gaps of particular interventions. Specifically, the presence of intervention gaps
and omissions reflects the failure to resolve governance issues and put in place the required governance
mechanisms. As outlined in Appendix 1, the list of gaps and omissions implicitly identify some of the
requirements for good governance that, if met, could have addressed such issues.
In general, successful intervention in any criterion or ecosystem requires institutional arrangements,
management frameworks/approaches and capacities, and appropriate rules, regulations and policy tools. For
instance, in order to address the given state of unsustainability, governance would require the proper
implementation of integrated ecosystem (watershed, forest, lowland, coastal) and resource management
approaches, community-based resource management, and the reconciliation of economic and natural resource
29
 Final Draft

development with environmental (resource and biodiversity) conservation. Moreover, the success of such
resource/ environmental management programs depends on the establishment of effective institutions and the
application of appropriate policy tools and regulations. As cited earlier, the success of community-based
resource management (as in the case of coastal fishery resource management programs) depends on local
leadership, community organization participation, inter-agency collaboration/ cooperation, a moratorium policy,
alternative livelihood and marine protected area management. Furthermore, given the identified policy gaps and
omissions across various ecosystems and sectors, governance would require specific regulations to address
specific problems such as idle lands, resource depletion, toxic waste generation, extractive or environmentally
damaging practices, environment and health damages, if not economic instruments for urban congestion, waste
management, pollution control, and renewable energy production and use.
Although governance is a determinant of the quality and adequacy of interventions—and hence the
resolution of policy gaps and omissions—it does not merely apply to how a particular intervention is carried out
to meet a particular criterion. At another level, governance underlies the quality of all interventions across the
four criteria. It is substantively a criterion in itself, like natural capital protection, equity, poverty eradication,
and efficiency in resource use. Figure 1 shows not only the relationship of the PA21 and MEA interventions to
the sustainability criteria but also the critical role of governance both as determinant of the quality and adequacy
of interventions and as a criterion requiring its own set of interventions. If effectively implemented, these
interventions can have profound effects on other criterion outcomes.

What does governance mean? As a process at the local-national, micro-macro level, governance
basically involves decision making and the use of power by the state, civil society and private sector to
determine the access, use and management of economic and social resources, and the distribution of their
benefits. Necessarily this scope of decision making would entail a definition of and some consensus on the
strategic vision for society. As such, the following mechanisms for good governance must be in place to attain
the societal goals or the common good: 1) effective partnership of state agencies, civil society groups, and the
various stakeholders in the private sector; 2) participatory decision making, opportunities for poor and
disadvantaged communities and sectors to articulate and promote their interests through a bottom-up process; 3)
the accountability of decision makers, resource users, implementers to prevent corruption, waste and diversion
of resources; and 4) the mediation of differences in policy positions and interests or the resolution of conflicts.

In the formulation of PA21, various societal goals were articulated. In addition, the PCSD was
established to be the vehicle for the partnership of the government, civil society and the private sector in the
attainment of environmental integrity, inclusive and sustainable development, and poverty eradication.
Although it is mentioned tangentially in PA21 as an ‗issue/ concern‘ and partially reflected in at least two of its
15 principles (participatory democracy and institutional viability), governance did not figure in this assessment
study when it should rightly have been treated as the fifth sustainability criterion. One reason is that while PA21
aimed to improve governance and even identified at least eight interventions to establish and set in motion a
governance framework, this goal did not prosper. The following interventions were merely noted: 1) to establish
an environment unit in all agencies; 2) build constituencies for sustainable development within government; 3)
incorporate guidelines for sustainable development in planning and budgeting; 4) strengthen the planning units
to represent various sectors and disciplines; 5) establish local centers for sustainable development; 6) establish
mechanisms for public participation; 7) form strategic alliances and action network; and 8) build the
constituency for sustainable development in business.

Thus it was that when the PCSD went into a hiatus, most of the above required measures for improving
governance were hardly implemented. In practice, governance was simply relegated to the mere implementation
of environmental and social development policies and programs by the respective mandated government
30
 Final Draft

agencies. It no longer seemed imperative to establish mechanisms for public participation and partnership
among government, civil society and the private sector groups through the formation of strategic alliances and
action network. Nor did it seem essential to direct efforts to building constituencies for sustainable development
within the entire government bureaucracy and civil society. No formal institution operated to demand
accountability, nor to expose and stop corruption in the environmental sector. There was also hardly any
institutional mechanism to resolve conflicts emanating, for instance from 1) the impact of extractive production
and commercial development on resource environmental conservation; 2) the inequities arising from the
extension of formal property rights to current resource users; or 3) the local livelihood displacement effect of
land conversions, trade liberalization, and other external developments.

Without a governance framework in place and an agency to vitiate the necessary institutional and
organizational networks and governance mechanisms, the constraining intervention gaps and omissions were
not fully resolved. Without a collective leadership from state, civil society and the private sector to monitor,
evaluate, augment and devise additional interventions, and an administrative authority to set up and ensure the
operation of governance mechanisms, the attainment of existing and new criteria goals could not progress.
Figure 1 illustrates the critical role of governance.

To conclude, this study utilized an assessment methodology for goal setting and defining environmental
integrity and sustainable economic and social development in operational terms but also for determining the
state of the environment and society vis-à-vis a strategic vision. The methodology also helped identify various
intervention measures that would bring the current condition closer to the desired state. While this methodology
can further be improved and instituted in national and local planning, a major challenge is how to determine the
completeness, adequacy and efficacy of interventions, the conditions for successful implementation and
requirements for effective interventions, and how to deal with the constraints, resistance, non-cooperation, and
differing/conflicting interests—in order words, the problems tackled through governance mechanisms.

Thus, the foremost lesson from an assessment of PA21 is that in pursuit of the strategic vision of
sustainable development, governance is a necessary and sufficient requirement, and this bears implication for
the establishment of a Green Economy and the institutional framework for sustainable development. Knowing
the intervention gaps, the omissions and constraints to implementation, as well as the weakness of the
governance process that has plagued PA21 makes it possible to develop an improved set of interventions that
will move the country back on-track toward sustainable development and poverty eradication—to put it, in the
language of Rio+20, towards a Green Economy and Inclusive Growth.

31
 Final Draft

Figure 1. The Relationship of Interventions to the Various Criteria and the Potential Role of Governance
as Determinant of Intervention Quality and as a Criterion

32
 Final Draft

Part 2

RIO+20 COUNTRY STRATEGY AND POSITIONS ON THE GREEN ECONOMY (GE) AND THE
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The above preliminary assessment of the implementation of PA21 provides an initial snapshot of the
current developments impinging on the country‘s environment. Articulating some of the issues and strategies in
PA21, the discussion in Part 1 identified major challenges—e.g. policy and implementation gaps—that have
constrained the country‘s movement towards sustainable development. With these constraints as point of
departure in preparing for Rio +20, it is imperative for the Philippines to formulate and flesh out an integrated
approach (strategy and program) to sustainable development (SD) and poverty eradication (PE) that fall under
Rio+20‘s theme of the ―Green Economy‖.
How the government and civil society will address the challenges and gaps and the policies and priority
activities needed to make the prospects of a Green Economy promising is the focus of this section of the report.
Part of the policy recommendations herein incorporates the roundtable discussions NEDA conducted with five
working groups, namely: agriculture and fisheries; environment and natural resources; infrastructure; green
cities; and green industries. Outputs from the regional consultations on the Green Economy and submitted
reports of various government agencies pertaining to the country‘s initiatives on sustainable development, as
well as the inputs from the National Validation Forum also figure in the policy recommendations.

Green Economy (GE) Prospects in the context of SD and Poverty Eradication

This section explores the following questions. What constitutes a Green Economy? How does it
compare with the current non-green economy? How can a transition from a given baseline condition towards a
GE be effected? Put differently, what general directions/overall strategies must be pursued to move the baseline
non-green/brown economy towards one that is increasingly green? What indicators can government and
stakeholders use to measure performance vis-à-vis sustainable development and the possible green jobs to
generate?

To implement a general strategy and move towards the direction of a Green Economy, it is important to
satisfy a number of requirements and undertake specific activities. However, a major premise of this report is
that there is no need to reinvent the wheel. A revised version of PA21—that is substantiated to fill in the gaps
and omissions discussed in Part 1—is still the strategic framework. As such, it can continue to serve as compass
while the specified requirements constitute a road map. Both the overall strategy and the specific requirements
function as means to achieve the paradigm and reality shift from a brown to a Green Economy for each
ecosystem and across them. In this journey, the state, the national and local governments, civil society groups
and private sector stakeholders of a Green Economy play a critical role in identifying the requirements for GE,
implementing the necessary activities, and realizing their desired outcomes. As drivers and navigators, they are
expected to confidently take the wheel; be focused; anticipate the trouble spots, blind corners, and constraints;
take the necessary risks; address the seeming dead-ends; remain steadfast and seek assistance when in a bind.

Definition of the GE and the Reality of a Non-Green Philippine Economy

The Green Economy marks the intersection of the environment and the economy. It is formally defined
as a macro-economy ―whose growth in income and employment is driven by public and private investments that
prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, reduce carbon emissions and pollution, and enhance

33
 Final Draft

energy and resource efficiency.‖4 Apart from this goal, however, a GE equally aims to enhance well-being and
improve intra- and inter-generational equity through socially inclusive growth.
In other words, a Green Economy is envisioned to be an environmentally-sensitive economic system
with an orientation towards human development. Growth in production/ income; improvements in technology;
and the use of surplus/savings are geared not only to 1) prevent natural capital depletion or biodiversity loss,
waste accumulation and the buildup of carbon emissions and pollutants and 2) help finance pollution cleanup
and the restoration of natural capital, but 3) also reduce poverty and increase investments in human capital.
Moreover, a Green Economy is expected to render more equitable access to the use and benefits of natural
capital.
Achieving the goals of a Green Economy—reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities (low
carbon consumption and resource efficiency) as well as inclusive growth—entails more than the flow of
significant private and public investments. Among others, it simultaneously demands lifestyles that produce low
per capita ecological footprints; population policies that ensure the carrying capacity of ecosystems to support a
growing population; agriculture that aims for higher factor productivity using environmentally friendly
production technologies; biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use to ensure food security amidst climate
change; the greening of industry through the recycling of wastes and the efficient use and conservation of
energy; the integrated use of renewable and non-renewable energy with increasing reliance on the latter; and the
greening of agriculture and transportation. As the new rallying point for the better integration of the three
pillars of sustainable development, the aspiration for a green economy is derived from and rooted in the
objectives, spirit, principles and operationalization of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) in 1992, the Rio Principles and Agenda 21, supplemented by the Rio + 10 process,
and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.

The state of contemporary Philippine economy, environment, and society, however, contrasts sharply
with the idea of a Green Economy in at least three ways.

First, economic growth has historically degraded, if not depleted the country‘s natural capital, as seen in
its denuded or deforested mountains, eroded, vulnerable and unproductive slopes, degraded watersheds, dead or
polluted rivers, converted and threatened mangroves, damaged and dying coral reefs, depleted marine fishery
stocks, and its densely populated cities with depleted aquifers.

Second, national domestic material input (DMI) or the consumption of raw materials and natural
resources has grown as fast as the rate of GDP, if not exceeding it at times, such that DMI per GDP even rose
from 2007 to 2009 (Chiu, 2011). This production-material resource linkage implies that the increasing pressure
of economic production on the domestic resource base has not lightened up. Nor has there been any
improvement in the efficiency of resource and raw material consumption to cushion the ongoing depreciation of
natural capital.

