strategic environmental plan (sep) for palawan impacts...

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

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

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

3. the Academe, like the Western Philippine University, Palawan State University, Holy

Trinity University, and the Department of Education-Palawan;

4. NGOs/POs/CSOs and Media organizations, like WWF-Philippines, Conservation International, Katala Foundation, Environmental Legal Assistance Center, Palawan NGO Network Inc., El Nido Foundation, Provincial Federation of FARMCs (Fisherfolks),

CBFM Associations and Irrigators’ Association, Alyansa ng Palawenyong Mamamahayag, Inc. (APAMAI)1, and Palawan Communicators Network (PALCOMNET)2;

5. Church, like AVP-Puerto Princesa City and the Vicariate of Taytay;

6. IP groups like Nagkakaisang Tribu ng Palawan (NATRIPAL); and

7. Business sector like the Palawan Chamber of Commerce Inc., the Chamber of Mines, the

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

Impact of Strategic Environmental Plan Implementation of the SEP in Palawan have affected different aspect such as a) to people and culture; b) to the environment; c) to the local economy and d) to governance and institutions in the province of Palawan. Generally, all the stakeholders present in the workshops believe that the Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act (SEP Law) is “very good”, even “beautiful”, facilitating many gains for Palawan over the years, most especially in the area of environmental protection, and at hindsight, tourism, economy, governance and the livelihood of the people. There are apparent gaps and issues on its implementation, though, hindering the full enjoyment and realization of the law’s promise. Most of the participants share the observation that PCSD’s “highly-politicized decision-making process”, “slow and inefficient” clearance and permitting system, its perceived “too much power, mandate and functions”, its “missed opportunity to play an ‘integrative’ and ‘facilitative’ role in empowering local governments and communities”, and its failure to effectively communicate the law’s goals and values to the different sectors and communities have, in one way or another, hurt the sustainable development framework of the province’s development, the pace of its implementation at local governments level, and the faith of the people on the Council, consequently on its staff and on the core philosophy it promotes. Stakeholders’ outlook for PCSD and the SEP remains positive despite these issues. There were successes achieved in the past, there are ongoing initiatives viewed as “good practices”, and the

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

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


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

PCSD staff members are reputed to be “technically equipped,” note the participants. But urgent on the table is the Council’s “de-politicization”, its shift to science-based decision-making, and the organization’s management audit and eventual “refocusing” of its resources and energies – “to its core mandate”, to playing an “integrative” and “facilitative role” in the development process, and to capacity building and empowerment of local governments and communities. “Without the SEP Law, we don’t know where we would be now… Sira na talaga siguro ang ating kalikasan,” notes a participant. What is certain, based on participants’ consensus, is that “much still needs to be done to truly safeguard the unique biodiversity makeup of the province and ensure that development activities are ‘sustainable’.”

THEME 1: SEP’s IMPACT TO PEOPLE & CULTURE

THEME 1: SEP'S IMPACT TO PEOPLE & CULTURE

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe

G2: Business/ Private Sector

G3: NGOs,

Pos, Church,

IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

A GAINS, POSITIVE SIDE

1

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

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

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

√

√

√

√

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

√ √ √ √

3

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

rhetoric of the law.”

√ √ √ √

4

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

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

√

5

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

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

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

√

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

√

√


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs,

Pos, Church,

IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

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

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

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

B ISSUES, GAPS, NEGATIVE SIDE, AFIs3

1

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

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

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

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

• PCSDS’ stringent implementation of the law is viewed by some as “heartless”.4

√

√

√

√

2

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

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

were apprehensive when it was implemented.

√

√

3 Areas for Improvement 4 The facilitator noted in the discussion that this again boils down to the problem of communication: selling the long-term and greater gains versus short-terms gains. Depending on which lens one uses in interpreting this statement, this statement may also be viewed as something positive for PCSD – for upholding the rule of law.


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs,

Pos, Church,

IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

• Confusion on the extent of IPs’ preferential rights, especially when it comes to kaingin.

• Also, the lack of monitoring of SEP Clearances issued at the ground level make people doubt the fairness of the implementation of the law.

3

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

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

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

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

traditional knowledge.”

√

√

√

√

4

Division among IPs. • Some tribal leaders have become “tribal dealers.” • Some IPs were apprehensive when ECAN Zoning was implemented. • Lack of knowledge (and communication) of the goals of the law created confusion

and divided IPs into factions.

√

√

5

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

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

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

√


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs,

Pos, Church,

IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

6

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

7

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

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

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

√

√

8

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

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

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

shortage problem in Palawan.”

√

√

9

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

maximum benefits people should have had courtesy of the law. • Slow Clearance system process, which consequently slows down implementation of

projects designed to help IPs. “Its requirements are also cumbersome.” • PCSD’s permitting system “slowed down the issuance process of IPs’ CADTs.”5

√

√

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


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs,

Pos, Church,

IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

10

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

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

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

√ √

C RECOMMENDATIONS

1

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

2

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

3

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

√

D

OTHER THOUGHTS, OPINIONS G1 G2 G3 G4

1

Many shared it was difficult to ascertain the impact of the law on people and culture because of lack of baseline data (poverty index)6. Furthermore, the participants said that it is difficult to co-relate the law with the developments on the ground, as of discussion, as many socio-economic factors affect development.

√

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

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

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

THEME 2: SEP’s IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT

THEME 2: SEP'S IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs, Pos, Church, IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs


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

2

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

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

√

√

√

3 Protected Areas. The law and PCSD facilitated the recognition and declaration of Protected Areas in the province, e.g. MMPL7. √ √

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

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

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

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

√

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

9 Good air quality. √

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

11

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

• State of the Environment periodically published. √

√

7 Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape.

B

ISSUES, GAPS, NEGATIVE SIDE, AFIs

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

1

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

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

forest and reforest.

√

√

√

√

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

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

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

5

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

√

√

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

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

10

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

√

C

RECOMMENDATIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

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

2

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

order to have complete and indicative data. √

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

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

5

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

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

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

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

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

√

8 PCSD must craft/finalize water use criteria for marine zones in relation to ECAN guidelines. √ √ 9 “LGUs must take action against unregulated kaingin farming.” √ √

D

OTHER THOUGHTS, OPINIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

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

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

√

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

THEME 3: SEP’s IMPACT TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY

THEME 3: SEP'S IMPACT TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs, POs, Church, IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

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

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

3

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

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

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

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

√

√

4

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

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

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

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

B ISSUES, GAPS, NEGATIVE SIDE, AFIs 1

Clearance system viewed as slow, additional burden to investors, businesses. • The clearance system is viewed as “additional [source of] red tape”. • “Requires time and effort” on the part of the investors/businessmen.

√


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

• PCSD has tendency to become “too regulatory, driving away investors and encouraging fixers/fixing business to flourish”.

• PCSD “collects fees” and “requires many permits.” • “Some externalities (political influence) intrude in the clearance process,” possibly

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

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

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

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

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

C

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

2

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

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


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

4

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

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

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

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

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

D


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

2 “Is tourism growth sustainable?” √

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

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

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

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

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

8 “Has PCSD set guidelines on land banking by big companies? How about on islands/islets?”8 √

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


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

9 “Kaingin/Swidden farming by IPs is not destructive.” √ √

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

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

√

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

THEME 4: SEP’s IMPACT TO GOVERNANCE & INSTITUTIONS

THEME 4: SEP'S IMPACT TO GOVERNANCE & INSTITUTIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs


1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

areas.” • Supplemental policies are issued to address “environmentally-unsound”

activities or clarify confusing regime.

√

√

√


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

2

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

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

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

• PCSDS assists LGUs produce their maps.

√

3

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

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

√

√

4

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

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

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

√

√

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

√

√

√

√

6

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

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

practice among project proponents. √


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

7

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

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

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

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

√

√

8

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

√

B


1

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

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

do not follow the ECAN. • Composition of the Council.

√

√

2

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

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

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

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

√

√

√


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

3

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

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

lower level endorsing bodies.

√

√

√

√

4

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

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

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

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

• Some projects start, or are even completed, even without the SEP Clearance. • Lack of “sustainability”9 in the implementation of the law. • Lack of sustainability of projects. • “The PCSD missed on its integrative role”.

√

√

√

√

9 The participant could have meant “consistency”?


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

• Lack of coordination with LGUs. • Some projects (e.g. resorts) and activities are not suited to the natural

ecosystems of the project sites.

5

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

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

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

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

√

√

√

√

6

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

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

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

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

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

PCSD).

√

√

√

√


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

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

7

ECAN Zoning Issues. • “The ECAN is moving…changes to accommodate mining, has no stability.” • “Forests have no ECAN demarcation lines.” • “Mining in Espanola is in the Controlled Zone; the activity is allowed,

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

√

C RECOMMENDATIONS

1

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

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

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

√

√

√

√

2

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

√

√

√

3

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

a regular member. • There should be more representatives from the academe.

√

√


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

• Increase the number of representatives from the NGO sector. The Philippine Council for Sustainable Development has three (3) representatives in its Council.

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

4

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

• Review original organizational design. • Refocus. • Organizational assessment “must be participatory.” • “Does the current strategy work?”

√

√

√

√

5

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

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

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

√

√

√

6

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

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

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

√

√

7



G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

8

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

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

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

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

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

D OTHER THOUGHTS, OPINIONS

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

2

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

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

√

√

3

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

acceptability’ feature of its philosophy.

√

√ √

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

5

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

6 “There are underused technical staff members in PCSD.” √ LEGEND OF SYMBOLS USED IN THE MATRIX:

√ : Expressed by participants from the group but not necessarily shared by everyone.

