TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: SOME OPTIONS FOR POLICY INTEGRATION

Sustainable use of natural resources warrants more holistic, comprehensive management

strategies that take into account the interconnectedness of different biological ecosystems,

as well as their cascading effects on the economy and society as a whole. The Philippine

government has claimed to embrace sustainable development as an overarching framework

for its policies, including those dealing with environmental conservation and protection.

However, current management practices and policies in the Philippines are highly delimited

by conceptual, thematic and territorial divisions stemming from the traditional consumerist

worldview that society, economy and the environment are distinct entities. This paper

identifies a number of gaps and issues in the current environmental policy framework in the

Philippines, focusing on the sectoralization and fragmentation of different policies.

Consequences of these policy gaps for the management of different resource areas (e.g.

forests, fisheries, biodiversity, resource extraction, etc.) will also be discussed. Lastly, the

paper will propose some options and possibilities for cooperation, coordination and

integration of different sectoral policies to pave way for a more comprehensive, integrative

environmental policy framework.

Introduction

In the recent decades, the paradigm shift from economic development to sustainable

development has been widely recognized. The Brundtland Report (Brundtland, et al., 1987)

first articulated and promoted the concept of sustainable development, which involves

addressing the needs of the present without forgoing the needs of the future generations

(p.16). The report stressed the need for integrating political action and adopting shared

responsibilities to achieve such a goal. Since then, governments around the world have

begun refocusing their development priorities from economic growth to human security.

Quental, Lourenco, & da Silva (2011) described the emergence of sustainable development

policies, which identified sustainable goals, targets and strategies promulgated by cycles

upon cycles of political activities. In the environmental policy arena, this involved a shift from

pollution control and resource conservation, to a more integrative outlook and approach that

focuses on human development (Quental, et al., 2011).

The interest in sustainable environmental management corresponds to the growing

awareness of the multiple uses and values of the environment. Ecological benefits or

services include provision of basic needs, regulation of biological and nutrient cycles,

preservation of ecological balance, and strengthening of culture and heritage, among others

(Malayang, 2004). Moreover, the said paradigm shift is also parallel with the growing

realization of the devastating, and often long-term impacts that environmental degradation

has especially on the poor, who largely depend on the country’s natural resources for

survival. Among those included in the long list of environmental problems are: pollution in

urban areas, solid waste problem, water scarcity, deterioration of land quality, threatened

biodiversity, threatened coastal and marine resources, and uneven distribution of benefits

derived from mineral resource extraction. There is also the ever-increasing threat of climate

change impacts, especially on communities with poor adaptive capacities (NEDA, 2011).

These concerns transcend social, economic and political boundaries, thus making it more

imperative to move towards integrated environmental management policies.

The need for a comprehensive environmental policy had long been acknowledged by

the Philippine government, even before the Brundtland Report came into being. By way of

the Philippine Environmental Policy (Presidential Decree (PD) 1151) and the Philippine

Environmental Code (PD 1152) enacted in 1977, the government recognized the link

between society and the environment, and the importance of coordinating and integrating

environmental conservation efforts. Consequently, the said policies provided legal

framework to address long-term resource needs and ensure environmental quality essential

for survival and welfare of the present and future generations. These policy goals were

carried over to and elaborated by succeeding strategic plans of the government, such as the

Philippine Agenda 21 and the current Philippine Development Plan (PDP). At present, one

of the main development outcomes being targeted by the Philippine government through the

PDP 2011-2016 is the attainment of “sustainable and climate-resilient environment

resources,” particularly by building the adaptive capacities of communities to climate change

impacts; promoting sustainable natural resource management; and further ensuring

environmental quality (NEDA, 2013, p. 207). Then again, the greater challenge of the

government is how to integrate different interconnected environmental processes that are

more or less geographically or temporarily separate from one another. Aside from this, of

course, the government has to accommodate conflicting interests of the policy stakeholders,

which would be difficult, if not nearly impossible, under the current institutional and technical

set-up.