Third, across the decades, economic growth has enriched only small segments of Philippine society
largely because access to the use and benefits from natural capital has been historically inequitable. With the
degradation and depletion of natural capital, the livelihood and security of communities (of indigenous peoples,
upland landless households, small fisher folks, and other poor rural families) dependent on this critical

4
United Nations Environmental Programme (2011). Keeping Track of Our Changing Environment: From Rio to Rio+20.
34
 Final Draft

economic asset have also deteriorated. Thus, amidst economic growth and a contracted natural resource base,
inter-generational poverty has emerged as an intractable problem.

Fourth, the Philippines is still far from satisfying some of the previously enumerated conditions that
provide a stable infrastructure for a Green Economy. Although there is growing environmental awareness
among Filipinos, lifestyles that consciously keep ecological footprints low are still far from sustainable. With
one of the highest population growth rates, the country also remains among the very few nations in the world
without a population policy.

While organic farming, integrated pest and nutrient management has begun to take root, agriculture is
still far from green. So is the level of biodiversity conservation and planned utilization for food security.
Finally, gains in industrial waste recycling, energy conservation, the use and development of nonrenewable
energy, and the greening of transportation have still a long way to go in making enough impact to begin
transforming a brown into a green economy.

Presenting the qualitative assessment of the resource stock, equity condition, and production efficiency
level in each of the major ecosystems and sectors, the assessment of PA21 in Table 6 represents the current
baseline non-green state of the Philippine economy. By describing the characteristics of an ecosystem/ sector
along the above sustainability criteria for each score from 0 to 4, Table 7 suggests the directions and strategies,
a road map guide that charts the movement and implementation over time towards higher levels of sustainability
or a Green Economy. As such, it provides both a monitoring and assessment tool. Except for the entries for the
urban sector on energy, sustainable cities and industries, most of the strategies listed in Table 7 are either
implicitly or explicitly stated in PA21, or drawn from policy or program recommendations in the literature.

Table 7. Interpretation of Assessment Scores by Sustainability Criterion and Sector

Natural Capital & Environment Stock and Quality (NK) Criterion Outcome Description, by Score Value,
Forestry and Biodiversity
NK 0 The rate of deforestation is positive. There is biodiversity loss. Watersheds continue to
be degraded.
NK 1 The rate of deforestation, biodiversity loss or watershed degradation is reduced in
some areas. Tree farms, plantations are established in denuded areas.
A user charge system is implemented at the pilot level.
NK 2 Overall deforestation rate is decreasing (towards a zero rate).
Forest-watershed degradation or biodiversity loss is averted.
Consumption of forest resources is at a steady state.
Reforestation or watershed rehabilitation has started. The forest protection area has
increased. The user charge system is extended to more areas, and it is applied for
forest ecosystem management, rehabilitation and protection.
NK 3 Overall forest cover is increasing. A higher user fee is charged for forest ecosystem
management, rehabilitation and protection. There are improvements in resource
quality, productivity, biodiversity, and watershed services (steady stream flows;
control of floods, erosion, and forest fires);
NK 4 The desirable forest cover is attained and sustained.
Enrichment of biodiversity, watershed service provisions, and water supply,

35
 Final Draft

Equitable Access and Distribution (EQ) Criterion Scores, Forest and Biodiversity
EQ 0 Formal tenure rights granted to commercial loggers and miners;
Displacement of indigenous and migrant forest-based communities
EQ 1 Recognition of ancestral rights of indigenous people;
Provision of access rights to upland forest communities;
Continued dominance of commercial loggers and miners
EQ 2 Greater access is given to excluded sector (at least 25% of available area); provision of
more public forestlands for social forestry or community forest management.
EQ 3 Inequitable access is more significantly reduced, and the benefits are more widely
shared (for at least half of the deprived upland population).
EQ 4 Access and benefits are fully democratized.
Efficiency in Production (EF), Forest and Biodiversity

EF 0 Unsustainable harvesting; Destructive, resource-intensive/ wasteful activities;

Biodiversity losses;

EF 1 Illegal logging is stopped in at least 25% of affected areas. Harvesting at sustainable

yield is initially adopted (in a pilot area, or at least 25% of the area). Logging wastes
and damages are reduced. A damage fee is imposed.

EF 2 Sustainable harvesting is adopted over a larger area, at least 50% of the area. Logging
wastes and damages are eliminated, and illegal logging is curbed. A user charge is
levied for use in forest ecosystem management, rehabilitation and protection in at least
5t0% of the area. Multiple use forestry is practiced. Biodiversity losses are
significantly reduced.

EF 3 Sustainable harvesting prevails in the sector. User charges are raised/ adjusted to
productivity gains. Greater value added is generated, and induces productivity gains in
forest products processing.

EF 4 The growth potential of the sector is realized while further enriching biodiversity.

Poverty Eradication (PE), Forest and Biodiversity

PE 0 High poverty incidence in forest and upland areas; the worsening poverty condition of
indigenous people and upland migrants

PE 1 The tenure rights of a segment (at least 25%) of indigenous peoples are recognized.
Access rights are given to (at least 25%) upland migrant communities. Both begin to
involve in livelihood projects.

PE 2 Tenure rights are given to (at least 50%) indigenous and upland migrant communities
The livelihood projects contribute additional income to the families.

PE 3 Tenure rights are given to (at least 75%) indigenous and upland migrant communities
Reduced poverty incidence among indigenous people and upland migrants. Improved
health conditions and access to education services. Inter-generational poverty begins
to be arrested.

PE 4 Majority if not all are raised above the poverty threshold level.

36
 Final Draft

Natural Capital & Environment Stock and Quality (NK) Criterion Description, by Score Value, Coastal,
Marine and Fishery Ecosystem
NK 0 Overfishing; Fishery depletion; Fishery habitat degradation;
Conversion and loss of mangroves, sea grasses, coral reef cover;
Weak or nonexistent local community leadership (social capital)
NK 1 Depletion, habitat degradation, and biodiversity loss is reduced in at least 25% of
affected areas. Moratorium in at 25-50% of depleted areas; Establishment of pilot
marine protected areas, rehabilitation of fishery habitats in 25% of depleted areas;
Emergent community leadership (social capital) in 25% of coastal areas;
NK 2 Pilot marine protected areas established, and rehabilitation of fishery habitats in
another 25% of depleted areas. Significant recovery of biomass stock in 25-50% of the
depleted area; Increase in mangrove area and coral reef cover in the 25% of the
established area; Sustainable fishery resource and habitat management in 50% of
coastal areas; Pollution charges are levied in pilot area (25% of affected areas).
NK 3 Significant increase in fish stock in 50% of rehabilitated area; Improvements in
resource (fish and water) quality, habitat productivity, and biodiversity; Point and
nonpoint pollution sources are addressed in 50-75% of coastal areas.
NK 4 The desirable sustainable stock, mangrove and coral reef cover, biodiversity and water
quality are attained.
Equitable in Access and Distribution (EQ) Criterion Scores, Coastal, Marine and Fishery Ecosystem
EQ 0 Open access; dominance of commercial fishery and large municipal fishers;
EQ 1 Municipal fishing grounds (25%) are delineated. Commercial fishery encroachment on
municipal fishing grounds is reduced in 25% of affected area. Conversion of
mangroves into fishponds is prevented. Municipal licensing is based on prior use
rights in at least 25% of coastal areas. Initial establishment of common property or
community resource management (pilot area);
EQ 2 Municipal fishing grounds are further delineated and encroachment reduced to 50%.
Common property or community resource management extended to fishery habitats
and coastal (bay) area to other pilot provinces; Municipal licensing is based on prior
use rights in at least 50% of coastal areas. Abandoned fishponds are reverted to
mangroves.
EQ 3 Municipal fishing grounds are further delineated and encroachment reduced to 75%.
Common property or community resource management is established nationwide (at
least 75%). Municipal licensing is based on prior use rights further extended to at least
75% of coastal areas. The community resource management organization begins to
capture some of the benefits in fish trade and processing.
EQ 4 Equitable access spatially extends across communities. And the primary producers
(both the fisher folk and environment) share in the benefits of the industry.
Efficiency in Production (EF), Coastal, Marine and Fishery Ecosystem
EF 0 Overfishing or unsustainable fishing; destructive practices; episodes of fish kill
EF 1 Pilot areas: Overfishing and other unsustainable fishing activities are reduced.
Destructive practices are stopped. Wild stock of fingerlings is sustained. Community
fishery resource management is established. Aquaculture/ mariculture development is
regulated. Pollution sources are identified.
EF 2 Over an extended area (25-50%): Regulation of total allowable catch, setting fishery
37
 Final Draft

charge; local waste and pollution control; Establishment of local hatchery; sustainable
aquaculture/ mariculture development; Fishery rent is partly captured for fishery
resource management, protection and development.
EF 3 Nationwide implementation (at least 75%) of the above actions. Local wastes in fish
production, marketing and processing are reduced. Value added is generated.
EF 4 The various production units in the sector are involved in sustainable harvesting; they
contribute to resource conservation, efficient resource use, and value-added
generation.

Poverty Alleviation/ Eradication (PE), Coastal, Marine and Fishery Ecosystem

PE 0 High poverty incidence among small fisher folks; worsening life chances

PE 1 Pilot (at most 25% of area): Access rights are given to small fisher folks; Provision of
safety net to vulnerable groups; Involvement of local fishery community households in
habitat restoration, and supplementary or alternative livelihood projects.

PE 2 Pilot area: The livelihood projects contribute additional income to the families. The
children receive primary education and health services.

PE 3 Extended area (at least 50-75%): Reduced poverty incidence among small fisher folk
households; Improved health conditions and access to education services. Inter-
generational poverty begins to be arrested in the earlier/ pilot areas.

PE 4 Nationwide coverage of the above; Majority if not all are raised above the poverty
threshold level.

Natural Capital & Environment Stock and Quality (NK) Criterion Description, by Score Value, Freshwater
Ecosystem and Water Resources
NK 0 Open access to surface and ground water; Groundwater depletion and surface water
pollution; dead rivers or of degraded water quality; limited availability of sanitation
facilities; no wastewater treatment; Non-implementation of Integrated Water
Resource Management framework;
NK 1 Some of the unregulated users (at least 25%) are now covered by the license system.
Pilot area: Unsustainable uses are regulated. Groundwater extraction is monitored and
compared to the recharge rate. Payment of water use charge; Regulation of point and
non-point pollution sources;
NK 2 Extended area (at least 25-50%): Most uses are sustainable. Groundwater extraction is
based on the recharge rate.
Pilot area (at least 25%): A water reserve is allocated for ecological functions. At least
half of polluters are levied a charges.
NK 3 Extended area (50-75%): Fees and charges revert back to the sector (to pay for
watershed management, water supply development, water quality improvement).
Sustainable use of water is attained.
NK 4 Future water supply needs are addressed. Successful implementation nationwide of all
the economic instruments for water supply sustainability.

