Philippine E i Phili i Environmental Safeguards System t lS f d S t Implementation Assessment (PESSIA)

Environment and Safeguards Division g Regional and Sustainable Development Department Asian Development Bank Country Safeguard Systems Regional Workshop: Towards Common Approaches and Better Results 18 April 2012
The views in this presentation are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), or its Board of Governors, or the government they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this presentation and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms.

Presentation Outline
A. B. C. D. E. E F. G. Rationale Background Study Coverage y g Target Outcome Final Outputs Study Methodology & Key Activities Study Challenges & Team Response

A. Study Rationale
An ADB SPS (2009) Objective : ( ) j help strengthen CSS and develop borrower/client capacity to manage environmental and social risks Philippines as one of the countries initially identified to conduct a structured Country Safeguard Review (CSR) for strengthening and potential use of CSS.

B. PESSIA Background
2003 -2005 WB Studies on Strengthening of Pollution Control and EIS Monitoring & Evaluation 2006-2007 Joint WB-ADB PEISS Discussion Paper

2009 -2010 WB SDR of PEISS per OP 4.00 (Piloting Use of Borrower Systems ) 2010 2011 ADB Draft Equivalence Assessment q ADB Philippine Environmental Safeguards Systems Implementation g y p Assessment (ongoing)
4

C1. PESSIA Study Coverage

ADB Environmental Safeguard Policy Areas Environmental Assessment Biodiversity & natural resource conservation Pollution prevention & control Occupat o a Occupational & Community health & safety Physical cultural resource conservation Corresponding Philippine Legislation PD 1151 PD 1586 1151, Philippine Lead Agencies 1 1- DENR

PD 705, RA 7586, RA 9147, PD 1067 PD 984, RA 6969, RA 9003, RA 8749, RA 9275, RA 7160 PD 442; PD 856 ;

DENR, 2- DA, 3NWRB DENR, 4- LGU

5 O ,6 5- DOLE, 6DOH 7 NM, 8 7- NM 8NHCP, 9- NCIP

RA 10066; RA 10086; RA 8371

C2. Stakeholder Coverage of the PESSIA in relation to Regulated Projects

Lead Development Agencies (DOE DPWH) (DOE, Project Proponents j p EIS Preparers EIS R i Review Committee Lead Environmental Safeguard Agencies (9) Local Government Unit Project-Affected Communities
Next

Regulated Projects j

Other Key Stakeholders

Industry Associations, Academe, Envitl y , , NGO, Church, Media, Legal NGO/Courts

Percent Distribution of Establishments by Employment Size (2005), DOLE

Menu

Total Establishments = 782,980

Assessment Parameters 1) Implementation Track Record (across regulated projects, over time)
Implementation practices Outputs generated Outcomes achieved

2)

Institutional Resources

D. Study Target Outcome

Shared understanding and recognition : a) of strengths and weaknesses in implementation of the Philippine Environmental Safeguards System (PESS) ; and of the action plans developed in coordination with stakeholders

b)

Country safeguards objectives effectively achieved and sustained

E. Study Outputs 1. Report on the PESSIA including an inter-agency Action Plan towards improving implementation effectiveness based on PESS own ega equ e e ts; legal requirements; 2. Recommendations for Improvement of CSR Methodology for strengthening and use of CSS
10

F1. Study Methodology:

1. Situating CSR within the System Life Cycle 1 1. System Concept and Design
(Input Policy Directions & Legal Requirements)

4. 4 System Review & Improvement *

(Corrective Actions, Initiatives)

Country Safeguard System S t

2. System Construction
(Input Resources)

3. System Operation *
(Practices, Outputs and Outcomes) * PESSIA Focus of Analysis

2. IPOO View of a Country Safeguards System INPUT

M Management t Directions Profile of the Regulated Projects Project Regulatory Requirements Procedures Stakeholders Resources
human, physical, financial, information financial information, tools

PROCESS *

OUTPUT *

OUTCOME*

Feedback *

Deliverables Practices in delivering requirements in each project stage Report p Certification License Agreement g Facilities Financial Organization Objective of the safeguard requirement

* PESSIA Focus of Analysis

F2. Key Activities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Review of completed assessment studies R i f l t d t t di Desk Review of agency and stakeholder performance at the national level (& regional, where data is available) regional Desk Review of Project Case Studies Field Validation of Project Case Studies Interviews with Agencies/Stakeholders Strengths Weaknesses and Recommendations and Recommendations, Action Planning by Study Team Draft Report (PESSIA & CSR Methodology): Review and Clearance Multi-Stakeholder Consultation/Workshop on Action Plans and CSR Methodology Final Reports (PESSIA & CSR Methodology): Next to 22 Review, Clearance and Disclosure

Project Case Studies

Dev Sectors DENR-EMB Processing Office CO/ R3/ R4B CO/ R3/ R4B CO/ R3/ R4B CO/ R3/ R4B EIA Types Project Type