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

Palawan Council for Sustainable Development Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops

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

I. BASIC INFORMATION Name of Activities : SEP Impacts Workshop

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

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

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

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

law; (4) To identify gaps/AFIs in the implementation of the law; (5) To identify the achievements facilitated by the law; (6) To identify lessons learned in the implementation of the law; and (7) To suggest recommendations for the updating of the law in

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

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

perspectives of the different development stakeholders of Palawan;

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

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

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

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

SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 2 of 58


Male :

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

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

Male :

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Its membership come from all media based in the province except ABS-CBN (RNG Group) which “has a de facto policy of non-participation in local media formations.” http://citizenaction.net/index.php/research-and-development/local-baseline-assessment/162-citizens-guide-to-the-province-of-palawan, accessed May 13, 2015. 2 “An organization of all government information officers in Palawan.” https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=181893358575433&story_fbid=376510082447092, accessed May 13, 2015. SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 4 of 58



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


Using the same discussion format, the participants during Day 2 discussed in detail the issues they see in the law itself, as well as their recommendations on how to improve it. Both workshop results would form part and parcel of the “Report on SEP Implementation” which shall be presented to a select multi-sectoral audience, including the Scientific Advisory Board of PCSD, on June 19, 2015 – the law’s 23rd year of enactment. III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Despite limited time and relatively low turnout of participants, the SEP Law Impacts and Review Workshops were still able to deliver solid results: insights and recommendations from almost all development sectors in the province possible, which if acted upon, will provide tremendous benefits to the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development and its stakeholders – the people and the environment, today and in the future. Generally, all the stakeholders present in the workshops believe that the Strategic Environmental Plan for Palawan Act (SEP Law) is “very good”, even “beautiful”, facilitating many gains for Palawan over the years, most especially in the area of environmental protection, and at hindsight, tourism, economy, governance and the livelihood of the people. There are apparent gaps and issues on its implementation, though, hindering the full enjoyment and realization of the law’s promise. Most of the participants share the observation that PCSD’s “highly-politicized decision-making process”, “slow and inefficient” clearance and permitting system, its perceived “too much power, mandate and functions”, its “missed opportunity to play an ‘integrative’ and ‘facilitative’ role in empowering local governments and communities”, and its failure to effectively communicate the law’s goals and values to the different sectors and communities have, in one way or another, hurt the sustainable development framework of the province’s development, the pace of its implementation at local governments level, and the faith of the people on the Council, consequently on its staff and on the core philosophy it promotes. Stakeholders’ outlook for PCSD and the SEP remains positive despite these issues. There were successes achieved in the past, there are ongoing initiatives viewed as “good practices”, and the PCSD staff members are reputed to be “technically equipped,” note the participants. But urgent on the table is the Council’s “de-politicization”, its shift to science-based decision-making, and the organization’s management audit and eventual “refocusing” of its resources and energies – “to its core mandate”, to playing an “integrative” and “facilitative role” in the development process, and to capacity building and empowerment of local governments and communities. “Without the SEP Law, we don’t know where we would be now… Sira na talaga siguro ang ating kalikasan,” notes a participant. What is certain, based on participants’ consensus, is that “much still needs to be done to truly safeguard the unique biodiversity makeup of the province and ensure that development activities are ‘sustainable’.” SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 5 of 58


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



2. The Opening Program, originally scheduled to start at 9:00AM, officially commenced at 9:30AM. Mr. Alex Marcaida, head of PCSDS’ ECAN Education and Extension (EEE) Division, hosted the program. 2.1. After the opening prayer and national anthem, both conducted through an audio-

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

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

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

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



3. At 9:40AM, the lead facilitator, Mr. James Paul S. Inawasan, took over the floor to level off with the participants their expectations on the workshop, brief them on its objectives, its schedule of activities, and mechanics of the succeeding Round Table Discussions. See Annex B to see his slides. 3.1. After flashing on screen a series of pictures meant to “break the ice”, the lead

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



4.5. The resource person continued by sharing the support mechanisms defined by law which would ensure the attainment of its objectives, to wit: 4.5.1. The Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation System (EMES); 4.5.2. Environmental Research; 4.5.3. Environmental Education and Extension; and 4.5.4. Community Support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Palawan Integrated Area Development Project, a project in the 1980s that was part of the Integrated Area Development Project implemented nationwide and funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and later, by the European Economic Community. SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 11 of 58


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fig. 1. The methodology of the workshop.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



TIME Station 1: PEOPLE & CULTURE

Station 2: ENVIRONMENT Station 3: ECONOMY

Station 4: GOVERNANCE & INSTITUTIONS

11:00-12:00

NGOs, POs, Church, IPs & Media

NGAs, NGOs & the Academe

Business Groups & the rest of the Private Sector LGUs

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


Business Groups & the rest of the Private Sector LGUs

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

NGOs, POs, Church, IPs & Media

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

NGOs, POs, Church, IPs & Media LGUs

Business Groups & the rest of the Private Sector

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


Figure 3. Schedule of RTD as they happened.

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



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

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

SUMMARY OF ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS

THEME 1: SEP’s IMPACT TO PEOPLE & CULTURE


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs,

Pos, Church,

IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs


1

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

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

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

√

√

√

√

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

√ √ √ √

3

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

rhetoric of the law.”

√ √ √ √

4

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

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

√



GAINS, POSITIVE SIDE (continuation)

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs,

Pos, Church,

IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

5

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

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

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

√

8

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

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

√

√

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

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

B ISSUES, GAPS, NEGATIVE SIDE, AFIs4 G1 G2 G3 G4 1

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

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

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

√

√

√

√

4 Areas for Improvement SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 17 of 58


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

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

B

ISSUES, GAPS, NEGATIVE SIDE, AFIs (continuation)

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs,

Pos, Church,

IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

2

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

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

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

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

people doubt the fairness of the implementation of the law.

√

√

3

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

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

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

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

traditional knowledge.”

√

√

√

√

5 The facilitator noted in the discussion that this again boils down to the problem of communication: selling the long-term and greater gains versus short-terms gains. Depending on which lens one uses in interpreting this statement, this statement may also be viewed as something positive for PCSD – for upholding the rule of law. SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 18 of 58


4

Division among IPs. • Some tribal leaders have become “tribal dealers.” • Some IPs were apprehensive when ECAN Zoning was implemented. • Lack of knowledge (and communication) of the goals of the law created confusion

and divided IPs into factions.

√

√

B


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs,

Pos, Church,

IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

5

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

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

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

√

6

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

7

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

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

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

√

√

8

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

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

and the SEP does not allow it.”

√

√



• “Dams are not allowed [when] this would [have been the solution] of our water shortage problem in Palawan.”

9

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

maximum benefits people should have had courtesy of the law. • Slow Clearance system process, which consequently slows down implementation of

projects designed to help IPs. “Its requirements are also cumbersome.” • PCSD’s permitting system “slowed down the issuance process of IPs’ CADTs.”6

√

√

10

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

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

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

√ √

C

RECOMMENDATIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe


G3: NGOs,

Pos, Church,

IPs & Media

G4: LGUs, NGAs

1

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

2


3

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

√

6 A resource person from PCSDS qualified that a MoA was entered into by NCIP and PCSD regarding this matter in 2005; the purpose was to harmonize their respective guidelines on processing and issuance of Tribal Ancestral Zones (TAZ) and Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT). She further qualified that while there has been an internal agreement in processing titles, as of date, such arrangement is not yet implemented. SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 20 of 58


D

OTHER THOUGHTS, OPINIONS G1 G2 G3 G4

1

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

√

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

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

7 While on this discussion, PCSDS Assistant Director for Planning Engr. Ryan Fuentes presented statistics regarding this subject. It was shown that from year 2000 vs. 2011 data, employment increased (from 80.43% to 90%) as well as the number of households living above poverty line (from 30.6% to 40.86%). SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 21 of 58


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

THEME 2: SEP’s IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT

THEME 2: SEP'S IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs


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

2

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

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

√

√

√



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

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

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

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

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

√

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

9 Good air quality. √

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

11

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

• State of the Environment periodically published. √

√

B


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

1

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

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

forest and reforest.

√

√

√

√

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

8 Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape. SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 23 of 58


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

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

5

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

√

√

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

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

10

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

√

C

RECOMMENDATIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

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

2

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

order to have complete and indicative data. √

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



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

5

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

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

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

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

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

√

8 PCSD must craft/finalize water use criteria for marine zones in relation to ECAN guidelines. √ √ 9 “LGUs must take action against unregulated kaingin farming.” √ √

D


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

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

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

√

3 “We have good perceptions on SEP but we have to validate these perceptions.” √ 4 “The Law itself is positive, the rhetoric is positive but the application is not.” √ 5 “Why don’t we tap oil and gas sources from our own province?” √ 6 “Are environmental projects climate change-resilient/adaptive?” √



7 “How can the SEP Law regulate the impact of mining?” √ 8 Can our rivers provide the volume of sand and gravel requirements in the province? √

Station 2. Representatives from the NGAs, NGOs and the Academe weighing in the impact of the SEP law to the environment. Discussions in this station were facilitated by Dr. Allaine T. Baaco of Western Philippines University. THEME 3: SEP’s IMPACT TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

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

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

3 Boosted the tourism sector.

√

√



• The law helped ensure that “tourism development is [environment-friendly],” boosting Palawan’s popularity as a tourism destination. More tourists, better income to businesses, more livelihood opportunities for the people;

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

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

4

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

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

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

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

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

1

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

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

delaying or hurting proposed projects/businesses and investments.