38
 Final Draft

Equitable in Access and Distribution (EQ) Criterion Scores, Freshwater Ecosystem and Water Resources
EQ 0 Perpetual water rights (permits) are granted to particular beneficial users.
Water uses are not assessed in terms of their waste and productive uses.
Water supply is inadequate to the greater or growing demand in urban centers and
particular production areas.
EQ 1 Pilot: Reform of the licensing system; cancellation of permits that are not productively
and unsustainably used (at least 25%).
EQ 2 Cancel permits that are not productively and unsustainably used (50%).
Pilot (25-50%): Water reserve allocation established for basic human need; Provision
of formal water rights to communities; Collect access payment and user fee based on
marginal revenue product of water;
EQ 3 Cancel permits that are not productively and unsustainably used (at least 75%).
Extended area (50-75%): Water reserve allocation established for basic human need;
Provision of formal water rights to communities; Equitable access extended
nationwide and across sectors.
EQ 4 Universal access for basic human needs and sanitation services
Efficiency in Production (EF), Freshwater Ecosystem and Water Resources
EF 0 Raw water value is assumed to be zero.
Water pollution in not controlled.
EF1 Pilot area (at least 25%): Regulation of point and non-point pollution sources;
provision of permits to efficient, productive users; water charge payment system that
encourages efficiency – based on the raw water value; tariffs based on cost-recovery
rates; .
EF 2 Extended area (at most 50%): Tariff system based on cost recovery; user fee based on
the marginal revenue product of water; Polluter charge based either on damages or the
cost of pollution abatement technology;
EF 3 Extended area (at least 75%): Tariff system based on cost recovery; user fee based on
the marginal revenue product of water; Polluter charge based either on damages or the
cost of pollution abatement technology;
Tariff system that covers the provisioning cost of water, sanitation services,
wastewater and sewage treatment, and recycling
EF 4 Water is efficiently and sustainably used so that it will be available for the next
generation.
Poverty Eradication (PE), Freshwater Ecosystem and Water Resources

PE 0 Poor have no formal access rights; Dependent on natural sources (uncertain supply
and quality); water is costly (time, actual payments, health effects)

PE 1 On a pilot level: Water reserve allocation established for basic human need; Provision
of formal water rights to communities; Provision of cross subsidy;

PE 2 Above program implemented over a larger area (from community to provinces).

PE 3 Nationwide implementation

PE 4 Universal access to water

39
 Final Draft

Natural Capital & Environment Stock and Quality (NK) Criterion Description, by Score Value, Lowland
Agriculture Ecosystem
NK 0 Increasing land degradation and decreasing soil productivity; occurrence of drought
due to vegetation loss and climate change; deterioration of watershed deterioration and
irrigation facilities; Dependence of the dominant commercial sector and the small
farms on chemical fertilizers, inorganic pesticides; Entry of GMO
NK 1 Pilot-level: watershed rehabilitation and restoration of soil productivity; Collection
and establishment of traditional seed bank; Development and propagation of
traditional seeds for small farmers, together with the organic fertilizers, and local
water storage facilities;
NK 2 Extended coverage: Watershed rehabilitation, land quality improvement programs;
organic farming implemented over a larger area.
NK 3 Land quality improvement programs implemented nationwide.
Sustainable agriculture/ organic farming implemented over a larger area.
NK 4 Land-water quality and productivity is improved and sustained.
Equitable in Access and Distribution (EQ) Criterion Scores, Lowland Agriculture Ecosystem

EQ 0 Unfinished completion of CARP; Unequal distribution of land ownership; Problem of

land conversions,
EQ 1 Completion of CARP, provision of support services; access to credit, crop insurance
and markets at existing levels;
Pilot: Identify other land sharing arrangements, like voluntary land distribution/
donation.
EQ 2 Pilot voluntary land distribution.
Larger coverage of support services, credit and market access through cooperatives;
Greater benefits obtained by farm workers in plantation agriculture
EQ 3 Implement voluntary land distribution nationwide. Expand credit-cooperative
marketing network;
EQ 4 Completion of agrarian reform (land to the landless)
Efficiency in Production (EF), Lowland Agriculture Ecosystem

EF 0 Presence of idle lands; Farmers‘ dependence of chemical fertilizers, inorganic

pesticides; Introduction of genetically-modified seeds (GMO); Limited composition of
crops with comparative advantage; Increasing share of imported agricultural products;
Low and uncertain yields in small farms;
EF1 Pilot: Taxation of (at least 25%) of idle lands;
Promotion of organic farming; Increase production of agricultural exports;
Piloting the development of other crops with comparative advantage
EF 2 Taxation of (at least 50%) of idle lands; Increasing and greater portion of lands under
organic farming; PCARRD‘s and government extension service workers‘ direct
involvement with local farm communities in the field experimentation, adaptation,
refinement and diffusion of these new technologies
EF 3 Full taxation of idle lands; Growth of organic farming over a more extensive area;
Growth of agricultural export products.
EF 4 Balance between organic farming and inorganic farming with increasingly sustainable
technologies in export crop production

40
 Final Draft

Poverty Eradication (PE), Lowland Agriculture Ecosystem

PE 0 High poverty incidence among small farmers and rural landless households. The low
uncertain yields of small farms lead to greater indebtedness. No access to education
opportunities and other social services

PE 1 Complete agrarian reform. Pilot: tapping other (cropland) sources for land distribution
or voluntary land distribution. Pilot: promote growth of organic farming among small
farmers; support transition from chemical-based, monoculture farming to organic,
diversified farming; Pilot cooperative arrangements to obtain access to credit and
markets; Greater benefits obtained by farm workers in plantation agriculture

PE 2 Extended support to enable transition of small farmers to sustainable agriculture/

organic farming; Increase in the proportion of small farmers practicing organic
farming; Organic products capture a larger market share. Establishment of farm labor
union/ federation

PE 3 Nationwide implementation of voluntary land distribution, organic farming,

cooperative marketing, farm workers unionism.

PE 4 Poverty is eradicated among small farmers and landless farm workers.

Natural Capital & Environment Stock and Quality (NK) Criterion Description, by Score Value, Metallic
Mineral Sector
NK 0 No plans and adequate funds for the restoration of abandoned mines; No rehabilitation
of deforested, polluted mined areas; No resource valuation and compensation for
biodiversity losses, polluted water bodies, damages to natural habitats, farm and fish
yields; Unregulated small scale mining; The monitoring and treatment of pollution
sources (e.g. AMD) does not extend beyond the life of the mine. There is no
environmental insurance policy. The institutional capacity/capability to implement
mining and environmental laws/ policies remains inadequate and weak.
NK 1 Pilot implementation: Rehabilitation/ restoration of abandoned mines; compliance to
existing mitigation measures; regulation of small scale mining;
Assess inadequacy of existing mitigation and compensation programs (e.g. the
coverage of the mine waste and tailings fee, the mine rehabilitation fund,
environmental trust fund) and the environmental management capacity of the DENR
and LGUs.
NK 2 Extended area: Rehabilitation/ restoration of abandoned mines; compliance to existing
mitigation measures; regulation of small scale mining;
Review the valuation of damages and losses in the EIS and ECC.
Strengthen the environmental management capacity of the DENR and LGUs.
NK 3 Further extended area: Rehabilitation of abandoned mines; full compliance to existing
mitigation measures, and full regulation of small scale mining; Implementation of the
necessary valuation and compensation programs. Compliance to the required payment
of environmental insurance. Compensation for biodiversity losses, damaged habitats;
Other externalities are addressed by improvements of the above measures and new
policies.
NK 4 Natural capital and environmental quality is protected, restored, sustained and further
improved.
41
 Final Draft

Equitable in Access and Distribution (EQ) Criterion Scores, Metallic Mineral Sector
EQ 0 No social acceptability of the project in some communities and LGUs. No
compensation for the tribal people and other former residents in the mining project
area who are displaced from their subsistence, livelihood sources. Exclusive access
and use of mineral-rich lands to industry, prospectors, prospective investors; the
benefits from the use of mineral lands and the rents drawn from mining go mainly/
solely to the investor; No compensation to affected communities for the pollution of
community water sources, livelihood losses, health damages, because of mining
activities and the collapse of tailings dam.
EQ 1 Provision of livelihood opportunities, social services to indigenous host communities.
Genuine granting of FPIC in some areas; Pilot deliberation/ evaluation of mineral
lands that may be open for agroforestry and other multiple uses; and the extent
compensation of damages would be covered.
EQ 2 Genuine granting of FPIC in all applied areas; Provision of employment opportunities
and social services to communities within and proximate the mining area. Pilot
opening of mineral lands for agroforestry and other multiple uses. The extent by which
mining companies will cover the compensation costs for the above damages is
resolved.
EQ 3 Provision of employment opportunities and social services to communities. Other
employment opportunities are provided as the life-of-the-mine comes to a close.
Externalities are fully internalized. Anticipated damages are incorporated in the ECC.
Compensation is guaranteed for those who will be displaced.
EQ 4 Mining benefits are equitably shared. FPIC is genuinely granted. Full social
acceptability is reached.
Efficiency in Production (EF), Metallic Mineral Sector

EF 0 Local mineral deposits are depleted solely for ore exportation. No additional value
added and employment opportunities are generated from ore production for exports.
Water for mining use is obtained for free, and the full cost of its use (diversion from
community use and loss of quality/ pollution) is not paid. The environmental and
social costs or negative externalities of mining are not internalized, i.e. the impact of
pollutants on water, fishery, and livelihood. The risks of tailings leakages, overflows,
and collapse of dams are not determined. No environmental insurance has been
required. The decreasing real value of the mine waste and tailings fee payments has
not been adjusted.
EF 1 The nominal mine waste and tailings fee is adjusted to its real level to consider past
inflation.
Pilot two or more: a volumetric water charge; value added generation; compensation
for environmental, livelihood and health damages; pollution charges and control
measures; payments for environmental insurance.
EF 2 The mine waste and tailings fee is further adjusted to account for the real cost of
damages.
Extend the piloted policies over a wider area and pilot the rest: a volumetric water
charge; compensation for environmental, livelihood and health damages; pollution
charges and control measures; payments for environmental insurance. Require greater
value added (vertical integration) generation.
EF 3 The above policies are all implemented nationwide. Compensation should cover all
damages.
42
 Final Draft

EF 4 Mining generates greater value added and more employment opportunities. Also,
externalities are internalized.
Poverty Eradication (PE), Metallic Mineral Sector

PE 0 High poverty incidence in former/abandoned and existing mining areas; Displacement

of indigenous people and other former residents in the mining area; Communities
subjected to livelihood losses and health damages because of mining operations, and
leakages, if not the collapse of mine tailings dam. Mining operations absorb only a
small segment of local labor force.

PE 1 Pilot poverty alleviation programs and social services delivery projects in abandoned
mining areas. Pilot employment/ livelihood programs in existing mining areas

PE 2 Extend the poverty alleviation programs and social services projects in other
abandoned mining areas, as well as the employment/ livelihood programs in other
mining areas. Poverty is alleviated in these areas.

PE 3 Improvements are made in these poverty alleviation programs for abandoned and
existing mining areas, and they translate into significant poverty reductions. More
livelihood and employment opportunities are sustained as life of the mine comes to a
close.

PE 4 Poverty in abandoned and existing mining areas is eradicated.

Natural Capital & Environment Stock and Quality (NK) Criterion Description, by Score Value, Urban
Ecosystem
NK 0 Heavily populated and expanding slum communities; Pollution of drainage systems
and water bodies; Non-treatment of domestic wastewater, sewage and industrial
effluents; biological death of rivers; the accumulation and inadequate collection and
improper disposal of domestic, industrial and hazardous waste, chemical and toxic
substances and hazardous wastes; the polluted city air; and the threats to life and
property in densely populated, disaster-prone or geologically hazardous areas;.
inadequate infrastructure, no wastewater, sewage treatment, degraded, use and
disposal of industrial wastes; no governance and environmental management capacity
NK 1 Pilot implementation of the following in some cities: management of population
growth, squatter relocation, cleanup of drainage systems, sanitation facilities,
wastewater and effluent treatment, waste disposal facilities, sanitary landfills,
pollution emission controls, ban and proper disposal of hazardous waste, infrastructure
for non-motorized transportation. Tax idle lands and rising real estate values for urban
renewal and provision of public goods. Strengthening governance and environmental
management capacity.
NK 2 The above measures are improved and implemented in other cities.
Promotion of other green cities measures. Strengthen the governance and
environmental management capacity of cities and towns.
NK 3 Implement the above in other cities and municipalities.
NK 4 The carrying capacity of the urban air and watershed and the complementary
infrastructure are sustainably managed and improved with the appropriate growth of
the population.