As promising as policy pronouncements are on environmental management, the

existing context under which current Philippine environmental policies are being

implemented does not make for a comprehensive approach. The mid-term assessment of

PDP 2011-2016 considered policy fragmentation as one of the main policy challenges in the

environment and natural resources arena. In particular, the report highlighted, among

others, the lack of comprehensive land use policy, inadequate sustainable use policies, and

conflicting government mandates (NEDA, 2013).

Owing to geographical and temporal limitations, environmental policies in the

Philippines have been characterized as highly sectoral, localized and island-based (Revilla,

2014). Environmental laws have mainly been designed to tackle environmental concerns

per sector, e.g. forestry, fisheries, minerals, biodiversity, solid waste, air and water quality,

among other areas. Aside from this, social policies that pertain to people and environment

are also highly differentiated (Malayang, 2004).

The effects of resulting policy fragmentation tend to trickle down into the specific

programs and projects, which adopt different conservation requirements, user rights,

environmental plans, and management strategies, among others. This is where

fragmentation becomes a problem. Cagalanan (2015) explained that there are a wide range

of institutions operating at different hierarchical levels. These include transnational

funding/conservation organizations, the central government, provinces, protected areas,

local government units (LGUs), barangays, people’s organizations, and households.

Because each of them is managed differently, there is a tendency for environmental policies

emanating from these agencies to overlap with one another and complicate or dampen

environmental management efforts on the ground. Malayang (2004) and La Viña (2014)

both asserted that while sectoral policies on environment and natural resources have had

considerably addressed a number of environmental problems, such as deforestation and

mining, these developments were rather sporadic, localized, and in pockets. This had been

attributed to unclear mandates and avenues for coordination of policies, agencies and

stakeholders; disconnected priorities and action plans; inconsistent targets; and loss of

political potency (La Viña, 2014).

Steurer (2007, p. 206) further enumerated a number of factors that make integration

of different sectoral policies difficult, as follows:

1) Difficulties in communicating the relative abstract and complex concept of

sustainable development to politicians and to the public;

2) Serious lack of high-level political will, leadership and sustained commitment;

3) Common dominance of economic interests over environmental and social

interests;

4) Lack of interest and ownership in non-environmental and social ministries or

departments; and

5) Lack of personnel and budgetary resources for achieving the objectives

formulated in sustainable development strategies.

In addition, policy fragmentation may also result when policymakers feel an urgent

need to address an immediate problem, but have limited time and resources to carefully

coordinate and negotiate policy actions among different implementing agencies (Waisman

Center, 2014). Cruz (2014) opined that it would be very difficult to harmonize policies when

there are no mechanisms to ensure synergy and coordination of different policies and

programs.

From a philosophical perspective, according to Salvador (n.d.), environmental

governance in the country has continued to assume a worldview that man prevails over the

environment, and is rationally driven by the tendency to consume and develop. As such,

instead of adopting a holistic view that links the environment with politics, society and

economics, most policies in reality maintain a divide between these supposedly interrelated

elements, with economy dominating all others (Giddings, Hopwood, & O’Brien, 2002). In

their study on wetland conservation in Europe, Amezaga & Santamaria (2000) likewise

pointed out that, by treating natural resources as conceptually and territorially distinct from

the “non-natural” sphere, the government is actually encouraging the divide between

supposedly interrelated social and environmental processes that affect ecological systems.

This approach to environmental policy weakens legal protection and enhances

environmental degradation (Amezaga & Santamaria, 2000).

The problem with this outlook is that negative externalities and losses resulting from

environmental degradation may not be compensated for by economic gains alone. As

Giddings, et al. (2002) wrote:

How does money compensate an animal for its loss of habitat or a tree for acid rain? In a similar way there are many social externalities that business does not pay for, such as unemployment, a loss of community and damage to health . . . material reality is that economy is dependent on society and the environment (p.190-191)

The following section shall make a case that even with adequate legal protection,

conflicting and overlapping policies as well as implementation mechanisms could undermine

existing initiatives to protect and manage natural resources. A review of the current status in

Protected Areas (PAs) as well as the policy framework protecting these areas will be

discussed, and how policy conflicts and overlaps indirectly affected conditions in

(theoretically) protected natural landscapes.