√

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

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



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

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

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

C

RECOMMENDATIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

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

2

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

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

4

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

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

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

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

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

D


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

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



2 “Is tourism growth sustainable?” √

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

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

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

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

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

8 “Has PCSD set guidelines on land banking by big companies? How about on islands/islets?”9 √

9 “Kaingin/Swidden farming by IPs is not destructive.” √ √

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

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

√

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

9 Clarified immediately during the discussions that the said concern is within the realms of the DENR and LRA. SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 29 of 58


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

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



THEME 4: SEP’s IMPACT TO GOVERNANCE & INSTITUTIONS


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs


1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

areas.” • Supplemental policies are issued to address “environmentally-unsound”

activities or clarify confusing regime.

√

√

√



GAINS, POSITIVE SIDE (continuation)

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

2

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

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

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

• PCSDS assists LGUs produce their maps.

√

3

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

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

√

√

4

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

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

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

√

√

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

√

√

√

√

6

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

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

practice among project proponents. √



7

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

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

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

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

√

√

8

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

√

B


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

1

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

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

do not follow the ECAN. • Composition of the Council.

√

√

2

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

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

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

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

√

√

√

3

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

interventions but weak political will.” • “The law’s implementation is highly politicized.”

√

√

√

√



• No representative from the Department of Education in the Council. • Lack of transparency and accessibility of proposed projects’ information. • Lack of science in decision-making process of the Council as well as in

lower level endorsing bodies.

B


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

4

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

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

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

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

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

ecosystems of the project sites.

√

√

√

√

10 The participant could have meant “consistency”? SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 34 of 58


B


G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

5

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

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

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

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

√

√

√

√

6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forces.”

√

√

√

√

7

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

√

√



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

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

C RECOMMENDATIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

1

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

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

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

√

√

√

√

2

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

√

√

√

3

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

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

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

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

√

√

4

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

• Review original organizational design.

√

√

√

√



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

C

RECOMMENDATIONS (continuation)

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

5

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

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

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

√

√

√

6

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

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

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

√

√

7


8

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

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

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



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

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

D OTHER THOUGHTS, OPINIONS

G1: NGAs,

NGOs & Academe



G4: LGUs, NGAs

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

2

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

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

√

√

3

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

acceptability’ feature of its philosophy.

√

√ √

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

5

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Slide 1)

Prof. Baaco sharing her group’s report.



(Slide 2)

(Slide 3)

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

(Slide 1)

Prof. Pontillas while reporting Station3’s output.



(Slide 2)

(Slide 3)

(Slide 4)



(Slide 5)

(Slide 6)

(Slide 7)



(Slide 8)

(Slide 9)



(Slide 10)

(Slide 11)

(Slide 12)



10.4. Prof. Hermenegildo P. Dela Peña, facilitator for Station/Theme 4, “SEP’s Impact to Governance and Institutions”, presented the following summary of their discussions:

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

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

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



8. malapit po mining area sa aming watershed 9. absence of MENRO offices leading to weak implementation 10. Powerplay 11. Paradigm and perspective of council members, not in harmony of the staff 12. Institutional constraints 13. Weak political will 14. Need to review the role of the PCSD and PCSD Staff. 15. Creates red tape, difficulty of getting permits and licenses to build business in Palawan 16. Issue on Real Estate: implementing rules how to protect the envi and lupain ng Palawan 17. Maraming body na nag-iissue ng cert/licenses/permits 18. Need to strategize: does the current strategy address the issues/concerns of the SEP? 19. Great need for less political intervention 20. Underused technical staff 21. Problem is in the implementation and interpretation.”

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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



V. ANNEXES FOR PART I OF THE REPORT.

Annex A: Welcome Remarks of Exec. Dir. Nelson P. Devanadera Annex B: Presentation of Mr. James Paul S. Inawasan, Day 1 Annex C: Presentation of Atty. Adelina B. Villena Annex D: Facilitators’ Toolkit Annex E: Workshop Groupings Annex E: Raw Workshop Outputs/Documentation by Theme E.1. People and Culture E.2. Environment E.2. Local Economy E.2. Governance and Institutions Annex F: Participants’ Kit (Relevant readings) Annex G: Workshop Evaluation Annex H: Program Annex I: Other Workshop Photos Annex J: Attendance Sheet SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 50 of 58


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

“Thank you very much for choosing to join us today. We invited you because we believe you will have valuable contribution to today’s workshop. The story of the Strategic Environment Plan for Palawan Act, or the SEP Law – why it was conceived, how it was enacted into law, how it has been implemented, and how it tries to safeguard this precious province from ‘unwanted’ development – is the selfsame story of Palawan as a province, of Palaweños as a people. And every story has both sides. Every story has a negative side and a positive side; sad moments, and happy moments. We want to hear directly from you these sides, these moments… Because SEP Law’s administrative machinery – the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development – is a healthy organization: We are a listening organization, we want to know how we’ve been doing the past 23 years, we want you to help us identify our areas for improvement, and we want to walk with you in moving forward not just to strengthen the law, or improve our organization. We want to do this because it is only through collective action that we can pursue the lofty goals and ideals of the very people who first drafted the SEP Law, and make the law matter to her people. We here in Palawan are all blessed to live in a province with vast natural resources, unique environmental beauty, endemic and rare animal and plant species, and rich, indigenous culture. We live in one of the best places in the whole world! And we certainly don’t want to just let this go to waste. We shall preserve this beauty for our children, our children’s children. We shall protect Palawan from ‘unwanted’ development. We shall make SEP Law work for Palawan, its people and environment today, and in the future! We look forward to a healthy, rigorous exchange of ideas and thoughts today and tomorrow – for Palawan and her people. Good morning.” SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 51 of 58


ANNEX I: Other Workshop Photos

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

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

Everyone leaves the room smiling, even after fiery exchange of opinions – especially after a mandatory class picture. SEP Impacts & Law Review Workshops │ May 6-7, 2015 │ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 52 of 58


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

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



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

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



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

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

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



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

The participants – when not busy debating and arguing:



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



The PCSD staff/working committees with the workshop facilitators.

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


mailto:[email protected]



Focus Group Discussions on SEP Law │ March-April 2015│ SEP@23 on 3G │Page 1 of 1

Annex 2

Strategic Environment Plan for Palawan Act: 23 Years After A review and assessment of the Law’s Impact to Palawan’s Development through

Focus Group Discussions with Key Stakeholders March – April 2015

Report Prepared by:

James Paul S. Inawasan

Consultant

Support Documentors

Jenevieve P. Hara Marianne Faith M. Perez

Cherry Lyn S. Jalover Luigi Lubrico


SEP Law: Its Impacts to Palawan, Its Environment, People and Development A review and assessment of the Law through Focus Group Discussions with Key Stakeholders

March – April 2015

SUMMARY OF FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

GAINS, POSITIVE

FGD1: LGU

(VML & PCL)

FGD2: LGU & Military

FGD3: Media, Academe, NGOs

FGD4: NGAs, Police

& Militar

y 1

• “The law is noble.” • “The objective of the law is good.” • “The concept, framework and plan is good.” • “Marami s’yang mga magandang nagawa sa Palawan.” • “Maraming natulong ang batas…maganda yung batas kung nasusunod talaga

s’ya…posibleng kung walang SEP law baka ang bundok natin ay butas-butas na…”

√

√

√

2 Sense of pride among Palaweños. √

3

Environmental awareness/consciousness among LGUs, the people, and even investors. • “Even investors [are now aware and help] protect marine resources kasi iyon ang main

source of their activities in the area. They are now helping in the protection of the environment.”

• “SEP law triggered the consciousness of people in environmental awareness.” √

4

Protection of the environment. • PCSD is synonymous with “protection of the environment”.

√

√

√



• PCSD regulates live fish, chases and files cases against those illegally cutting trees, committing other illegal activities.

• “SEP [guides the people] in protecting the environment.” • “Maganda ang nagawa nito when it comes to environmental protection kasi every LGU

ay nagkaroon ng guidelines in every municipality.” • “Noong 1980s wala pang SEP law ay napakalakas ng kaingin dito… but noong

nagkaroon ng SEP, unti-unting nabawasan, malaking bagay na din kasi nagkaroon sila ng takot, dahil noon parang walang takot yung mga ilegalista.”

• “Without SEP Law, kalbo na ang bundok, wala na ding isda…” • “Sa protected area management maganda ang outcome ng SEP dahil sa pagkakaroon ng

complementation on the implementation of PA management.”

GAINS, POSITIVE (continuation)

FGD1: LGU

(VML & PCL)



FGD4: NGAs, Police

& Militar

y

5

Rehabilitation of marine resources. • “About sa fishing, iyong mga isda ay lumalapit ulit, dahil dati malayo pa ang nararating

ng mga fisherman, ngayon eh ‘di na sila masyadong lumalayo, sa tingin ko eh isa ito sa epekto ng mga efforts ng PCSD.”

√

6

Law enforcement. Deterrent to illegal activities. • PCSD’s fair and consistent application of the law effectively discourages illegal

activities. “Binabalewala nila ang LGU, unlike PCSD na talagang kinatatakutan nila dahil maaari silang kasuhan.”

• “Ang PCSD ay ‘di kayang takutin ng mga tao dahil hindi binoboto kaya nai-enforce ang dapat i-enforce.”

• “Malaking tulong po ang PCSD[S] sa’min kasi doon sa mga lugar na may tao kami o kaya limited ang tao eh nagkakaroon po ang PCSD at BFAR ng tie-up in implementing of regulations.”

√

√

√



• PCSD helps other enforcement agencies especially on the legal aspect of apprehending violators, filing cases and prosecuting suspects.