43
 Final Draft

Equitable in Access and Distribution (EQ) Criterion Scores, Urban Ecosystem

EQ 0 Growing homeless population without access to water, basic services, health and
education. Limited employment opportunities, access to credit facilities.
EQ 1 Pilot provisioning of housing, water supply, sanitation facilities, health, other basic
social services, and education (formal, informal and skills training);
Job creation and expansion of microcredit programs;
EQ 2 Improvement of the above programs for implementation in other cities.
EQ 3 The above improved programs are implemented in other cities and municipalities.
EQ 4 Productive employment opportunities for all; Universal water access and sanitation
services; equitable distribution of the cost in the provision of clean air, water,
sanitation services, and other urban infrastructure.
Efficiency in Production (EF), Urban Ecosystem
EF 0 Pollution of drainage systems and water bodies; Non-treatment of domestic
wastewater, sewage and industrial effluents; biological death of rivers; the
accumulation and inadequate collection and improper disposal of domestic, industrial
and hazardous waste, chemical and toxic substances and hazardous wastes; the
polluted city air; and the threats to life and property. Dependence on nonrenewable/
fossil fuel energy.
EF 1 Piloting of appropriate land zoning, development of new water supply, regulation on
groundwater use, levying groundwater use and pollution charges, the provision of
wastewater treatment, waste disposal services at cost recovery rates, energy audit of
industries, the reduction of high-carbon consumption and production activities; the
development and use renewable energy (solar), the provision of incentives for the 3Rs
(reduce, reuse and recycle)
EF 2 Improvements in the above measures and implementation in other urban areas and
sectors. Further reduction in fossil fuel energy consumption; Collaboration with the
business sector in the promotion of other green industry measures.
EF 3 Implementation of the above improved measures in other urban areas and sectors.
EF 4 Development of green industries and cities.
Poverty Eradication (PE), Urban Ecosystem

PE 0 Growth of population in slum areas, unemployment, poor children without education

opportunities, and no access to clean water; Limited employment opportunities, access
to credit facilities.

PE 1 Pilot implementation in cities: squatter relocation, socialized housing, provision of

water, sanitation, health, education and other social services. Job creation and
expansion of micro-credit programs; Reduction in poverty incidence.

PE 2 Improvements in the above programs and their implementation in other pilot cities.

PE 3 Implementation of the improved programs in other cities and municipalities.

PE 4 Universal access to all of the above basic social services, and productive employment
of the urban labor force.

44
 Final Draft

Table 7 suggests the first requisite step towards a Green Economy. Given the condition under the 0-
value of natural capital and environmental quality (NK) in the forestry-watershed, biodiversity, coastal/ marine,
freshwater/ water resource, and agriculture ecosystems, the first requisite task must simply be to restock, rebuild
and restore the depleted natural capital. While this step is primarily restorative, it must also address the
production-material resource linkage and equity concerns. In other words, the second accompanying step, where
natural capital stocks are severely depleted, requires a moratorium where production and consumption is
decoupled from the depleted resource base. Without decoupling, any production activity under this
environmental condition would only exacerbate the depletion problem; hence, a moratorium would be the
logical way to go. These two requisite tasks are essential because the environment and natural resources sector
(ENR) is the fundamental and critical base of the Green Economy. Critical to the planning process, it would
ensure the nurturance and sustainability of ecosystem goods and services, and in turn improve economic
security.

Moreover, if the poor forest, upland, coastal and riverine communities are mobilized to invest their time
and labor in the restorative work, their provisioning and relations with the public as well as the local or external
fund sources must be clarified. More importantly, because the restorative work is not merely contracted for
immediate employment benefits but more importantly to nurture and transform the degraded natural capital into
a more productive, desirable state, the third task requires the establishment of a common property arrangement
for the workforce in the course of the restoration. This provision of tenure rights to future benefits would also
address an inequity condition in a non-green economy.

The object of restoration in these preliminary steps out of an insustainable brown economy has a
profound implication. It suggests that during the restoration period, only the poverty of those involved in the
restoration work would be alleviated while those who would not be employed would remain poor. Hence, there
is a need to simultaneously initiate employment opportunities, preferably in environmentally-friendly industries
while restoration of depleted resources is taking place. This must be reflected in measures that must be
undertaken for the efficiency (EF) and poverty eradication (PE) of particular ecosystems.

The above movement in Table 7 outlines the transition to a Green Economy or the progressive
advancement from a low score of unsustainability towards sustainability in each sector. In operational terms,
sustainable development the the agriculture and fisheries sector entails the establishment of farming systems
that are economically viable, ecologically sound, culturally appropriate, equitable, and grounded on holistic
science. In the context of poverty alleviation, it would also require the provision of food and nutrition security
and the empowerment of smallholder farmers who are the backbone of the food system.

The greening of cities and industries is the more challenging in the attainment of sustainable
development, partly because very little work has been done in these sectors, and they entail many
requirements, such as the integrated development of the infrastructure sector (water, waste, energy, and
transportation), the movement towards a low carbon development pathway, the implementation of sustainable
land use, zoning and settlement pattern, and the reduction of poverty. Specifically, the greening of the water
sector would require the improvement of the water holding capacity of urban waterways, the protection of
remaining pristine water sources for potable water use, the use of economic instruments and the application of
the polluter-pay principle to protect water as a basic life source and critical resource for economic activities.
Moreover, the greening of the infrastructure sector would entail the provision of public housing, sanitation,
wastewater treatment and disposal facilities, drainage and flood control, waste reduction, support to the
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act through the closure and rehabilitation of all open/controlled

45
 Final Draft

dumpsites, and the shift from dumping to full recycling. In turn, the movement towards a low carbon
development pathway must achieve efficiency improvements in energy use, the removal of fossil fuel
subsidies, reduced dependency on fossil fuel, greater availability of renewable energy sources, and
democratization of the centralized energy grid structure. The success in the establishment and integration of all
these facilities in the green cities and the attainment of these goals would be apparent when human settlements
(ekistic clusters) living in a habitat with the smallest scale of ecosystem are sustainably managed.

Indicators for the transition to a GE

In light of the production-material resource condition and the need to maintain a desired stock of natural
capital, transitioning towards a GE would entail the following conditions:

production or technology innovations to improve efficiency in resource-energy use,

the promotion of material reuse or recycling, or
the reduction of wastes, carbon emissions, effluents, and other pollutants.

These strategic interventions are necessary because a significant proportion of the economic activities
that result in the current GDP composition of final goods involve production that use resources and energy
inefficiently; depend heavily on fossil fuel and coal; generate waste and pollution; and are thus unsustainable.
[Note that it is possible to estimate the brown/non-green proportion of GDP.]

An indicator of the success of the above intervention is a decreasing trend in the domestic material input
(DMI) per capita or the DMI per GDP. Within the medium or long term, however, this may be difficult to
achieve without the concerted efforts of government, private business, civil society groups and households.
The work associated with these initial interventions to restore depleted natural capital, reduce brown
activities and increase the subset of green products and technologies—including the productive recycling of
wastes—may aptly be labeled as ―green jobs‖. In particular, the restocking, rebuilding and restoring of the
depleted natural capital of forestlands, biodiversity, headwaters, rivers, streams, lakes, soil quality, irrigation
facilities, aquifers, conjunctive areas, esteros, bays, mangroves, coral reefs, fish stocks, and other ecosystem
resources are the primary green jobs demanded.

The creation of such green jobs may be included in the monitoring mechanism of interventions, together
with other indicators. Some useful measures of the outcomes of activities related to these green jobs include the
growth of forest, mangrove stand and stock; the increase in afforestation or reforestation, fish biomass stock,
aquifer volume and recharge rate; improved surface water quality, soil fertility, air quality, population-vehicle
density, and urban carrying capacity; and a much slower depletion of mineral deposits and other exhaustible
resources. Moreover, these indicators may be developed into a composite macro measure of net natural capital
formation that is similar to the net capital formation in the national income accounts. In turn, improvements in
the access to natural capital and the equitable distribution of benefits from its use may be monitored and
measured by equity indices.

Requirements for the GE transition and the role of the government and stakeholders for SD

For the greening of the economy, the GE drivers in government and civil society must be cognizant of
several imperatives. As discussed in the assessment section of this report, existing policies and laws must first
be evaluated in terms of their implementation or enforcement level. More importantly, the policy gaps,
46
 Final Draft

omissions or limitations to meet sustainable development goals must be resolved. The necessary governance
framework and mechanisms must be institutionalized, and the following preliminary activities undertaken.

First, there must be an inventory of existing laws, policies, and national and sector plans that are
consistent with the goals of sustainable development and poverty eradication, as well as a review of their state
of enforcement and implementation. For instance, are the existing policies and plans on sustainable forestry,
fishery/agriculture; biodiversity conservation; tenure rights for indigenous, forest and coastal communities;
forest resource and silvicultural damage charges; clean air and clean water protection; water tariff; irrigation
fee; solid waste management; emission testing; building standards etc., fully enforced or implemented? If not,
then the government‘s enforcement and implementation capacity must be strengthened or improved. This would
require an adequate and responsive management information system, the establishment of effective monitoring
mechanisms, the improved delineation of enforcement/ implementation functions among national agencies and
LGUs and their accountability, and the vigilance and active participation of civil society groups.

Second, if the existing legal/policy tools and plans are already fully implemented but fail to meet their
avowed economic and environmental objectives, then the limitations of these policies and plans must be
identified and addressed. If policy provisions are incomplete or their scope and coverage are limited or the plans
are ineffective in generating the expected benefits, then necessary changes must be made, together with the
appropriate governance mechanisms to improve implementation. In other words, the intervention gaps and
omissions at the policy or institutional level, decision-making and participation processes, and mechanisms for
conflict resolution must be identified and remedied to ensure effective implementation.
.
Third, a review of existing policies and plans must also specifically uncover those that are biased for
the prevailing brown economy in any of the following ways:

those that are heavily skewed towards economic growth to the detriment of environmental integrity and
equity concerns;
those that tacitly, if not explicitly, sanction unsustainable and inefficient resource extraction, maintain
dependence on fossil fuel energy, high carbon production and consumption;
those that simply reject the internalization of social and environmental costs.

These contradictions must be addressed since they deviate from the sustainable and inclusive growth
thrusts of a Green Economy. Because such policies that undermine a nascent institutional orientation towards
sustainable development would prevent the transition to a green economy, they must be harmonized with
sustainable development, if not purged from the existing legal policy framework. If this is not done, the thrusts
and mandates of particular government agencies and their working relations with specific interest groups or
industry associations would be at cross purposes with one another. Put differently, unless contradictory policies
are resolved and policy reforms converge around sustainable and inclusive growth, inter-agency conflicts and
antagonisms would ensue between government civil society stakeholders for SD, on the one hand, and
government and private sector groups that inordinately privilege economic growth over environmental
concerns, on the other.

Given the above review of the possible lack of enforcement or implementation of relevant policies and
plans or the limitations and contradiction of particular policies and plans with the goals of sustainable
development, there is an urgent need for an institutional infrastructure that would ensure the implementation
and enforcement of relevant measures. Equally important, particular laws and policies that contradict the goals
of sustainable development (SD) must be reconciled and made consistent with SD. If these laws or policies are

47
 Final Draft

irreconcilable, then new SD-oriented policies ought to be enacted. The next section details the appropriate
policies that are already in existence as well as the proposed policies consistent with the goals of SD.