Degradation amid legal protection: The case of the protected areas (PAs)

A number of policies offer legal protection for much of the country’s forests and seas. This is

mainly through RA 7586 or the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of

1992. Aside from this, thirteen PAs have been further protected via specific RAs that follow

the NIPAS mandate, while others had been granted protection through Presidential

Proclamations, and LGU- or community-level proclamations (NEDA, 2011). On top of these

policies, a set of executive issuances and administrative orders have been issued to lay

down the guidelines for implementation of the national mandates on protected areas

management (NEDA, 2011).

As of date, there are around 240 PAs under NIPAS, five of which were named as

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Heritage Natural Parks. In sum, these

protected areas account for around 5.45 million hectares (or 14.20%) of total area. Recently,

additional NIPAS sites were declared, such as the Mt. Mantalingahan Protected Landscape,

Aliwagwag Falls Protected Landscape and Caracand Watersheds (DENR-BMB, 2014).

Around 26% of forestlands in the country are situated within PAs, while marine PAs cover

around 22,540 square kilometers (NEDA, 2011; DENR-BMB, 2014).

Despite the considerable level of protection given to these protected areas, the

impact of such legal protection on the conservation and sustainable management of natural

resources remains wanting. The 2012 Philippine Forestry Statistics noted a decrease in

closed canopy forests from 2.56 million hectares in 2003 to 1.93 million hectares in 2010,

indicating that despite a plethora of environmental policies, forest ecosystems still face

threats by human activities such as logging, slash-and-burn agriculture or kaingin. These

validate the results of a 2014 study of DENR-BMB and GIZ GmbH on protected areas in the

country, which highlighted the poor management of protected areas. Assessment of 61

terrestrial PAs revealed an overall rating of only 58% (Guiang & Braganza, 2014). Worse,

none of the PAs complied with international standards for protected area management.1

Meanwhile, only 10-15% of the 1,300 MPAs in the country were considered effective,

with the rest either unmanaged or nonfunctioning MPAs were largely determined by LGUs,

and almost half of the nine key marine corridors in the country were not designated as

protected areas. As such, initiatives for coastal/marine resource management were mainly

localized and sporadic (NEDA, 2011). The lack of a well-coordinated data gathering and

monitoring mechanism was also pointed out by La Viña (2014), making it difficult for the

government to oversee conditions and implement evidence-based policies to further protect

MPAs.

The 2014 DENR-BMB and GIZ GmbH report pointed out uneven levels of legal

protection for the sites studied—only four were protected by Republic Acts, while 57 were

only protected by Presidential Proclamations. This indicates that not all PAs receive

adequate funding. Most PAs were not incorporated into the Comprehensive Land Use Plans

(CLUPs) of LGUs that have political jurisdictions over the said areas. The Protected Area

Management Bureaus (PAMBs) were also faced with the challenge of harmonizing the

overlapping uses, claims and boundaries of land and resource use within the PAs. Morover,

the report noted that local conservation efforts contributed only little to economic growth

(Guiang & Braganza, 2014).

The case of protected areas management is but one of the indications that

sectoralized and fragmented policies would fall short of attaining a sustainable and climate-

resilient environment and natural resources, as espoused by the government through the

1 PHL protected areas are poorly managed, int’l study reveals. GMA News Online. 16 January 2014. Retrieved 6 December 2015 from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/344152/scitech/science/phl-protected-areas-are-poorly-managed-int-l-study-reveals

Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016. This example provides that simply delineating

protected areas is not enough, and that other interrelated policies that govern physical and

biological factors, sustainability of resource extraction practices, careful planning and proper

use of funds, social participation, and valuation of natural resources, among others, need to

be considered to ensure a more sustainable, comprehensive environmental policy.

Overview of environmental policies in the Philippines

A rundown of past and present environmental protection in the Philippines reveals that

policies have inherently been fragmented and sectoralized. In the past, no single

government agency handled environmental protection and conservation in the Philippines.