• “Scarce ang bentahan [ng wildlife] dahil sa effective na law enforcement.”

7

Policy-direction/framework to LGUs, people. • “SEP is the one that serves as guide and create guidelines to Palawan people in protecting

the environment.” • “Maganda ang nagawa nito when it comes to environmental protection kasi every LGU

ay nagkaroon ng guidelines in every municipality.” • “Maganda iyong framework [for governance].”

√

√

GAINS, POSITIVE (continuation)

FGD1: LGU

(VML & PCL)



FGD4: NGAs, Police

& Militar

y

8

ECAN Board. • “Malaki ang nagagawa sa aming munisipyo ng ECAN Board dahil ang composition ay

from LGU at guided naman kami.” • “Maganda ang creation of ECAN Board dahil in the local level ay nagsama-sama ang mga

iba’t-ibang agencies at napag-uusapan ang issues, in terms of the environment.”

√

√

9

ECANization. • “I think in terms of strategic plan with the land use, maganda po, ECAN is good.” √ √

10

Partnership with other agencies. • “Maganda ang presence ng PCSDS sa Multi-partite Monitoring Team…” • “Malaking tulong po ang PCSD[S] sa’min kasi doon sa mga lugar na may tao kami o kaya

limited ang tao e nagkakaroon po ang PCSD at BFAR ng tie-up in implementing of regulations.”

√

11 Implementation of the law is improving. “Now the PCSD involves everyone.” √

12

Technically-equipped staff, and continuing staff development mechanism in the organization.

• “Magagaling ang staff, well-equipped…” √

√



• “May continuing staff development, sana mahawa ang DENR and other agencies.”

13

Trust and Confidence on PCSD. • “Binabalewala nila ang LGU, unlike PCSD na talagang kinatatakutan nila dahil maaari

silang kasuhan.” • “We trust PCSD, so we believe them.” • “I am sure that PCSDS [is] really doing their job.”

√

ISSUES, AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

FGD1: LGU

(VML & PCL)



FGD4: NGAs, Police

& Militar

y

1

Information dissemination about the Law and the SEP Clearance/Permitting system. • Only the people at the LGU and those who have permit applications before the PCSD know

about the law. • People are more familiar about the PCSD but not about the law. • People seem to only know PCSD and the SEP Law only when the latter invokes the law to

apprehend those who violate it. • “[Communication] approach is high profile.” • “The primers are written in English.” • “Kulang…malinaw dapat sa mga magpu-put up ng projects ang procedures at

requirements. It’s the PCSD’s responsibility that the contractors are not knowledgeable about PCSD requirements/SEP system.”

√

√

√

2

Duplication of functions, conflicting policies among agencies. • “Others are questioning if PCSD duplicates the power of DENR, BFAR and other

agencies…” • “May mga conflict din po na nangyayari…halimbawa may species na sa amin [BFAR]

na ‘di pinagbabawal pero sa PCSD naman ay bawal.” • “There is a need for agencies to level off and develop joint cooperation protocols.” • Duplicating requirements (documents and fees) with similar agencies.

√

√



3

Composition, Politicization and Decision-making of the PCSD Council. • “PCSD has become a venue of political biases, kaya nawawala ang true essence [of the

law].” • “The law is very noble pero the people who are handling it can sometimes be considered

as the problem.” • “Umiiba ang direction [ng Council from the intent of the law].” • “The implementation of the law is sometimes selective.” • “Walang bola po magagaling ang staff, well-equipped pero pagdating sa Council parang

nabubura po yun… dahil sa mga decisions. Specific example, the Macro Asia MPSAi. It [took so long before we were able to decide and tell Macro Asia that it cannot work on a core zone, at may batas like NIPAS, bakit andaming taon na ang Macro Asia ay nag-i-exist pa rin, it is the very specific example na ‘di ma-desisyunan using the law.”

√

√

ISSUES, AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT (continuation)

FGD1: LGU

(VML & PCL)



FGD4: NGAs, Police

& Militar

y 4

‘Painstaking[ly] slow, confusing [permitting] process.’ Not investor-friendly, ‘burden to businesses’ and even government projects.

• “Sa development, painstaking talaga ang process. Hindi investor-friendly ang PCSD.” • “Resort investors in Calamianes said na sobrang mahaba ang process ng pag-apply, that’s

why they think na parusa iyon sa kanila…” • “If wala ang SEP marami na ang mga hotel[s] and resorts…. Long processes [are]

constraints.” • “Matagal ang process because hindi nagko-convene lagi ang Council.” • “The whole [project/business] process is all affected because of that, ang mga contractors

meron silang hinahabol na schedule, kawawa naman sila dahil hindi pwede mag-start kapag wala pa silang permit from PCSD.”

• The Bahile boat tram project (“US government-funded”) might be pulled out, “dahil sa sobrang tagal ng process…sayang nga po ang project. Nag-decline ang contractor dahil

√

√



matagal na hindi kami makakuha ng SEP clearance dahil sa nine mangrove trees na dapat putulin.”

• Duplication of requirements. “Kinuha na sa una, sa susunod [na office] kukunin ulit, nagiging paulit ulit po eh.”

• Additional fees from PCSD (e.g. Local Transport Permit) vis-à-vis fees collected by similar agencies (BFAR).

• “Marami ang process and requirements na nagiging pahirap sa mga [live fish] shippers.”

ISSUES, AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT (continuation)

FGD1: LGU

(VML & PCL)



FGD4: NGAs, Police

& Militar

y

5

The Clearance System ‘hinders environmental research.’ • “Nagiging major constraint…ang permitting, dahil dito ay hindi makagawa ng taxonomic

studies para maka-discover ng bagong species. • “Actually, sa permit, natatambay kami sa NCIPii, ‘di kami nakakarating sa inyo.”

√

6 Allegedly PCSD’s research/monitoring of the province’s coral reefs is questionable. √

7

Enforcement. • “Hindi po ito ganun ka-effective when it comes to enforcement aspect.” • “Sa enforcement aspect, ang issue dito is on how to empower the enforcement team para

magkaroon ng immediate actions when it comes to environmental protection.” • “In terms of guarding [the ECAN], when it comes to enforcement and monitoring it is very

weak.” • “Palawan is big, but enforcers are limited, less armed.” • Lack of coordination and protocols with other enforcement agencies.

√

√

8 Projects evaluation and monitoring. √ 9 Implementation of ECAN at the LGU level. “Not all LGUs adopted the ECAN.” √

10 Funding.

• “PCSD lacks budget and people to implement its programs and activities.” √ √



11 Lack of manpower/staff. √

12 Provision of alternative livelihood to IP communities whose traditional sources of livelihood (e.g. kaingin) have been declared illegal/regulated by the SEP Law. √

RECOMMENDATIONS

FGD1: LGU

(VML & PCL)



FGD4: NGAs, Police

& Militar

y

1

Improve information dissemination campaign and strategy. • “Educate the people, especially those in the Barangay Councils about the SEP Law.” • “An annual campaign must be conducted to promote the SEP law but it must be sold in

manner that “makes the law matter to everyday life of the people.” • Conduct IEC activities in schools, universities.

√

√

2

Capacitate, guide, assist LGUs. • “Help us on the policy directions.” • “Guide the vice mayors, especially in formulating plans.” • “Assist LGUs.” • “Dapat ang Sanguniang Bayan has a copy of ECAN Maps.” • PCSD should always be present when LGUs formulate their respective Municipal

Development Plans to guide the latter. • Capacitate LGUs on ECAN Zoning.

√

3

Amend PCSD Composition. • Include representatives from the Philippine Councilors League and the Vice Mayors’

League. √ 4

Amend composition of ECAN Boards and make their role clearer. • Get rid politicians in the Board, “kasi napu-politika ang Board.”

√



• “Hindi lahat nandoon like the police, maritime, coast guard, dapat isa lang at dapat walang substitution in the representations.”

• Composition of Tourism Councils may be considered as a model: 70% come from the private sector.

• Clearly define the role of the Board.

5

Harmonize PCSD’s functions with other agencies. • “Level off with other NGAs since we don't agree with each other’s conflicting regulations.

The processes imposed of other NGAs are conflicting.” • Develop joint enforcement protocols to improve law enforcement.

√

√


FGD1: LGU

(VML & PCL)



FGD4: NGAs, Police

& Militar

y

6

The law allegedly does not include Kalayaan and the Calamianes in its territorial jurisdiction. • Lobby in Congress to amend the law “due to [issue on the territorial jurisdiction indicated

in the law].” √

7

Improve SEP Clearance/Permitting system. • “Ensure that the Council meet once or twice a month to speed up decision-making.” • “Clearance requirements should remain as is with the first issuance/conditions given.” • If the law is amended, “exempt projects for the benefit of national security” from going

through the “slow permitting system.” • Permitting for academic researches and bioprospecting should be fast tracked and made

flexible. • “Simplify the permitting process for environmental researches.” • “Amend the section in the law that sets very strict regulation for researchers.”

√

√

√

8

Improve Enforcement and Monitoring of Laws. • Add new enforcers. • Add monitoring areas.

√

√



• Consider providing incentives/rewards, or improve the current scheme, to encourage more community reports of illegal activities on the ground. “Many informants disappear, risk their lives or are hostaged by violators.”

• “Confer with PNP, not only [when apprehending lumber cases, but on cases of pawikan smuggling] also.”

• Develop a joint enforcement protocol to facilitate the enforcement. “Magkaroon ng coordination, documentation of the present coordination to improve.”

• Increase funding for monitoring and enforcement activities.