The imperative of setting up an institutional infrastructure entail the following actions, among others—
the reorganization of the bureaucracy, changes in the staffing and budgetary process, coordination mechanisms,
inter-agency arrangements, localization, the commanding heights of the national leadership, the effective
partnership of the state, civil society and other private stakeholders, etc. Moreover, the required changes in the
legal policy and institutional framework for SD would require not only new skills formation and capacity
building but also national and local-private and public partnerships, the flow of new investments and financing,
and technology development and localization for SD. (The other governance requirements will be further
discussed in the next section on the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development).

Policy Covers, Plans, Programs and Projects for a Green Economy

Transitioning to a Green Economy demands an arsenal of policies, plans, programs and projects (PPPP
interventions) that are applicable to particular ecosystems or economic sector, and directed to achieve any of the
GE features—i.e. sustainable resource stock, equity in access/benefits and poverty alleviation, efficiency in
resource use, renewable energy production and consumption, and other relevant GE criteria. Table 8 provides
an initial arsenal of PPPPs that complete the un-started and unfinished tasks under PA21, which, in turn, would
facilitate the movement from lower level to higher level scores in Table 7.

Some of the tools in the PPPP arsenal may already exist in the state‘s legal policy framework or in the
country‘s development program, thereby constituting the initial building blocks for the transition. These are
denoted as Ex in Table 8. However, some of the existing tools may not yet be wholly or properly enforced or
are partially implemented (denoted as PI) because they are recent, consisting of new laws or programs or may
still be in the pilot stage. Others may be relatively dated but are not fully implemented because of uncertainty,
the lack of financial support for a nationwide implementation and the country‘s overall track record of poor
implementation of laws, regulations and reform programs in most areas of political, economic and social life.
On the other hand, some or most of the arsenal tools do not yet exist and are indicated as proposed Pr measures.
For instance, policy covers for the management of energy, water, and mineral resources; waste, the creation of
sustainable cities; and the development of SD-oriented industries are not yet in existence as full measures or are
implemented only partially because they are frontier areas of concern, requiring either infrastructural
investments (e.g. public transport facilities, material recovery facilities, retrofit vulnerable infrastructures) or the
formulation and implementation of new policies that shifts the resource management approach from ‗command
and control‘ to the use of economic instruments (e.g. resource, effluent/ pollution charges, feed-in tariff, carbon
tax, property tax rebates, present and future cost-recovery tariff, etc.).

Note that the more challenging policies are the contentious ones involving either equity zero-sum
measures that shift resource access away from one group to a less privileged, or poor group; or are those that
contradict existing policy thrusts and dominant vested interests. In particular, there is no existing Ex equity
measure for equity in the mineral, marine/ fishery sector, water, energy, waste, and sustainable cities. Moreover,
the policies for waste, green industries and green cities are still at a preliminary stage of development partly
because the market has not yet firmly established the demand for green products and technologies. On the other
hand, as noted in Part 1, the potential policy tools for water, marine and mineral resources stand in contradiction
to the status quo. In other words, the main challenges to a transition to a Green Economy lie either at the
frontiers or in the areas of intersection of SD-oriented policy recommendations and existing policies that are
48
 Final Draft

geared primarily towards economic growth but are not concerned with environmental costs and equity
considerations. This situation underscores the need for greater political resolve and more extensive stakeholder
cooperation.

It is important to consider, however, that the absence of an important policy/action may not necessarily
bring the process of transition to a standstill. Even without a national land use policy/law, an executive order
may creatively delineate the zoning of urban areas, rural or forestlands either for environmental considerations
or for alternative socially desirable and economically beneficial land uses.

Table 8. Arsenal of PPPP for the Establishment of a Green Economy

Resource/ Sector or Stock Restoration, Equity and Poverty Production Efficiency

Ecosystem Sustainability Alleviation

Forest Environment, Delineation of forest
Biodiversity protection (no-go) areas
(headwater, rich
biodiversity, others) (Pi);
Institution of sustainable
yield harvesting (Annual
Allowable Cut); (Ex)
Implement National
Biodiversity Strategic
Action Plan (Ex); the
National Action Plan for
the Sustainable Use and
Protection of Peat lands
(PI)
Implement the National
Wetlands Action Plan
(Pr)
Wildlife collection quota
(Ex)
Imposition of damage
charge; %age of excess
profit (rent) for forest
maintenance and
rehabilitation; (PI)
Full recognition and
provision of ancestral
domain rights (PI)
Institution of community-
based or common
property management
system; (Ex, PI)
Establishment of
community-managed
ecosystem; (PI)
Promotion of cooperative
marketing of processed
forest, wood, non-timber
products; (PI)
Setting of environment
and resource use &
damage charges to revert
back to the sector, the
local forest area, and
community (not to the
General Fund) for
environmental
maintenance and
livelihood; (PI)
Valuation of forest land
use based on alternative
economic products and
ecosystem/ watershed
services; (PI)
Institution of forest
resource and damage
charges; (PI)
Collection of fees for
environmental services;
(PI)
Promotion of ecotourism;
(Ex, PI)
Payments for carbon
sequestration (application
of REDD+); (PI)
Institute sustainable
wildlife resource schemes
for the wild life industry
(Ex)

Setting of moratorium on Forest and biodiversity

resource use to
rehabilitate and restore
degraded ecosystem, and
recover threatened
species; (PI)
protection and
conservation supported
by the international
community and
multilateral agencies. (PI)

49

Resource/ Sector or Stock Restoration,
Ecosystem Sustainability
Effective management of
PAs, restricting access
and particular extractive
land-use practices (Ex)
Prevention of the entry of/
eradication of alien
species that could threaten
the ecosystem; (Ex)
Payments for forest
services conservation.
(PI)
Specify the particular
targets for production and
ecological services (Pr)
Minerals Imposition of damage
charges %age of excess
profit (rent) for
environmental and social
fund; (Pr)
Set up of environmental
insurance system; (Pr)
Rehabilitation of
abandoned mines; (PI)
Prevention of mining in
bio-diverse, disaster-
prone, or geo-hazardous
areas. (Pr)
Agriculture, Land Prevention, mitigation,
rehabilitation/ restoration
of desertified/ degraded
lands; (PI)
Passage of ―Soil and
Water Conservation Act
of 2012; (Pr)
Implementation of the
National Action Plan to
combat DLDD
(sustainable agriculture
and NR-based livelihood
development); (Ex)
Final Draft
Equity and Poverty Production Efficiency
Alleviation
Implementation of Set up mineral
Environmental and Social reservations for multiple
Impact Assessment; (Pr) use (geothermal
production, ecotourism,
Opening of mineral or agro-forestry, etc.);
reservations for agro- (Pr)
forestry & other non-
mining uses; (Pr) Promotion of vertical
integration (ore
Compensation for processing and metal
community displacement, manufacture). (Pr)
livelihood losses and
health damages.(Pr, PI)
Completion/Review of Promotion (provision of
agrarian reform; (Ex) information or incentives)
of environmentally sound
Establishment of tenure and appropriate
over degraded/ desertified technology; (Ex)
lands; (Pr)
Taxation of idle lands;
Provision of land access (PI)
for landless workers; (Pr)
Irrigation tariffs based on
New areas for upland present and future cost
agriculture and recovery; (Pr)
restoration of small-scale
irrigation systems (PI) Tapping of energy in
agricultural residue; (PI)
50
 Final Draft

Resource/ Sector or Stock Restoration, Equity and Poverty Production Efficiency

Ecosystem Sustainability Alleviation
Improvement of
Promotion (provision of livelihood opportunities Facilitation of export,
information and in community-managed certification of organic
incentives for) organic/ watersheds; (PI) products; (PI)
agroecological farming;
(Ex) Promotion of cooperative Promotion of biomass
marketing; (PI) compost for energy; (PI)
Reduction of total
pollution loading of Facilitation of the Promote SWC
croplands (through farm marketing of organic technologies in the
wastes and residues products in the domestic uplands (PI);
recycling, re-use; (PI) and export markets; (PI) Water- saving
technologies in irrigated
rice lands (PI);
Agricultural and
biotechnologies with CC
adaptation and mitigation
potential (PI)

Fishing, Establishment of Planting of mangroves Curbing of illegal fishing

Coastal/ Marine community-based or and promotion of activities and resource
Ecosystem cooperative hatcheries; mangrove-friendly exploitation; (PI)
(PI) aquaculture system for
marginal fisher folk; (PI) Imposition of marine
Institution of sustainable resource charge; (Pr)
yield harvesting (Annual Community-based or
Allowable Catch); (Pr) common property Imposition of pollution
management system; (PI) charge on point and non-
Imposition of damage point pollution sources;
charge %age of excess Equitable distribution of (Pr)
profit (rent) for coastal municipal-commercial
ecosystem maintenance fishing rights. (Pr) Institution of tradeable
and rehabilitation; (Pr) fishing quotas/ permits;
Establish mangrove- (Pr)
Moratorium in damaged friendly aquaculture
areas; (PI) system for marginal Promotion of ecotourism
Restock, rehabilitate fisherfolk (PI) (PI)
mangroves (PI)
Protect coral reef for Increase fish density for
sustainable management livelihood of fisher folks
(PI) (PI)

Establishment of fish
sanctuaries, Marine
Protection Areas (Ex)

Infrastructure Establishment of safe No granting of perpetual Imposition of raw water

Water yield abstraction of permits; (Pr) charge; (Pr)
groundwater; (Pr)
Setting up of permit Establish abstraction
51

Resource/ Sector or Stock Restoration,
Ecosystem Sustainability
Moratorium of existing
consumption and permit
issuance in depleted
aquifer areas and promote
its recharge for CC
adaptation; (Pr, PI)
Protection of the
headwater forest source;
(Pr); Protection of non-
polluted water sources
(Pr)
Establish river basin
organizations in major
river basins (Pr)
Restoration of degraded,
polluted water bodies and
development of new
water supply sources for
CC adaptation; (PI)
Imposition of payments
for upstream
environmental services;
(PI)
Creation of environmental
water reserve for in-
stream ecological
services; (Pr)
Imposition of a catchment
management charge for
CC; (Pr)
Establishment of
nationwide rainwater
harvesting systems or
water storage and
conservation facilities for
CC adaptation; (PI)
Imposition of surface and
groundwater charge; (Pr)
Establishment of cost-
recovery tariffs; (PI)
Final Draft
Equity and Poverty Production Efficiency
Alleviation
system based not solely charge and volumetric
on beneficial use, but pricing; (Pr)
priority needs; (Pr)
Inventory, monitor
Establish water reserves existing water uses, and
for basic needs improve efficiency of
(community rights over water use (irrigation,
water); (Pr) industry, services,
domestic, etc.); (PI)
Provision of cross-
subsidy; (Pr) Determination of
marginal cost/
Imposition of Resource, progressive pricing; (Pr)
catchment, and pollution
charges to revert back to Imposition of cost-
the sector or local recovery tariffs for water,
watershed/ source (not to sanitation, sewerage and
the General Fund) (Pr) waste water treatment;
(Pr)
Formulation of flood risk
assessment and Imposition of effluent
mitigation plans for charge; (Pr)
selected poor areas; (Pr)
Establishment of
Relocation of tradeable water permits;
communities from flood (Pr)
prone areas and coastal
areas subject to SLR; Implementation of a
(Pr) National Sewerage and
Septage Management
program (connect septic
tanks to sewerage system
and waste treatment
plants); (PI)
Required establishment
of anaerobic baffled
reactor wastewater
facility in subdivisions or
districts; (Pr)
52