This was rather part of the mandate of different agencies (e.g. health, agriculture, natural

resources, public works, housing, etc.). In 1964, the National Pollution Control Commission

(NPCC) was established to regulate air and water quality (Pascual, 2005). Meanwhile, the

Philippine Environmental Policy and the Philippine Environmental Code (PD 1151, PD 1152)

finally articulated the need for a comprehensive law for environmental conservation and

management. The former created the National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC) as

the main policymaking body, and first initiated standards for Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) in the country. Meanwhile, the Philippine Environmental Code included

specific guidelines and standards for air and water quality management, land use

management, natural resources management and conservation, waste management and

cross-cutting strategies that tackled education, research, information dissemination,

incentives, and funding, among other functions.

While these two policies provided for a comprehensive framework on environmental

management, much of the provisions were generic and specific legal rights were not detailed

in the said policies. In 1996, the Congress began revising the Philippine Environmental Code

to clarify how a comprehensive approach could be implemented. Initially, an alternative was

to assimilate regulatory requirements for EIA, Air and Water Quality Management, Waste

Management, Environmental Adjudication Commission and Natural Resources

Management. However, lack of funds and the considerably large scope of the proposed

Code stalled policy integration efforts, and instead led the government to formulate several

Acts, according to sector (Pascual, 2005). Table 1 lists important policies dealing with

different subsectors in the environment and natural resources arena, as well as the present

strategies and challenges for each policy response.

As what can be gleaned from Table 1, there is rather a huge set of environmental

policies tackling different subsectors, and each of these subsectors confront various policy

gaps. However, aside from these policy gaps, an even more daunting task for the

government is how to tie piecemeal policies together to address broader and more complex

environmental problems. The Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016 recognized that a

number of environmental policies are indeed conflicting and overlapping with each other and

with other non-environmental policies.

A case in point is between forestry laws, on one hand, and the Agriculture and

Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) on the other. While forestry laws, specifically the

Revised Forestry Code (PD 705), serve to protect forestlands from further degradation,

AFMA encourages agricultural expansion, even into the uplands, by creating Strategic

Agriculture and Fisheries Development Zones (SAFDZs) that encourage cultivation of high-

value crops. This creates negative externalities for the forest ecosystems that PD 705 is

trying to conserve (NEDA, 2011).

Table 1. Philippine environmental policies across different subsectorsSubsector Policy Responses Strategies/Outputs Challenges

Solid Wastes RA 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000)

• Technical assistance on closure, rehab of dumps (1,325 LGUs), and on establishment of sanitary landfills (236 LGUs)

• 838 open dumpsites, 396 controlled disposable facilities need closure, rehab

• 20.9% of LGUs with solid waste management plans

Toxic Wastes RA 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990)

• Inventory of chemical substances developed (PICCS) listing 38,000 legally allowable substances

• Lack of equipment, expertise to handle toxic wastes

• Regulation and enforcement responsibilities yet to be defined

Mineral resource extraction (mining)

RA 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995), PD 1899, RA 7076(Small-scale mining programs), EO 79 (2012) (Policies and guidelines for responsible mining, creation of Mining Industry Coordinating Council)

• 97 EPEPs, 23 FMR/DPs, 387 SDMPs• Around 400 five-year SDMPs benefitting

700 barangays• Mining forest program (79 mining

companies reforesting/afforesting 10,319 ha of disturbed areas)

• More than PhP330 m royalty payments to IPs

• Assessment, rehab of eight (8) inactive mines nationwide

• Mining Act overlaps with other national and local policies

• Parameters for assessing economic valuation of environment and natural resources (for cost-benefit analysis of mining projects) are being questioned by different sectors, groups

• Lack of transparency in mining contracts

Degradation of forest lands

PD 705 (Revised Forestry Code), reforestation programs (e.g. NGP), EO 263 (CBFM), IPRA

• Reforestation of 78,000 ha of forest lands from 2004-2010 (60% of target 130,000 ha)

• Contribution of NGOs in reforestation amounts to 30%

• Forest boundary delineation completed for more than half (41/78) of target provinces

• 11.6 million ha of forest with forest tenurial instruments (2010)

• 350,321 ha under NGP as of 2012

• PD 705 is obsolete• No policy for sustainable forest

management has yet been legislated• Few protected areas declared by

communities even with available forest tenurial instruments

• Challenge of sustainability after planting trees under NGP (maintaining planted trees)

Table 1 (continued).