FGD1: LGU

(VML & PCL)



FGD4: NGAs, Police

& Militar

y

9

PCSD must coordinate with funding sources (provincial government, national government agencies) to increase funding for wildlife laws enforcement activities and for Protected Area management.

√

10

Make the penalties for violating the Wildlife Act (and other environmental laws) and the SEP Law steeper to effectively discourage violations. The current penalty is weak. “Magpapakulong sila ng six months, bawi naman nila sa isang marine turtle na almost PhP 85,000.00 to PhP 150,000.00 bawat isa.”

• “Integrate the provisions of the Wildlife Act in the SEP Law.” √

11

Improve/intensify compliance monitoring. • Formulate and consistently use monitoring matrix to regularly assess if the law is well-

implemented. • Use and pursue application of community-based ECAN Management Manual “which is a

very good tool used in Mount Mantalingahan.”

√

12 “Amend [the law] partly in terms of mining and other major activities…look at allowing big industries, not only in terrestrial but also in coastal.” √

13 Use SEP and PCSD as “convergence zone” with other agencies in protected areas management, and other related activities. √



Annexes: Annex A: Quick Information about the FGDs Annex B: Briefer for FGD Participants Annex C: Guide Questions Annex D: Full documentation by FGD Annex E: Attendance Sheets

Annex A: Quick Information about the FGDs

SCHEDULE SECTORS TOTAL # OF

PAX MALE FEMALE DURATION

5-Mar-15 LGUs: Vice Mayors' League, Philippine Councilors' League 10 9 1 1:05PM - 2:16PM

6-Mar-15 LGUs & Enforcers (PCG, PNP & WesCom) 11 8 3 4:18PM - 4:30PM

14-Apr-14 Media, Academe & NGOs 6

1

5 10:00AM - 11:45AM

14-Apr-15 NGAs (DENR, BFAR), Police & Military 8 6 2 2:10PM - 4:20PM TOTAL 35 24 11 % TO TOTAL PAX 68.57% 31.43%

Facilitator for FGDs 1 & 2: James Paul S. Inawasan Facilitator for FGDs 3 & 4: Engr. Madrono Cabrestante, Jr. Documentors: Jenevieve P. Hara Marianne Faith Perez



Cherry Lyn S. Jalover Luigi Lubrico Lead Documentor: James Paul S. Inawasan For questions, comments, feedback and suggestions regarding this Report, kindly e-mail: [email protected] and [email protected] with the subject line “SEP Workshops Documentation”.

Annex B: Briefer for FGD Participants.

Slide 1 Slide 2





Slide 3 Slide 4

Annex C: Guide Questions 1. To establish participants’ profile: How many years have you been working in your post/sector?

1.1. In your respective [sector / locality / constituency], are people aware about the existence of the SEP Law? 1.2. The PCSD? 1.3. In general, how do they feel about it? How do you feel about it? 1.4. What do you think about the SEP Law?

2. In your opinion, what do you think has been achieved by the SEP Law? Please cite specific achievements or gains courtesy of the law – for Palawan, its environment, people and over-all development. 2.1. Has the law worked well for your sector/local government/community? 2.2. Can you cite examples of instances or experiences where you think the SEP Law has worked for you?

3. How about its failures, or areas for improvement? 3.1. Any specific areas where the law and/or its implementation needs to improve on? Please cite examples when the SEP Law has become a constraint

to your sector/local government/community. 4. Is there a need to update the law, amend it, or improve it?

4.1. What specific changes do you propose?



5. Looking at the SEP Law vis-à-vis Palawan’s development in the last 23 years, has the SEP Law worked well for the Province? 5.1. For the environment? 5.2. For its people?

6. Without the SEP Law, where do you think would Palawan be now? 7. Over-all, is the SEP Law okay/good to you or not?

Annex D: Documentation by FGD1 FGD Group Number: __1__ Group/Sector: LGU (Vice Mayors’ League, Philippine Councilors League) Number of Participants: _10___ Male: __9___ Female: ___1___ Date: March 5, 2015 Venue: PCSD Conference Room, 3rd floor, PCSD Building, Sta. Monica Heights, PPC

QUESTIONS RESPONSES/REMARKS 1. To establish participants’ profile: How many years have you been working in your post/sector?

• There are familiar individuals to PCSD, but only few in Barangay level are aware of the law governing it (SEP).In general, most of the time ay nagkakaroon sila ng idea about SEP Law if PCSD invoke the law and their authority such as Chainsaw Act or kapag ang monitoring team ay nakakapunta sa lugar. The local people who never had transaction with PCSD weren’t aware, they know the PCSD but not the SEP, only

1 Consolidated documentation by Ms. Jenevieve Hara. Names of FGD participants who expressed the opinions contained herein were intentionally omitted by the lead documentor.



In your respective [sector / locality / constituency], are people aware about the existence of the SEP Law? The PCSD? In general, how do they feel about it? How do you feel about it? What do you think about the SEP Law?

those proponents or traders na nakakaalam ng law and who had direct transactions with PCSD. We are the first LGU with ECAN board established.

• In the protection of the environment and corresponding responsibilities, ang unang pumapasok sa utak natin ay PCSD, I would like to answer that in the level of Sanguniang Bayan they are aware, municipal level highly aware but the Barangay officials are not kaya dapat na mabigyan sila ng awareness.

• We are proud that Palawan has a special law. But the problem is duplication of functions. Others are questioning if PCSD duplicates the power of DENR, BFAR and other agencies, we wonder what the real objective is. But so far, the PCSD is there not to give us mandatory or confiscatory actions or etc., but a policy making body focused on giving us directions. PCSD as the highest body on environmental concerns in Palawan, PCSD also as venue of political biases, kaya nawawala ang true essence. There was once that one document was approved without passing through ng SEP process, Diwaran Island is an example, dapat dadaan sa proseso, no shortcuts, these are examples, that if it is the law, it should not be selective, the law is very noble pero the people who are handling it can sometimes be considered as the problem. Now the PCSD involves everyone, tulad ngayon, bihira ito mangyari noong araw, this is the first time that the Vice Mayors League is invited in this forum.

2. In your opinion, what do you think has been achieved by the SEP Law? (Please cite specific achievements or gains courtesy of the law – for Palawan, its environment, people and over-all development) Has the law worked well for your sector/local government/community? Can you cite examples of instances or experiences where

• I felt na nakakatulong talaga ang SEP law like for example in regulation of livefish, ang mga tao ay hindi natatakot sa Local Govenrment Unit (LGU) pero sa PCSD takot sila. We are then requesting the PCSD to help us on the policy directions, to guide the vice mayors, especially in formulating plans because this is the mandate of PCSD, to assist LGUs, dapat ang Sanguniang Bayan has a copy of ECAN Maps. In general, like the presence of DMO Coron, nakikita namin na it should work focusing to the mandate of PCSD.

• We believe that SEP has big participation especially on the livefish trading. In our area, we are near Malaysia, some people are doing illegal activities, illegal cutting of trees, illegal fishing, some of them ay binabalewala lang ang LGU, hindi nila kinakatakutan unlike to PCSD na talagang kinakatakutan nila dahil maaari silang kasuhan. May lantsa na na-confiscate ang PCSD.



you think the SEP Law has worked for you?

3. How about its failures, or areas for improvement? Any specific areas where the law and/or its implementation needs to improve on? Please cite examples when the SEP Law has become a constraint to your sector/local government/community.

• Failures include lack of budget or financial capability of PCSD to implement its projects, plans and programs, given the chance na maging bigger ang funds, then it would be better, I think mas madami at malaki ang magagawa.

• Additional manpower, dahil kulang ang staff ng PCSD na nagmo-monitor like in our place at Cagayancillo. • It’s better to get rid of politicians as member of ECAN Board, kasi napu-politika ang board. Kasi kapag

private sector, subjective ang pag-review. • Researches about our coral reef, kelan pa ba magkakaron ng CRM ulit samin sa Cuyo, sana po magkaroon

ng survey para malaman talaga ang real time status ng resources natin. Sa result ay zero ang percentage ng coral reef namin, di ako naniniwala may two protected areas, meron sa Amanpulo, sana kahit sa 5% man lang ay matatanggap ko na.Sana madagdagan din pati manpower para sa enforcement sa Cuyo, Agutaya at Magsaysay, dahil ang tao ng PCSD ay dadalawa lang, dapat madagdagan dahil sa laki ng lugar na sakop.

• Iyong about sa duplication of functions, there must be a complementation with other government agencies, para di masayang iyong efforts, time and resources. Strategic approach dapat, walang duplication, if there are conflicting dapat i-harmonize, para iyong di nagagawa ng ibang department ay nagagawa ng PCSD. Like the geo- hazard survey, we expect PCSD to provide us as part of the ECAN Zoning; we can use this as the basis in the decision making. So we can contribute/provide materials na tatrabahuin ng legislators. We trust PCSD, so we believe them, we are not duplicating but we are doing what are required in Palawan, wala namang Palaweṅo na gusto masira ang Palawan. Sana magkaroon ng study on alternative livelihood for example kung ano ang resources na available sa isang area na pwedi ipalit sa suno. Para alam din namin kung ano talaga ang susundin, ECAN map o CLUP map,who will prevail, the best way that you can do here is dun sa pag-develop ng Municipal Development Plan, dapat present lagi ang PCSD para may guidance.

4. Is there a need to update the law, amend it, or improve it?

• Lobby to congress to amend the law, due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. What the law does not include, it excludes kasi excluded kami sa SEP coverage ng PCSD. We have here three congressmen to help in lobbying. Kasi if there is a test case, baka ma-dismiss ang case ng PCSD due to lack of jurisdiction.



What specific changes do you propose?