Resource/ Sector or Stock Restoration,
Ecosystem Sustainability
Set up of environmental
insurance from oil-spills
and major point sources of
pollution; (Pr)
Establishment of
marshlands against sea
level rise due to CC; (Pr)
Energy Amend the Oil Industry
Deregulation Act
(Pr)Provide incentives for
clean energy, alternative
fuels (biodiesel,
bioethanol) or increase in
renewable energy
capacity;
Fund the construction,
rehabilitation, and up-
grading of mini-
hydropower plants;
Delineate,/ allocate public
forestlands for geothermal
or renewable energy
production;
Impose carbon tax,
pollutant charge (Pr)
Levy pollution charge
(Pr)
Reconciliation of energy
laws with IPRA and
NIPAS/PD 907 (Pr)
Streamline community
benefits/fees for energy
projects: (Pr)
Passage of the LPG Bill
(Pr)
Final Draft
Equity and Poverty Production Efficiency
Alleviation
Amend the Oil Industry Amend the Oil Industry
Deregulation Act (Pr) Deregulation Act (Pr)
Provide guidelines on Provide incentives for RE
involuntary resettlement producers and
Provide access to clean improvements in EE&C
energy for households in (PI)
off-grid or missionary
areas ( through Promote biomass
photovoltaic and micro- compost for energy (Ex)
hydro systems);
(i) Improve LGU
capacity to
undertake Establish a renewable
renewable energy energy market; (Pr)
project;
(ii) Support the Eliminate subsidies to
improvement and obtain the true cost of
expansion of power; Tax the use of
electric coal and fossil fuel; (Pr
cooperatives;
Provide space for non-
motorized means (Pr)
Enhance DOE laws (DOE
Act/EPIRA/RE) with
poverty related guidelines
for the benefit of host
communities (Ex)
53

Resource/ Sector or Stock Restoration,
Ecosystem Sustainability
Passage of the Natural
Gas Industry
Development Bill (Pr)
Promotion of Smart Grid
Technology (Pr)
Promotion of electric
vehicles (Ex)
Waste Imposition of
environmental user fee on
all wastes; (Pr)
Provision of incentives for
low waste generation,
sanitary landfill,
recycling; (PI)
Enforce nationwide waste
segregation; (PI)
Closure of open dumpsites
and establishment of
LGU or PPP sanitary
landfills; (PI)
Fund mobilization for
procurement of equipment
for waste collection,
construction and operation
of sanitary landfill; (PI)
Establishment of LGU or
PPP-Material Recovery
Facility (MRF) (Pr)
Establish guidelines on
disaster preparedness and
response in SWM
facilities (Pr)
Sustainable Cities Formulate national policy
for the greening of cites;
Final Draft
Equity and Poverty Production Efficiency
Alleviation
Employment of the poor Conduct of energy and
in waste segregation and waste audit of all
recycling; (PI) industries; (Pr)
Promotion of livelihood Provision of incentives
opportunities from for the reduction, reuse,
sanitary landfill and MRF and recycling of waste;
operations (PI); also (PI)
employment from the
use, processing of Establishment of
recyclable materials (Pr) methane capture facilities
in sanitary landfills; (PI)
Welfare program for
vulnerable groups in Implementation of policy
informal waste sector to curtail, properly
(IWS) (PI) dispose, manage and
recycle e-waste; (PI)
Integrate IWS in the
plans of LGU and NG Implementation of policy
(PI); to reduce and properly
dispose of hazardous
Give livelihood assurance waste (PI)
to IWS, and recognize
right to just Enforce waste
compensation (PI); segregation at source (PI)
Protect health from Segregate toxic,
exposure to toxic hazardous waste from
hazardous waste (PI) municipal waste (Pr)
Promote composting of
biodegradable waste,
biogas production,
anaerobic digestion, and
other methane capture
techniques (PI)
Slum Eradication Imposition of consumer
Program (PPP)/ tax on fuel, oil, gas; (Pr)
54

Resource/ Sector or Stock Restoration,
Ecosystem Sustainability
revisit NGP (Pr)
Zoning; (PI)
Establishment of eco-
towns; (PI at pilot level)
Imposition of
environmental user charge
for roads (PI)); for public
facilities (Pr)
Imposition of air and
water pollution charge;
(Pr)
Establishment of an
integrated public transport
system; (PI in some
provinces) Walkable
accesses to and from
transport facilities (PI);
Delineation of
management zones based
on risk and vulnerability
(Pr)
Strengthening of DRR
capacity of LGUs (PI)
Mainstreaming of disaster
risk reduction (DRR) and
climate change adaptation
(CCA) at the LGU level;
(PI)
Establishment of an
LGU-DRR fund; (PI)
Rehabilitation and
retrofitting of vulnerable
infrastructures; (Pr)
Sustainable Industries Promotion of sustainable
use of local materials
(water lily, bamboo,
coconut, etc); (PI)
Adoption of
Final Draft
Equity and Poverty Production Efficiency
Alleviation
Housing fund for slum
dwellers; (PI) Establishment of energy
efficiency standards for
Prioritize housing for buildings; (PI in some
settlers in flood prone LGUs)
riverbank, coastal areas
(PI) Monitor compliance and
enforce the National
Complementation of Building Code (PI)
housing program with
livelihood opportunities Tax incentives for green
(PI) buildings (Pr)
Promote urban farming Promote community-
for the poor (Pr) based use of solar energy:
Provision of incentives to
Establish innovative LGUs and real estate
security measures to developers for the use of
promote ‗safe from solar energy; (Pr)
violence‘ cities (Pr)
Promotion of
transportation systems of
low carbon intensity; (PI)
Replacement or
retrofitting of
tricycles/establishment of
a revolving fund; (Pr)
Promotion of non-
motorized transportation
(Pr)
Establish rainwater
harvesting measures for
urban areas (Pr)
Collaboration of GFIs, Reduction of pollution
DTI, DOT and LGUs to levels and increase
support medium and resource efficiency in
small scale micro- pilot enterprises; (PI)
enterprises (PI) .
Prioritization of greening
55

Resource/ Sector or Stock Restoration, Equity and Poverty
Ecosystem Sustainability Alleviation
Environmental and Social Establish and improve
Impact Assessment (Pr) social protection system
(Ex)
Promotion of
Sustainability Reporting Institute decent work
Initiative (PI) programs and plans at the
enterprise level (PI)
Establish and improve
waste management Development of human
systems (PI) capital, skills training and
education (PI)
Improve working
conditions, occupational
health and safety (PI)
Promote the practice of
corporate social
responsibility at the
enterprise level (PI)
Legend: PR=proposed; PI=partially implemented; EX=existing
Final Draft
Production Efficiency
of particular industries
along some criteria;
promote green jobs, skills
(Pr)
Adoption of industry
protocol for
measurement, monitoring
and reporting of
emissions; (PI)
Conduct of energy audit
of industries; (PI)
Levying of carbon tax;
(Pr)
Provision of incentives
for the adoption
(acquisition of imported)
green technologies or the
localization of more
affordable green
technologies; (PI)
Improvement of the
commercial viability of
green products; (PI)
Increase value-added of
local products; (PI)
Strengthening of inter-
enterprise linkages
among MSMEs and large
enterprises; (PI)
Enhance productivity
incentives and measures
for MSMEs (PI)
Promotion of renewable
energy use and energy
efficient processes; (PI)
LGU promotion of
community-based
ecotourism; (PI)
56
 Final Draft

Table 9 presents the status of current and proposed policies. Out of 188 policies under the Green
Economy, only 14 of the policies are being fully implemented, i.e. Ex. The rest are either partly implemented
(100) PI or merely proposed (74) Pr. With hardly any Ex GE-oriented policies in mining, water, energy, waste,
and city, and only one Ex in fishery and industry, the apparent challenge in the transition is whether the greater
number of Pr and PI policies will respectively become formal intervention measures and extend greater
influence. The rate at which this will transpire would determine the pace and duration of the transition. As
noted, most of the proposed (Pr) interventions that have yet to be formalized and implemented, are in the areas
of metallic mining, water, ‗sustainable cities‘, and energy. Put differently, these are the effectively ‗green field‘
sectors that would require tremendous work on the road towards a Green Economy. Might it also be noted that
the daunting challenge in these ‗green field‘ areas would require intervention in all the sustainability criteria
(natural stock/ environmental quality, equity/ poverty eradication, and efficiency). In addition, only a fourth of
the current and proposed GE policies are directed towards the equity and poverty alleviation criterion while
there are twice more of the natural capital/ carrying capacity policies than policies relevant to equity/ poverty
alleviation in forestry, water and cities. If the poor are prevalent in these ecosystems and sectors, then the
number and proportion of policies for equity/ poverty alleviation in our arsenal may be quite inadequate.

Table 9. Policy Arsenal for the Green Economy, Number and Status of Implementation
Ecosystem/ CRITERION NUMBER OF IMPLEMENTED PARTIALLY PROPOSED
Sector POLICIES IMPLEMENTED
Forest and Natural Capital 12 5 5 2
Biodiversity PE*/Equity 6 1 5 -
Efficiency 6 2 4 -

Metallic Natural Capital 4 - 1 3

Mineral PE*/Equity 3 - 1 2
Efficiency 2 - - 2

Agriculture Natural Capital 5 2 2 1

PE*/Equity 7 1 4 2
Efficiency 9 1 7 2

Marine/ Natural Capital 7 1 4 2

Coastal, PE*/Equity 5 - 4 1
Fishery Efficiency 5 - 2 3

Water Natural Capital 14 - 5 9

PE*/Equity 7 - - 7
Efficiency 9 - 2 7

Energy Natural Capital 4 - 2 2

PE*/Equity 4 - 3 1
Efficiency 7 - 1 6

Waste Natural Capital 7 - 4 3

PE*/Equity 7 - 6 1
Efficiency 8 - 6 2

57
 Final Draft

Ecosystem/ CRITERION NUMBER OF IMPLEMENTED PARTIALLY PROPOSED

Sector POLICIES IMPLEMENTED
Sustainable Natural Capital 13 - 8 5
Cities PE*/Equity 6 - 3 3
Efficiency 9 - 3 6

Sustainable Natural Capital 4 - 3 1

Industries PE*/Equity 6 1 5 -
Efficiency 12 - 10 2

TOTAL 188 14 100 74

*PE = Poverty Eradication

Simultaneously, an enabling environment at the international level must be in place to fully realize the Green
Economy at the national level. Thus, in the transition to the GE the following major concerns must be
addressed at the global level:

1. Green and cleaner production technology. In order to fill up the gaps on green and
cleaner production technology, developing countries must have access, technology transfer,
knowledge sharing and cooperation. The early movers with resources among developed
countries must help develop the appropriate technologies and facilitate its transfer to developing
countries as they transition towards greener and cleaner production. There must also be binding
global institutional arrangements to foster collaboration and cooperation in the field of green and
cleaner production technology.

2. Long-term financial and green investment. A green finance window development fund
should be e s t a b l i s h e d to assist in the sustainability of the country‘s natural capital which is
necessary for the promotion of economic growth in the countryside. A part from government
provision of market and tax incentives, investments are necessary to enable the shift from the
use of conventional to green and cleaner production technologies. Within developing countries
there are unviable areas (off-grid areas) that would necessarily require technological and
financial aid from developed countries. H e n c e , t h e r e i s n e e d f o r developed countries
assistance i n scaling up renewable energy in developing countries. However, e x t e r n a l
a s s i s t a n c e m u s t b e sustainable and aligned with the developing countries‘ national
priorities and strategies. While the greening of business processes is a b a s i c g o a l of a GE,
a regulatory and incentive framework must be in place to ensure the protection of the natural
capital when investments are made in developing countries.