Energy E Forestry/ Agriculture Infrastructure

EIS/ IEER/ IEEC EPRMP/ IEER/ EPRMP EIS/ EIS/ IEER EIS/ IEEC/ IEEC

Transport
Menu Next

Power Plant, LPG D t P Pl t Depot, Mini-Hydro Wood Processing Exp Exp, Piggery Exp, Piggery Exp Sewerage, Water Prodn, Storage & Distribution, Municipal Waterworks Railway Transit, Bridge Construction, Port Terminal Bldg

Case Studies on Resolution of Environmental Performance Issues Administrative IssuesAdjudication and Court Cases a. EIS System Admin investigation b. Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) cases c. Resource use cases (i.e. water rights, biodiversity conservation) d. Occupational health and/or safety case e. Physical cultural property case
Menu Next

Screenshot of the normalized binary scoring spreadsheet 1

Binary scores Bi

Next

Screenshot of the normalized binary scoring spreadsheet 2

Normalized scores - Cases (x) - Procedure (y)

Next

Menu

Qualitative Metrics to Convert Normalized Scores

The normalized score (Sn) will be used for the evaluation of a procedure or criterion. The Sn will be converted to qualitative metrics, an example of which is shown below: Ratio Score Assessment Metric Description

0.90 1.0 0.75 0.89 0.60 0.74 0 0.59

Menu

A B C D

Excellent: relevant tasks well p performed Satisfactory: pertinent tasks were performed but needs improvement Poor: inadequate efforts Failed: tasks not done

Lee & Colley (1992) with some modifications

Matrix of Analysis
Safeguard Area Safeguard (Final PESSIA Report) Agency (report) Development Agency IPOO IPOO Stakeholder X IPOO IPOO

EIA/EIS System Biodiversity and Natural Resources Conservation Pollution prevention & control Occupational and Community health & safety Physical cultural property conservation

IPOO IPOO

IPOO

IPOO

IPOO

IPOO

IPOO

IPOO

IPOO

IPOO

IPOO

Agency Report Outline g y p

Overview of the Agency Agency Project-based Environmental Safeguard Legal Framework ProjectAgency Plans and Programs in Regulating Development Projects Description of Agency-covered Regulated Projects AgencyDescription Environmental Safeguards Required by the Agency Overview of Agency Institutional Resources Agency Implementation of Environmental Safeguard Record of Accomplishments in Regulating Development Projects Record of Project s Environmental Performance g y g j y Record of Best Practices of the Agency and Regulated Projects Beyond Regulations 11. On-going Institutional Strengthening Initiatives On12. 12 Pending Issues and Recommendations for Institutional Strengthening 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Back to Matrix

PESSIA Report Outline

Executive Summary E ti S I. Introduction II. Methodology a. Overall approach b. Description of the Philippine Environmental Safeguards System c. Scoping of the study p g y d. Development of data forms for assessment and action plan e. Data gathering III. III The Philippine Environmental Safeguards System IV. Assessment of Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System V. Implementation Assessment of Pollution Prevention Safeguards VI. VI Implementation Assessment of Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Resource Management VII. Implementation Assessment of Health and Safety Safeguards VIII. I l VIII Implementation A t ti Assessment of Conservation of Physical Cultural t fC ti f Ph i l lt l Resources and Chance Finds" 21 Menu IX. Summary of Significant Findings

G. Study Challenges & Response

Challenges 1 Need to build early ownership of all stakeholders of k h ld f the Country Safeguards Review Response Invitations letters to participate sent and kick-off meetings done with heads of agencies; ihh d f i Requested for agency coordinators; Inclusive/Consultative approach adopted Receptive to suggestions

G. Study Challenges & Response

Challenges
2 Data availability y and accessibility

Response
Pro-active data gathering Adjustment in sequence of activities

3 Need for flexible study timeline

(Voluminous information, lack of continuity, and other uncontrolled variables)

Regular team meetings to review study focus and depth Regular contact with stakeholders

Challenges

Response

4 How to do Normalized binary scoring objective j minimizes bias assessment allows two dimensional (case studies) analysis of variables
allows comparison of a procedure across cases with unequal counts allows ranking automates th case t t the evaluation

Challenges
5 Concern on follow-

Response

through on action plans Sustainability issue to be Commitments affected by addressed in the changing leadership & action planning p g mgt directions
Stakeholders concern on For IFIs to availability of IFI il bilit f respond resources (human, technical and financial) to sustain implementation of the action plans

Thank you!
Acknowledgements to the PESSIA Study Team Jo Rowena D. Garcia Vanderleaf C. Capalungan l Jethro Alden C. Hipe Helen B. Cruda Harvey Himberg Lead Environmental Safeguards Specialist Environment Safeguards Specialist Environment Assessment Specialist Environment Specialist, ADB ADB CSS Consultant