• Councilors and vice mayors league representation sa council, since they represent the issues in the municipal level, kasi tumatalakay kami ng batas.

• Composition of ECAN Board, dapat mag-strategize, clearly defined dapat kung ano ba talaga ang role. Dapat sa ECAN Board hindi lahat nadoon like police, maritime, coast guard, dapat isa lang at dapat walang substitution in the representations. Since the decisions would vary with respect to the person present in the meeting, in terms of percentage di natin pweding diktahan pero like sa tourism council ay 70 % ay from private sector.

5. Looking at the SEP Law vis-à-vis Palawan’s development in the last 23 years, has the SEP Law worked well for the Province? For the environment? For its people?

• Yes nakakatulong, dahil kung hindi ay kalbo na ang gubat. • Sa development, painstaking talaga ang process. Hindi investor friendly ang PCSD. ‘Pacuri kamo sa

development’, (Cuyunon word). The objective of the law is good but it depends and matters most on how you implement it…yung SEP law reminds us na hindi lang yan para sa government kundi sa ating lahat.

• Resort investors in Calamianes said na sobrang mahaba ang process ng pag-apply, that’s why they think na parusa iyon sa kanila, pero ngayon nakikita ko po na nagiging aware na iyong mga investors to protect marine resources kasi iyon ang main source of theiractivities in the area. They are now helping in the protection of the environment.

• Nararamdaman ng tao, lalo na kapag implemented na ang revised, AO 5 and 6, mararamdaman nila kapag wala na silang makain, ramdam in a negative way.

• Ramdam talaga kaya dapat ready napo angmga alternative livelihood parasamga fisherman dahilkagayasa aminsa Cuyo more than 50% ang fisherman..paki steady, standby and ready posanaang livelihood programs.

• Number one livelihood namin is catching of suno din. Ang impact nito sa mga tao samin is kung paano maexplain na mgkaroon ng alternative livelihood, my suggestion is baka possible na ang PCSD ay magpunta doon sa area to explain sa mga tao at para maintindihan nila.

6. Without the SEP Law, where do you think would Palawan be now?

• Without SEP law kalbo na ang bundok, wala na ding isda pero pagdating sa development ay mahirapa talaga.

• If wala ang SEP marami na ang mga hotel and resorts..kung wala ang SEP law nasaan na ang Palawan.. it is not the SEP law per se that protects Palawan, it is the Palawan people that protects but the SEP is the



one that serves as guide and create guidelines to Palawan people in protecting the environment.SEP law triggered the consciousness of people in environmental awareness. Long processes as constraints, finances are not the issue, it is moreon the long process, they don’t have issues on the amount they paid in securing clearances, it’s not about money, it’s about the process they have to undergo before they can start their business.

7. Over-all, is the SEP Law okay/good to you or not?

• Weighing all these, the SEP law is a good law and I am sure that PCSDS are really doing their job, it is unfair to them na sabihing hindi dahil ang totoo ay ginagawa nila but meron silang mga bosses na nagi-stir sa kanila, I’m referring to the Council, dahil wala silang choice kung saansila gustong papuntahin ng council,na umiiba ang directions and in every three years ay pinapalitan din.

• VM Tan of Cuyo: Ok ang SEP Law, like in us in LGUs, ang PCSD ay di kayang takutin ng mga tao dahil hindi binubuto kaya na i-enforce ang dapat i-enforce, with SEP, law are enforced accordingly.

Facilitator: Documentors: James Paul S. Inawasan Jenevieve P. Hara, Cherry Lyn S. Jalover, Marianne Faith M. Perez Duration: 1:05PM-2:16PM FGD Group Number: __2__ Group/Sector: LGU (PCL, LCE’s representatives), Philippine Coastguard, PNP and Western Command Number of Participants: _ 11 ___ Male: ____8_ Female: _ 3__ Date: March 6, 2015 Venue: PCSD Conference Room, 3rd floor, PCSD Building, Sta. Monica Heights, PPC QUESTIONS RESPONSES/REMARKS 2. In your opinion, what do you think has been achieved by the SEP Law? (Please cite specific achievements or gains courtesy of the law – for Palawan,

• I think SEP Law is a good program/plan in Palawan. • So far based on my observation, maganda ang nagawa nito when it comes to environmental

protection kasi every LGU ay nagkaroon ng guidelines in every municipality.



its environment, people and over-all development) Has the law worked well for your sector/local government/community? Can you cite examples of instances or experiences where you think the SEP Law has worked for you?

• Maganda iyong framework, yung mga ideas, im not so familiar with regards to paano naging effective, pero ang alam lang nating lahat ay hindi po ito ganun ka-effective when it comes to enforcement aspect. About sa ECAN board isa ito sa mga move to make this law be attentive but again makikita natin yan in the future if effective, masasabi ko lang talaga na the concept is really good.

• Sa amin ay malaki ang nagagawa sa aming munisipyo ng ECAN Board dahil ang composition ay from LGU at guided naman kami.

• Syempre naman po dahil sa amin din sa El Nido ay palaging present ang representative ng PCSD na si Sir Raul Maximo who is always guiding us when it comes to decision making.

• About sa fishing, iyong mga isda ay lumalapit ulit, dahil dati malayo pa ang nararating ng mga fisherman, ngayon e di na sila masyadong lumalayo, sa tingin ko e isa ito sa epekto ng mga efforts ng PCSD.

3. How about its failures, or areas for improvement? Any specific areas where the law and/or its implementation needs to improve on? Please cite examples when the SEP Law has become a constraint to your sector/local government/community.

• Sa enforcement aspect, ang issue dito is on how to empower the enforcement team para magkaroon ng immediate actions when it comes to environmental protection.

4. Is there a need to update the law, amend it, or improve it? What specific changes do you propose? 5. Looking at the SEP Law vis-à-vis Palawan’s development in the last 23 years, has the SEP Law worked well for the Province? For the environment? For its people?



6. Without the SEP Law, where do you think would Palawan be now? 7. Over-all, is the SEP Law okay/good to you or not?

Note: The participants expressed that they have not reviewed the law, and are newly-assigned in Palawan, in the case of enforcers. Most of the invited participants, supposedly from the Philippine Councilors League, did not arrive; the participants in this group were at PCSD Office for another meeting but was requested for an FGD to maximize the opportunity of having the top officials of the Military and the PNP of the province in one venue. Facilitator: Documentors: James Paul S. Inawasan Jenevieve P. Hara, Luigi Lubrico Duration: 4:18PM-4:30PM FGD Group Number: _3_ Group/Sector: Media, Academe and NGO Number of Participants: _6___ Male: ____1_ Female: _ 5__ Date: April 14, 2015 Venue: PCSD Conference Room, 3rd floor, PCSD Building, Sta. Monica Heights, PPC QUESTIONS RESPONSES/REMARKS 2. In your opinion, what do you think has been achieved by the SEP Law? (Please cite specific achievements or gains courtesy of the law – for Palawan,

• Tinitingnan ko kasi ang mga objectives ng SEP kasi kami hindi din familiar sa mga objectives na iyon kung naa-attain ba iyon and if have we addressed the objectives in 23 years? Background should be given since we are not really familiar with the achievements and the targets of the PCSD kasi po kami ay may mga observations based on our own experiences, siguro mas maganda na



its environment, people and over-all development) Has the law worked well for your sector/local government/community? Can you cite examples of instances or experiences where you think the SEP Law has worked for you? 3. How about its failures, or areas for improvement? Any specific areas where the law and/or its implementation needs to improve on?

iemail nalang ito sa nakararami para malaman natin yung mga reactions ng mga nakararami and to obtain several ideas from other faculty.

• We all have to review the SEP law, how can we check, we cannot comment (no idea), dito nagiging specific talaga, masasagot yan ng media, bakit di nagiging effective? Ano yung approach nyo masyado bang high profile masyado pong mataas ang approach nyo, high profile ang PCSD, dapat bumaba ang approach ng PCSD, para mas maintindihan ng mga tao kahit na si Ate na nandoon sa bundok at nagdadamo, ay maintindihan at makukuha ang idea, not effective kasi ‘walang landi’ ang dating sa tao, iyong primer English, walang subject requiring the SEP sa mga schools and universities, not being utilized in the class since it’s not oblige to do so. Dapat may yearly campaign, to include the SEP in the lifestyle at not all just ‘bawal’, dapat meron ding because of it naging healthy kami, yumaman kami.

• Marami nga ang nagbibigay ng primer, kaso parang halos English naman lahat, naba-browse ko sya pero kasi halimbawa sa mga university nyan po hindi na-tatackle, kaya siguro po maganda may mga activity tayo sa bawat universities para malaman nila yung mga testimonies ng epekto nito, lumago kami, nagiging healthy kami, o umayos ang buhay namin, para mas malaman ng marami ang effect nito.

• Magandang katanungan para mapaganda ang SEP, kunti ang kaalaman ko dito, dahil bago ako sa

ELAC, dadalhin ko ito sa amin para mas madaming makuhang information, ang masasabi ko lang maganda naman sana talaga ang batas kung ito ay naipapatupad ng maayos, para malaman kung paano nagiging effective siguro dapat nating tingan at magkaroon ng assessment in the community level kung napapatupad ng maayos, sa staff level naman dapat i-assess din iyong effectiveness, kung naipapatupad ng mga staff ang bawat aspeto ng batas kasi mayroon po tayong minsang aspeto na magaling na minsan naman naiisantabi, kagaya ng sa wildlife, ok kayo dyan pero halimbawa when it comes to monitoring of projects and evaluation, tingnan kung ito ba ay napapatupad, intensify the compliance monitoring.