3. Capacity building. Developed countries may provide technical assistance to developing countries
in the development of green and cleaner production technology for energy and industries, the
institutionalization of environmental accounting, the developing of green cities, and the
implementation of environmentally sustainable transport systems. This assistance to enable
58
 Final Draft

developing countries attain a green economy must also help achieve sust ainabl e
devel opm ent and poverty eradication. .

4. Trade. T h e r e m u s t b e a g r e e m e n t t o avoid trade protectionism and the tying o f

conditionalities to official development assistance. To a developing country, like the
Philippines, it is consistent in a green economy to uphold trade policies a g a i n s t unfair
competition that e i t h e r p r o t e c t d e v e l o p e d country products through subsidies o r t a k e
unfair advantage over the natural resources of poorer countries. Also, there must be a critical
review of the green procurement policies of developed countries or their use of ―green‖
environmental standards t o possibly block c o m p e t i n g products from developing countries.
These standards must not be used as non-tariff barriers. In order to avoid green trade
protectionism, an agreed-upon accreditation, certification and eco-labelling of products must be
established.

5. Social dimension of green economy. We need to reiterate that strategies towards t h e G E ,

as well as efforts to ―green‖ technology, policies and institutions must consider the social
dimension, like bio-cultural diversity and heritage. In particular, indigenous peoples should be
considered in policy and decision-making processes to protect their bio-cultural rights. As a
people-centered development paradigm, GE envisions the indigenous people‘s role as steward
of natural resources and ownership of the country‘s domain, as crucial to their sustainability.

6. Green jobs and livelihood. A green economy must necessarily promote green, sustainable
and decent jobs that i m p r o v e living standards. Also, an e q u i t a b l e transition to green
jobs m u s t be inclusive of all stakeholders, i.e. protecting workers‘ rights and ensuring that
employment and the social cost of the transition are shared by all. Moreover, the transition
through international support must provide trainings and courses on green skills and
competencies of workers, particularly those in the brown industries. Most importantly, a GE must
facilitate the development of green livelihood and entrepreneurship by engaging the informal
sector of industries so as to truly contribute to poverty reduction, social development and a
better environment for all.
7. Peace and security. A green economy will only thrive if it is founded on peace and human security.
Hence, a GE should facilitate a culture of peace, the promotion of human rights, the acceptance of social
diversity, and the primacy of the peace process at all times.

59
 Final Draft

Recommendations for the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development

The arsenal of program and policy tools (Tables 8 and 9) provides an initial strategic program to
transition to a Green Economy and attain a level of sustainable development. Even if consensus is forged
around a strategic direction, a GE program is not sufficient to move the country towards the vision. What else is
needed?

PA21 provides an invaluable insight into a necessary ingredient: apart from the political will to launch
the country‘s transition to a Green Economy, an intervention agenda cannot advance without the consultation,
consensus, initiative, inter-agency collaboration and the active participation of various stakeholders. Following
the PA21 model, leadership with an oversight responsibility for the transition to GE ought to promote
stakeholder participation, effective state agency partnership with civil society groups and the private sector, and
participatory decision making in its institutional and governance framework. With interventions proceeding at
both the national (macro) and local (micro) levels, top down initiatives without stakeholder participation may
fail to mobilize civil society groups, people‘s organization, and the business sector to rally behind a GE agenda
and its presumed priorities. Similarly, without local stakeholder participation and the engagement of multi-
sectoral stakeholders and local government leaders, no bottom-up development process can materialize. In
particular, local sustainable development councils would not be able to address local livelihood and
environmental problems.
In order to foster effective partnership, participatory decision making, and a bottom-up process, an
institutional framework for sustainable development (IFSD) must be in place. At the formal organizational
level, it must provide at least two capacities: 1) concerted policy making for sustainable development by each
department/ sector of the executive and legislative branches of government; and 2) the coordinated
implementation and enforcement of laws or national policies. Because most Philippine laws are sector based,
the tendency of government agencies is to operate autonomously along their mandated functions. This
entrenched practice discourages inter-agency coordination, thereby constraining the synchronization and
synergy of government agency actions. Worse, because of different, if not divergent, objectives, some agency
relationships may not only be non-cooperative, but also conflictive.
Thus, in order to promote concerted policy making for sustainable development, an IFSD must provide
mechanisms at the national and local level to reconcile conflicting sector/agency policies/programs and industry
interests, as well as to resolve contradictory policies and laws in the service of higher national interest. An IFSD
must also enable agencies to go beyond narrow sector-based thinking and action, and align their sector-based
policies and programs for the common good/ purpose. Without an IFSD, the economy would continue in the
path of unsustainable and contradictory policies, and would be pulled apart by the lack of coordination,
entrenched vested interests, and conflicts within its ranks.
The IFSD provides a command structure for inter-agency, inter-sectoral collaboration and
complementation of programs—convergence in short—that makes possible the integration of the three pillars of
SD. However, convergence and its benefits must not only be limited to some national agencies. It must be also
be forged at the level of LGUs, people‘s organizations and civil society groups. In other words, the convergence
of the DA, DAR, DENR, BFAR, NCIP, PCARRD as an evolving inter-sectoral structure at the national level
must also take at the local level to more effectively achieve rural development in the context of watersheds or
river basins.

Given its beneficial outcomes, the convergence model may also be applied to other problematic areas in
PA21 or in the transition to GE, like sustainable industry, waste management and clean energy development.
60
 Final Draft

However, in dealing with the urban problems of water and air pollution, waste, health and population growth,
will the convergence of national agencies, like DILG, DOH, NWRB, DTI, DOST, and DOE with LGUs, local
business, and community organizations and civil society groups suffice? If not, would an alternative structure,
i.e. a supra body like a Metro Urban Development Authority that will have effective control over the political
units under it, be worth a try? Similarly, can the issues in the black hole of the GE—e.g. unemployment—be
partially, if not significantly, addressed by the convergence of agencies such as the DOLE, DepEd, DOH,
DSWD, DTI, NCIP, Tesda with local businesses, civil society groups, et al? If so, will all these convergence
effort be orchestrated and directed by the PCSD? If PCSD is the overall governance structure for moving the
country closer to a Green Economy, how can it be given more teeth?

There are no immediate answers to these questions because the journey to the GE is an uncharted one.
As an experimental voyage, the country can only learn all the answers iteratively by embarking on it. As a
learning- by-doing enterprise, the success of subsequent experimental runs will come from the travel journal
documentation. Specifically, the data inputted into the log frame monitoring and evaluation system will
determine the success of each transition phase. Thus in the transition to the GE, the use of the log frame or the
Managing for Development Results by both the PCSD and LCSD is imperative. It will track the outcome or
impact of interventions, and provide a ―framework and practical tools for strategic planning, risk management,
progress monitoring, and outcome evaluation‖.

Nevertheless, with the log frame as a ready tool for recording the progress attained through specific
interventions, the immediate and more strategic task is to set up the effective governance mechanism that will
fill the big gaps identified in Part I of this report and implement the key PI and Pr measures that will move the
country‘s SD agenda forward.

At least three components of an IFSD agenda must be realized in order to move the Philippines towards
SD, namely localization, effective international governance and monitoring-feedback mechanisms.

A. Localization. Based on the country‘s experience, the integration of the three pillars of sustainable
development cannot be achieved solely at the national government level. Instead of establishing new
institutions at the national level for SD, integration would be more effective and efficient if initiatives
for SD were mainstreamed in existing structures and mechanisms, facilitated with the assistance of civil
society and through appropriate public-private partnerships with the business sector. More importantly,
sustainable development is genuinely realized when collective action starts at the local level and
translates to improved well-being of local communities. This would require that governance
mechanisms, systems and structures should promote and support local actions for sustainable
development. It is only with the formation, strengthening and consolidation of sustainable local
communities that a sustainable nation emerges.

B. Effective international governance. International governance for sustainable development must be

strong and effective to support the SD localization efforts of national structures, and it should be
efficient enough to lower the transaction costs of developing countries. The planning and reporting
processes of all UN Conventions and Programmes should hence be synchronized in order to facilitate
effective coordination of commitments and actions. It is recommended that an implementation
framework and coordination mechanism m u s t be established i n o r d e r to clearly delineate the
roles and responsibilities of each organization under the UN system. And there must also be an

61
 Final Draft

incentive scheme to country-parties implementing SD initiatives and accomplishing the Convention

commitments.

C. Monitoring, evaluation and feedback mechanism. I t i s i m p e r a t i v e to strengthen the monitoring

and evaluation of nation‘s activities and outputs through appropriate methodologies in order to track
commitments made at the global level. Clear targets with a timeframe must be posted to ensure that
countries, given their inherent and differing capacities, are made accountable and are objectively
moving towards the common goal of sustainable development.

62
 Final Draft

Appendix 1. List of Implementation Problems, Intervention Gaps and Omissions, by Criterion

Ecosystem Natural Capital Equity in Access Efficiency in Poverty

Sector Environment Quality and Benefits Economic Eradication
Activities
Forest Non-completion of the Coverage of Uncertain or
Ecosystem and planned rehabilitation social, limited
Biodiversity of critical water-sheds. community employment
Implementation of an forestry opportunities
integrated ecosystem- management has generated by
based management been reduced. forest
approach. The earlier rehabilitation,
Integration of forest targeted watershed
resource and ecosystem coverage of management,
management and CBFM, ISF, forest plantation,
biodiversity CFP and FLMA wood-based and
conservation has not been non-timber
Most KBAs remain as reached. industries, and
un-proclaimed PAs, the use of trust
and have threatened fund.
status.
No policy on
biodiversity offsets and
bio-diversity valuation,
and procedure for ‗no-
go‘ areas.
No explicit
international
community valuation
of biodiversity

Coastal/ Absence of particular Limited No policy on total No provision of

Marine local conditions for enforcement on allowable catch prior use rights;
Fisheries successful intervention commercial and fishery Limited or no
(local leadership, fishing charges. safety nets or
community encroachment of No regulation on provision of
organization, municipal aquaculture supplementary/
interagency waters. stocking and water alternative
cooperation, etc); Commercial and quality impact. employment to
Conversion and municipal No pollution small fisher
pollution of mangroves licensing does charges on point- folks.
with the unregulated not ensure equity and nonpoint Displacement
development of in access. sources effect of
aquaculture. smuggling,
No damage dumping of
compensation and cheap imports on
pollution charges have small fisher
been imposed. folks.
63
 Final Draft

Freshwater Limited Perpetual water Zero raw water No water reserve

implementation of rights given to value; for basic human
IWRM or the policies identified Non application of need;
on sustainable water ‗beneficial user‘ economic No connection
resource use; applicants; instruments to the and tariff cross
No earlier integration No formal different phases of subsidies for
of water resource permit for the water supply poor households.
management with community cycle;
ecosystem domestic Limited cost-
conservation; consumption; recovery for water
No in-stream water No access to utilities;
reserve for ecological sanitation and Diversion of
functions; sewerage charges and fees to
No depletion and services; the General Fund
pollution charges; and away from
No economic resource and
instruments to finance watershed
wastewater treatment management;