• Mas maganda na may duration or expiration iyong SEP clearance depende sa project para ma monitor thru renewal.



Please cite examples when the SEP Law has become a constraint to your sector/local government/community. 4. Is there a need to update the law, amend it, or improve it? What specific changes do you propose? 5. Looking at the SEP Law vis-à-vis Palawan’s development in the last 23 years, has the SEP Law worked well for the Province? For the environment? For its people?

• Siguro po 3 to 5 years. • Gumawa ng survey o research regarding your impacts, marami na po kayong nakatrabaho e, siguro

po may survey questionnaires po kayo tapos kayo dito sa PCSD Staff ang dapat na unang sasagot dun kasi kayo po ang nagpapatupad then iyong mga kumukuha ng permits, at mga PENRO/CENROs yun pong may mga direct experiences ang maganda pong matanong din like LGUs, IPs, NGOs, universities, industries and other stakeholders, base po sa sections ng SEP law. Tingnan po natin bawat projects, kahit questionnaire lang po, masasagot po yun, actually in terms of accomplishments, PCSD po ang talagang nakakaalam dahil kayo po ang nagiimplement.

• Iyong totoo lang, ilagay talaga ang mga recommendations ng tao, siguro po dapat pag nag-implement ay kontra partidos, at dapat din tanungin sa interview hindi friends pag-dating sa monitoring, actually timing po, magandang dissertations po ang topic na ito. Isa pa Jong, iyong sa academe, mayroon silang mga studies na ginawa na tina-tackle doon ung SEP sa mga studies, dapat aware tayo doon siguro dapat i-collate yun.

• After so many years nga po napansin din namin iyong process of securing of permit, 1 year, but 6 months are devoted to permitting. Index review committee, lalo na kapag yung study is sakop ng law. Are we looking at ibang provision ng law? Permitting for academic researches should be fast tracked, bio prospecting also.

• Researchers are now required to secure permits. I’m very thankful that when I applied for permit, it was very fast. because in my case kagaya nung sa dissertation o sa pagkuha ng permt ay naibigay naman I have no personal experience against the SEP. For me may mga positive tlaga, marami syang mga magandang nagawa ang law sa Palawan, yung mga officemate ko po yung study nila is yung ginawa nya para di pakiaalaman na mga kiyaw ay binigyan ng kambing para di na galawin ang mga resources (Jun Bernardo). Siguro iyong sa requirement para sa SEP clearance for the academe na dapat maging flexible, kasi kami ay di naman kumukuha ng maramihan na sample. Maraming species sa Palawan na mga foreigner ang mga naka-discover, na hindi natin alam, maraming taga Palawan ang gusto gawin pero di magawa dahil sa permitting, dahil halimbawa sa studyante, may time bounded sila. May naitulong, but we have to really review and look into the law deeper.



• Nakatulong ba ang researches sa plan formulation? • Yes, like sa Turtle Bay and Camia Bay, 20 years na yang marine protected area kuno, we conducted

survey doon, the results were used by the City to revise the declaration on the area. • Nagiging major constraints when it comes to environmental research, dahil sa permitting, ay hindi

makagawa ng taxonomic studies para mkadiscover ng bago species. Transfer herbarium, needs a lot of permits. Actuaclly, sa permit, natatambay kami sa NCIP, di kami nakakarating sa inyo. I-amend ang section ng batas na mahigpit sa researchers. Kapag may study po on impact it will become as a hard evidence po kapag may mga i-ammend.

• Fast tracking, simplify the permitting process for environmental researches. • Simplify the law.. ‘Laymanize the law’ para hindi maging hi-end, yung kahit na common na tao e

maiintindihan ito..Iyong sa primer, pweding comic’s para sa information dissemination. • Sa aming pananaw, maraming natulong ang batas, maganda yung batas kung nasusunod talaga sya,

posibleng kung walang SEP law baka ang bundok natin ay butas butas na, malaking tulong talga, dahil kung wala e baka puro kaingin na ang mga bundok. Marami ang tumatawag sa amin at reklamo dahil meron batas na ngbabawal sa mga pagkakaingin. Ang isang tinitingnan natin dyan kagaya ng sa mga katutubo na dapat binibigyan natin ng alternative livelihood, may suporta na matulungan nama-improve ang kanilang mga skills, at turuan natin kung paano isu-sustain, bigyan ng support na isusustain nila, nakakatulong sya sa tao, indirectly, halimbawa if masira ang bundok e di wala ng tubig at pangkalahatan.

• In general na nakikita, yung law kasi kung sino ang boss sya nagi-implement, pagdating sa implementation, di naman kami anti, nakikita lang natin na tayo ang nagi-implement pero di din nasusunod ang nakalagay batas. Sana ay hanggang RTN lamang. Sa controlled used zone, landsat, tulad ng underground, controlled used zone but madaming buhay ilang ang makikita. Ang mga minerals ay nasa controlled, titingnan din siguro natin, halimbawa sa project, if has opportunity, personally kelangan i-ammend in terms of mining and other major activities, to amend, partly ay sa pag allow ng big industries, not only in terrestrial but also in coastal. Given na sinasabing last



frontier, sayang yung sep law, dahil hindi nakikita sa dami ng development na di natin kayang bantayan at i-monitor at kung pati na yung marginalized ay sobrang affected na din.

• From the outside laging tinitingnan ang Palawan as model because of SEP, but from inside, hindi naman natutugunan ng SEP law kasi nakikita ko in the ground, wala tayong batayan dahil wala tayong monitoring matrix na dapat na batayan natin bago masabi nating nakatulong nga ang SEP sa mga tao, how do we bring the result ng mga mino-monitror natin, kung di naman nakakarating sa tao na apektado. Walang bula po magagaling ang staff, well-equipped pero pagdating sa council parang nabubura po yun, dahil sa mga decisions, specific na example, Macro asia MPSA, it takes so long before we can decide/tell to Macro asia that they cannot work on core zone, at may batas like NIPAS, bkit andaming taon na ang Macro asia ay nagi-exist pa rin, it is the very specific example na di madesisyunan using the law, dapat meron ng matrix, para quantitative yung alam nating effect, sigro tingnan on how to integrate to other laws, such iPRA, NIPAS, with the ECAN as basic framework at for consolidation at consistencies, sa ngayon po ba mayroon na tayong tribal ancestral zones, with CADT or CADC ng NCIP, natutulungan ba natin sila? Like until now they are paying too much to extract forest products (to DENR) it’s difficult to say na di natin ma-define, sana dapat mag-evolve ang SEP based on lessons learned from the past years. How many PAs do we have, bound with core zone. Help the other government agencies since we have big core zones within these PAs. If we cannot implement for the entire province, we can start with PAs management, like protected areas sana magamit ang SEP at PCSD as convergence zone with other agencies. Paano ang synergy, sana mahawa ang DENR /other agencies. There is continuing staff development unlike in other GAs. Sana mgkaroon ng convergence. Paano nakatulong? Community based ECAN management manual, it is a good tool we did use that in Mount Mantalingahan, sana ma-pursue at magamit naman to the effect sa ibang parte ng Palawan, it was good tool, that’s why we know that Macro asia ay nasa core zone at sana yung compliance monitoring ay ma-enhance, na kapag core zones, core zone.

6. Without the SEP Law, where do you think would Palawan be now?



7. Over-all, is the SEP Law okay/good to you or not?

Facilitator: Documentors: Engr. Madrono P. Cabrestante, Jr. Jenevieve P. Hara Marianne Faith M. Perez Duration: 10:00AM-11:45AM FGD Group Number: _4__ Group/Sector: NGA’s, Police and Military, PA, CENRO Number of Participants: _ 8 ___ Male: __6___ Female: _ 2_ Date: April 14, 2015 Venue: PCSD Conference Room, 3rd floor, PCSD Building, Sta. Monica Heights, PPC

QUESTIONS RESPONSES/REMARKS



2. In your opinion, what do you think has been achieved by the SEP Law? (Please cite specific achievements or gains courtesy of the law – for Palawan, its environment, people and over-all development) Has the law worked well for your sector/local government/community? Can you cite examples of instances or experiences where you think the SEP Law has worked for you? 3. How about its failures, or areas for improvement? Any specific areas where the law and/or its implementation needs to improve on? Please cite examples when the SEP Law has become a constraint to your sector/local government/community.

• ECANization, but not all LGUs adopted the ECAN. • Now, we are more into on how to apply for marine protected area. How do we apply for an MPA

in an area, such as in Ulugan bay, since we have Head Quarter in Ulugan Bay. There are areas we plan to develop as MPAs ~ what are the major requirements? What else to be done so that we can start the operations this year? On the other part, honestly matagal ang process because hindi nagko-convene lagi ang council, hindi nagkakarron ng resolutions at SEP clearance kaya yun di din kami nabibigyan ng ECC from DENR, SEP is a prerequisite to the ECC. The whole process is all affected because of that, ang mga contractor’s meron silang hinahabol na schedule, kawawa naman sila dahil hind pwedi mag-start kapag wala pa silang permit from PCSD. Activities are connecting, naapektuhan din iyong iba, the projects in Bahile for our detachment, 2012 pa. What do we recommend? I’m not familiar with the process of clearance, at least set the council to have a meeting once or twice a month, and have the set of requirements na fixed, yun lang po ang naghohold, kaya di matapos tapos ang project namin.

• Kulang, malinaw dapat sa mga magpo-put up ng projects ang procedures at requirements. It’s the PCSD responsibilities that the contractors are not knowledgeable about PCSD requirement/SEP system. Then the DENR gets the blame for not issuing the ECC due to non issuance of SEP clearance. Kelangan talagang magkaroon ng leveling off of agencies and convening of council.