Lowland Failure to prevent land Non-completion No regulation to Recent pilot

Agriculture degradation, watershed of agrarian limit growth of efforts to
deterioration, and the reform; limited idle lands and mitigate land
loss of irrigated lands; coverage of land speculation; degradation,
No earlier policy to transfer; No effective desertification
establish local No earlier measure to prevent and the effects
community banks for government land conversion; of drought;
indigenous seed; policy support to Uncertain Limited success
promote regulation on the in the diffusion
sustainable introduction of of new farm
agriculture GMO seeds; technologies;
through organic Limited tenure
farming and measure for the
linkage to growing rural
market outlets; landless
population

Mining No provision for No explicit Decreasing real Absence of a

biodiversity losses; requirement to value of MWT; compensation
Uncertainty of the cover the cost of Free use of water; fund for
rehabilitation fund to community No internalization livelihood losses,
cover the cost of displacement of the negative health damages
environmental from subsistence externalities, and and downstream
damages; livelihood and compensation for displacement
Absence of an water sources, the depleted costs;
environmental health damages, deposits. Violations of the
insurance policy; and the No mitigation FPIC
64
 Final Draft

No measures to disturbance from policy for the requirement

institute comprehensive tailings dam perpetual acid
resource valuation; leakages and mine drainage
Limitations of the EIA collapse; beyond the life of
and ECC to identify The designation the mine;
and ensure the of public forest
mitigation of lands for mineral
environmental damages reservations to
the exclusion of
other economic
land uses

Urban The limited governance Limited Non-application of Limited

(industries, and environmental provision of economic employment
cities, management capacity public or instruments to deal opportunities,
transport, of the DENR and the socialized with congestion, access to credit
energy, waste) LGUs; housing; land zoning, and skills
Failure to manage Limited public nonrenewable training for
population growth support for the energy use, majority of the
within the limited development of pollution, waste urban poor
urban infrastructure renewable management;
and ecosystem carrying energy sources; Failure to
capacity; No explicit determine the
The limited framework to economies of scale
environmental distribute the for service
awareness and costs of the provisioning
vigilance of civil benefits of clean (water sanitation,
society to protect the air, water, treatment, waste
urban environment; sanitation management) and
No cost sharing in the services, and the the distribution of
establishment of environment the provisioning
environmental among the function;
infrastructures. beneficiaries Collaboration with
private business
sector for jobs,
technologies;
No infrastructure
for a sustainable
transportation
system (eg. non-
motorized
transport

65
 Final Draft

PARTIAL LIST OF REFERENCES

Asian Development Bank (2008). Proceedings of the Conference on Strengthening Regulation to Improve
Water Service Performance. 5-6 August.

Asian Development Bank, National Water Resource Board, IDP Consult, Inc. (2005). Rationalizing Tariffs for
Private Water Utilities Under the National Water Resources Board. Revised Guidelines on Tariff Setting and
Regulation. February.

Bachmann, L. , E. Cruzada and S. Wright (2009). Food Security and Farmer Empowerment: A Study of the
Impacts of Farmer-led Sustainable Agriculture in the Philippines. Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-Unlad
ng Agrikultura and Miserior.

Bautista, G. M. (2012). The Challenges and Prospects of Sustainable Agriculture in the Philippines.
Unpublished paper presented in the Symposium on Environment-Friendly Agriculture. Faculty of Economics,
University of Tokyo, 3 March

____________ (2009). ―Economics of Philippine Mining: Rents, Price Cycles, Externalities, and the
Uncompensated Costs‖ Loyola School of the Social Sciences Journal. Ateneo de Manila University.
____________(2004). With Hiromitsu Umehara (eds). Communities at the Margin: Reflections on Economic,
Environmental, and Social Change in the Philippines.. Ateneo de Manila University Press.
_____________(2001). With Rosalina P. Tan. Watersheds and Groundwater Depletion in
the Philippines: The Experience of Cagayan de Oro. Quezon City: Institute of Philippine
Culture. Ateneo de Manila University.

_____________(1995) "Development and the Environment: Philippine Forestry Management in Transition" in

Fujisaki, et al (eds.) Development and the Environment: The Experiences of Japan and Industrializing Asia,
Tokyo: Institute of Developing Economies.

Bautista, R.M. and G.R. Tecson. (2002) "International Dimensions" A. Balisacan (ed). The Philippine
Economy: On the Way to Sustained Growth?, Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines, 1993-1997. Quezon City: Department
of Agriculture.

Bureau of Local Government Supervision. (2002) State of the Philippine Cities: A Self-
Assessment Based on LPPMS. Department of Interior and Local Government; The Philippine Urban Forum,
United Nations Development Programme; and The Center for Local and Regional Governance, University of
the Philippines

Cagayan Valley Programme on Environment and Development (1992). Forestry for People and Nature. Field
Research and Theory on Environment and Development in Cagayan Valley, Philippines. Centre for
Environmental Science, Leiden University and College of Forestry, Isabela State University.

Catibog-Sinha, C and L. R. Heaney (2006). Philippine Biodiversity: Principles and Practice. Quezon City:
Haribon Foundation of Natural Resources, Inc.

66
 Final Draft

Chui, A.S (2011). Scoping Paper on Green Economy and Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) in
the Philippines. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Climate Change Commission and World
Wildlife Fund.

David, C.C. and J. Roumasset. (2002) "Agriculture" in Balisacan, A. (ed.). The Philippine Economy: On the
Way to Sustained Growth?Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

De la Cruz, L.J., et al. (2002) Institutional and Organizational Assessment of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program. Final report submitted to the Department of Agrarian Reform by the Institute of Philippine
Culture, Ateneo de Manila University.

Development Alternatives Inc. (2011). Proceedings on the Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) and
Green Economy Capacity Building Workshop. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Climate
Change Commission and World
Wildlife Fund EDSA Shangri-La Hotel 15-16 September.

Department of Agriculture, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Science and
technology and Department of Agrarian Reform (2004).The Philippine National Action Plan to Combat
Desertification. Land Degradation, Drought and Poverty FY2004-2010. Quezon City.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Parks and Wildlife Bureau (2009). National Plan of Action
for the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security. Quezon City.

Department of Interior and Local Government. (2002) State of Philippine Cities: A Self
-Assessment Based on LPPMS. Philippines: Bureau of Local Government
Supervision; The Philippine Urban Forum, United Nations Development
Programme; and The Center for Local and Regional Governance, National
College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines.

Forest Management Bureau. (2001) 2001 Philippine Forestry Statistics. Quezon City:
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Forest Management Bureau. (1997) 1997 Philippine Forestry Statistics. Quezon City:
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Francisco, H. (1994) Upland Soil Resources: Resource Assessment and Accounting.

ENRAP II: Appendix E. ENRAP SHELF (Searchable Hyperlinked Electronic Library of Files).

Glover, D et. al. (2008). Willingness to Pay for the Conservation of Endangered Species in Four Asian
Countries. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia.

Goodland, Robert and Clive Wicks (2009). Philippines: Mining or Food? United Kingdom: Working Group on
Mining in the Philippines. [launched in Westmister in February]
Hill, H. (2002) "Industry" in The Philippine Economy: On the Way to Sustained
Growth?, A. Balisacan (ed.). Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Israel, D.C. and C.P. Banzon. (1998) Overfishing in the Philippine Marine Fisheries

67
 Final Draft

Sector. EEPSEA Research Report Series. Singapore: Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia
(EEPSEA).

Japan International Cooperation Agency/Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (JICA/MWSS).

(1992). Study for the Groundwater Development in Metro Manila. Final Report. Manila, Philippines. Japan
International Cooperation Agency/Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System.

Kojima, R, Y. Nomura, S. Fujisaki and N. Sakamoto (1995) Development and the Environment. The
Experiences of Japan and Industrializing Asia. Toyko: Institute of Developing Economies.
Land Research Action Network (2011). Defending the Common Territories and the Right to Food and Water.
LRAN Paper Series No. 2. Quezon City.

Lopez, S. (1992). Isles of Gold: A History of Mining in the Philippines. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Mallari, Neil, Blas Tarabanza Jr. and Michael Crosby (2001). Key Conservation Sites in the Philippines.
Haribon Foundation and Birdlife International.

Medalla, E.M. (2003) Linkages Between Trade/Investment Liberalization, Industrial

Structure and Good Forestry (Revised Draft). 2 April.

Mendelsohn, Robert (2005). Climate Change Impacts on Southeast Asian Agriculture. 2005. Yale University.

Miranda, M. P. Burris et al. (2003). Mining and Critical Ecosystems: Mapping the Risks. World Resources
Institute. Washington, U.S.A.

National Economic Development Authority (2010). Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016.

National Water Resources Board (2008). Tariff Model for Private Water Utilities: User’s Manual.

National Water Resources Board. Institutional Strengthening for Effective Economic Regulation of Water
Services (2007).. Economic Regulatory Guidelines. June.

National Water Resources Board, Asian Development Bank and IBP Consult, Inc. (2005). Primer on Water
Tarff Setting and Regulation. March. .

National Water Resources Board-CEST (2004). Water Resources Assessment for Prioritized Critical Areas.
Final Report. October.

National Water Resources Board (1979). Water Code of the Philippine of 1976 and the Implementing Rules
and Regulations. Presidential Decree 1067. Quezon City.

Ong, P, L.E. Afuang and R.G. Rosell-Ambal (eds). (2002) Philippine Biodersity Conservation Priorities: A
Second Iteration of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources-Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau; Conservation International Philippines and University
of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies.

68
 Final Draft

Padilla, J.E., E.E. Tongson and R.D. Lasco (2005). PES: Sustainable Financing for Conservation and
Development. Proceedings from the National Conference-Workshop on Payments for Environmental Services:
Direct Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Alleviation. 1-2 March.

Padilla, J.E. and A.M. Cortez. (1996) Implications of a "Collapse" in the Philippine
Small Pelagic Fisheries. ENRAP III, Volume I-A: Policy Study 3. ENRAP SHELF (Searchable Hyperlinked
Electronic Library of Files).

Padilla, J.E. and F. de Guzman. (1994) Fishery Resources Accounting in the Philippines:
Applications to the Small Pelagics Fishery. ENRAP II: Appendix D. ENRAP SHELF (Searchable Hyperlinked
Electronic Library of Files).

Philippine Association of Water Districts (2010). Philippine Association of Water Districts Directory for 2008-
2009.

Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (2010). Understanding Sustainable Development. A Simple
Guide to Enhanced Philippine Agenda 21. PCSD Coordinating Secretariat. National Economic Development
Authority.
Philippine Water Supply Sector Roadmap (2008-2010). Secretariat‘s Report to the Infracom Sub-Committee.

President‘s Priority Program on Water. 2009. CY 2005-2008 Program Status Report.

REECS (2011). MDG-F 1919 Output 1.4: Strengthening Economic Regulation to Enhance Water Service
Delivery Performance. Action Plan For Implementing the Light Handed Regulation Framework and Guidelines.
February 25.

Republic of South Africa. National Water Act. Act No. 36. 1998.

Sajise, P. et. Al (1996). Baseline Assessments: The State of the Philippine Environment. State of the Nation
Research Reports. Center for Integrative and Development Studies, University of the Philippines.

United Nations Environmental Programme (2011). Keeping Track of Our Changing Environment: From Rio to
Rio+20.

United Nations Environment Programme (2011). Resource Efficiency: Economics and Outlook for Asia and the
Pacific. Summary for Decision-Makers. Bangkok: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.

United States Agency for International Development (2011). Water and Sanitation Assessment for the
Philippines, April.

World Bank (2006). Philippines Towns Water Utilities Data Book 2004: A Partnership of the Government of
the Philippines Water and Sanitation Program- East Asia and the Pacific of the
World Bank.

World Bank (2003). Philippines Environment Monitor. Water Quality. December.

The World Bank Group. (2002) Philippines Environment Monitor 2002. Pasig City

69