• Level off with other NGAs since we don't agree with each other’s conflicting regulations. The processes imposed of other NGAs are conflicting. The 3rd party hired by naval forces west, not yet done and here comes additional conditions, but there are new requirements added to the conditions (detachments, 2012). Requirements should remain as is with the first issuance/conditions given. To date, permanent injunction - road project to Bahile/Ulugan. We can recommend/lobby but we want to go through the process/requirements of the project.

• In Quezon, we encountered problems (municipal police station project), because of the requirements for SEP, the contractor’s operations were delayed natagalan and because of the required permits for the cutting of trees kaya naapektuhan ang project sa Quezon, iyong sa Rizal di kumuha ng permit kaya mas nauna silang matapos.



4. Is there a need to update the law, amend it, or improve it? What specific changes do you propose? 5. Looking at the SEP Law vis-à-vis Palawan’s development in the last 23 years, has the SEP Law worked well for the Province? For the environment? For its people? 6. Without the SEP Law, where do you think would Palawan be now? 7. Over-all, is the SEP Law okay/good to you or not?

• One of the other issues po is yung duplication of requirements, kinuha na sa una, sa susunod kukunin ulit, nagiging paulit ulit po e.

• Kayo dapat na magkaroon ng levelling off of requirements within agencies. • The system in Palawan is not the same with other provinces kaya po lets make it better and efficient

na. • Bahile boat tram project, base on the site description po kasi may 9 mangrove trees po doon na dapat

putulin, we’ve conducted two public consultations within the Barangay at tanggap naman ng community. This project is US government funded, but now I think ipo-full up na yung project dahil sa sobrang tagal ng process, sayang nga po ang project. Nag-decline ang contractor dahil matagal na hindi kame makakuha ng SEP clearance dahil sa 9 mangrove trees.

• Magsulat ang sa higher level, dahil wala sa level ng authority ng CENRO. • So, sa amendment of law, siguro lagyan po ng exemption halimbawa po e kapag projects for the

benefit of national security baka pweding maisama po. • Taking into consideration that Palawan is wide, PNP focused on the peace and order, but when we

travel by air there are lot of violations. I think in terms of strategic plan with the land use, maganda po, ECAN is good, but in terms of guarding it, when it comes to enforcement and monitoring it is very weak. I’m not saying po na not effective ang enforcement ng PCSDS, nakakasama ko si Nino, nakikita ko rin po ang ginagawa nila at na kunti po talaga ang Enforcers. Palawan is big, but enforcers are limited, less armed. Environmental Enforcement committee /teams or partners LGUs are not active. So, it is recommended to add new enforcers and add monitoring areas, maganda if ma-amend man po ang batas baka pweding lagyan ng provision about sa reward system para makatulong sa monitoring at para po sa mga informants dahil buhay ang katapat, dapat may reward para ma-relocate nya ang pamilya kapag nagsumbong sya. There must be an access to funds of the provincial government for enforcement. To improve the management of PAs, enforcement should be strengthened. Confer with PNP, not only lumber, but on the smuggling of pawikan also.

• Possible part ng reward, is halimbawa incentives po para dun sa informant, malaking tulong po kasi ito like nung experience sa Balabac, may case po dun na may informant na ngayon ay ayaw na I



turn over yung alam nya dahil na rin sa threat at dahil na din hanggang ngayon po ata ay di pa din nabibigay ng eward nya na dapat dati pa.

• On the part of the PNP, we are willing to give support but the limitation is the fund, SEP can order to other agencies, kaya nyang manduhan ang ibang agency.

• Most of the part of Palawan is protected area, each of it has enforcement committee which is multi-sectoral with the membership of PNP, PCG, Philippine Navy, so ganoon po total ang PCSD naman ay pweding manduhan ang ibang agency dahil you are powerful here in Palawan, so dapat mas palakasin natin ang ating enforcement lalo na sa area ng bawat PAs o kaya magkaroon ng sharing of resources para mapalakas ang enforcement,

• Malaking tulong po ang PCSD samin kasi doon sa mga lugar na may tao kami o kaya limited ang tao e nagkakaroon po ang PCSD at BFAR ng tie-up in implementing of regulations, pero may mga conflict din po na nangyayari na halimbawa may species na samin di pingbabawal ng BFAR pero sa PCSD naman ay bawal kaya kelangan po magkaroon ng leveling off, minsan naman po may instances na may permit na sa PCSD pero dahil nire-require pa namin ang CDT results kaya kami ang nasisisi, minsan naman sa inyo approved na samin di pa, auxillary invoice samin halimbawa sa inyo naman local transport permit, so yun nagkakaroon na kaisipan na namamahalan sila sa mga babayaran, nirereklamo nila na mataas daw ang binabayaran. Sinasabi lang na dahil may special law sa Palawan kaya iba rin ang pamantayan. Marami ang process and ang requirements na nagging pahirap sa mga shippers. Sa law enforcement, meron kaming order pero nawawala na ang aming informant dahil hawak na daw ng target ang aming asset at papatayin daw sila pag kami ay pumasok, kawawa po talaga ang ating mga impormante kaya dapat na magkaroon ng incentives ang mga kumo-cooperate satin when it comes to enforcement.

• Reward system: Nawawala ang informant at ginagawang hostage ng mga violators, kaya talagang kawawa sila, malakas ang intel ng violators. Pawikan issues, di natatakot ang mga poachers dahil napakababa lang ng parusa, (RA 9147 or Wildlife act/ RA 8550) tapos iyong 6 months na kulong e magpapakulong nalang sila dahil bawi naman sila sa kikitan nila na almost 85K -150k for 1 marine turtle, that's why violators would rather do the same violations again. Severe sanctions to the law violators (20 years na kulong). Scarce ang bentahan dahil sa effective na law enforcement, actually



kapag may gun boat, for sure isang buwan na gutom din ang tao sa Balabac. It is not included in SEP law, so we need to integrate the provisions on wildlife and 8550. Yes, ipasok natin ang issues na to sa amendment ng law, na kung pwedi taasan ang parusa on this issue. Mandami ang nakakalusut na persecuted, kaya dapat i-update ang batas.

• Madaming elements/ madami ang butas at nakakalusot, I think maybe kelangan iupdate ang batas, check in balance para maging mas maayos ang implementation.

• Higher/severe penalties of violations, for example sa Singapore, sa ibang bansa natatakot ang mga tao to do illegal activities because malalaki ang mga penalties.

• However, the enforcers have limited knowledge, at least kapag may legal aspect of the apprehensions napakalaki ng tulong on how we go on with the prosecution, ang problem namin is on enforcement, have a enforcement protocol, develop a joint enforcement protocol to facilitate the enforcement. The national is working on it, but Palawan can develop the same po para halimbawa napadaan ang barko namin tapos may alam na may nangyayari doon, e magagawa na huliin and then thru it alam namin kung san na dadalhin. Magkaroon ng coordination, documentation of the present coordination to improve.

• To be honest, iyong 1st exposure ko is with Niño, wala akong masasabi, talagang ang problema lang natin siguro dapat magkaroon pa ng mas closer and focused coordination pa, kasi siguro kulang tayo sa push when it comes to enforcement. Within 5 years of being here, ay madaming nagbago sa Palawan, kapag nagtuloy-tuloy ay malamang magiging sira na ang Palawan. Sa PNP, actually makikita naman natin na tuloy tuloy pa din iyong paggawa ng mga furniture, finished forest products / lumber kahit sinasabi na naka-ban na. Walang statistics on how much kahoy ang talagang kailangan natin. We developed SD for Palawan, ano ngayon ng definiton of SD? Tinanggal na din ang deputization.

• Marami pong operation, dahil hindi kami deputize, hindi din namin magawa dahil halimbawa wala kaming joint operation, di magawa hanggat wala kaming kasama na from your office, agency protocols again should be developed. Joint operations so that anyone can attest during hearing later on. Kaya less iyong participation of other agencies dahil walang incentives at minsan own expense pa namin, must have support to the witnesses during hearing, as per apprehension report of this and



that unit, kapag may protocol mas napapadali halimbawa kapag may operation at may proper documentation pwedi namin itransfer sa PCSD iyong application ng case.

• Oo namn, 30 years na ako dito, kung titingnan natin noong mga panahong 1980s wala pang SEP law ay nakalakaas ng kaingin dito, Although wala tayong statistics, pero makikita natin na rampant talaga but noong nagkaroon ng SEP, unti unting nabawasan, malaking bagay na din kasi nagkaroon sila ng takot, dahil noon parang walang takot yung mga illegalista. Isang bagay po iyon na epekto ng SEP yung mabawasan unti unti ung kaingin, because slash and burn is a strong threat to the forest protection. Sa development naman e di masyado, isa sa pinakamagandang outcome po is yung creation of ECAN board dahil in the local level ay ngsama sama ang mga ibat ibang agencies at napag-uusapan ang issues, in terms of the environment, maganda ang presence nga pcsds sa multi-partite monitoring team, may mino-monitor na magkasama tayo halimbawa sa Kaliksi Resort, pawikan hatchery permit for Kaliksi was recommended.

• Sa protected area management maganda ang outcome ng SEP dahil sa pagkakaroon ng complementation on the implementation of PA management.

Facilitator: Engr. Madrono P. Cabrestante Documentors: Jenevieve P. Hara, Marriane Faith M. Perez Duration: 2:10PM-4:20PM

i Mineral Production Sharing Agreement. ii National Commission on Indigenous Peoples.


strategic environmental plan (sep) for palawan impacts...

Documents