Subsector Policy Responses Strategies/Outputs Challenges

Biodiversity RA 7586 (NIPAS Act of 1992), RA9147 (Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act), RA 9072 (Cave and cave resources management), National Wetlands Action Plan 2011-2016, DENR MC 2007-04 (cave classification), Cave Strategic Action Plan 2011-2016, Coral Triangle National Plan of Action, issuances detailing procedures for the biodiversity laws

• 240 protected areas covering 5.4 million ha declared as PA, 113 of which proclaimed under 1992 NIPAS Act as terrestrial (TPA) and marine (MPA) protected areas (2012)

• 6,138 ha declared as critical habitats (2012)

• 38 caves with potential as ecotourism sites (2012)

• Sulu-Sulawesi Marine eco-region and West Philippine Sea designated as areas for sustainable management

• Some protected areas proclaimed by LGUs and POs, but lack of capacity to self-manage

• Only 10-15% of 1,300 Marine protected areas (MPAs) were considered effective; most are nonfunctioning

• Sporadic development of MPAs due to local initiatives than a national strategy

Air Quality RA 8749 (Clean Air Act), PD 1586 (EIA)

• 27 additional monitoring stations with greater capacity for monitoring particulate matter

• Higher emission standards for vehicles• Bantay Tambutso (anti-smoke belching)

and Bantay Tsimneya (control of emissions from industries)

• Additional monitoring stations still needed

• Monitoring mainly focused in urban areas, thus activities that violate Clean Air Act go unnoticed in provinces

Water Quality RA 9275 (Clean Water Act), PD 1586 (EIA)

• 19 rivers prioritized for water quality management in preparation for rehab and maintenance under the Sagip-Ilog Program

• 11 priority rivers do not meet BOD requirements

• Slow progress in rehabilitating Manila Bay

Table 1 (continued).

Subsector Policy Responses Strategies/Outputs Challenges

Fisheries RA 8550 (Fisheries Code), amended on 27 Feb 2014 to include stricter penalties, vessel monitoring systems, hosting of fisheries observers from BFAR

• Community-based law enforcement (e.g. Bantay Dagat groups, fisherfolk communities)

• Delineation of municipal waters for 928 municipal LGUs (2011)

• Lack of data on fisheries resources and fishing activities (to monitor exploitation)

• DENR mandate (DAO 17) and NIPAS conflicts with Fisheries Code (delineation of municpal waters)

• Only 285 coastal LGUs (30.71%) certified by neighboring LGUs (2012)

Vulnerability to Climate Change Impacts

RA 10121 (Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010); RA 9729 (Climate Change Act of 2009), Strategic National Action Plan on DRR (SNAP)

• EO 888 delineating priority programs on DRR and agency responsibilities

• Permissible uses of calamity fund established under RA 10121

• Risk transfer instruments (microinsurance, health insurance)

• Vulnerability assessments of 43 priority watersheds

• Adaptation tools, climate change scenarios and projections developed

• IEC campaigns

• Need to review consistency of SNAP with RA 10121

• What DRR measures need to be funded by the annual calamity fund?

• Yearly budget reserve for calamities (PhP 2B) does not coincide with value of damages during disasters

• Problems in accessibility, uptake of health insurance and microinsurance in communities

• More attention given to adaptation than mitigation

• Unclear implementing rules and regulations, responsibilities among stakeholders involved

• How to mainstream climate change in other policies?

Source: Siason, Ferrer, & Monteclaro, n.d.; Pulhin, 2002; Carandang, 2005; NEDA, 2011; NEDA, 2013; La Viña, 2014; Rappler.com, 2015.

Another example is the conflict between the Fisheries Code (RA 8550) and the

NIPAS Act (RA 7586), which set out different standards for determining municipal water

boundaries within protected areas. Both policies are also in conflict with the Local

Government Code of 1991, which had its own basis for jurisdiction of LGUs within protected

areas (Siason, et al., n.d.). Meanwhile, coastal areas and marine resources suffer continued

degradation due to the fact that conservation policies protecting these areas had overlooked

external factors, such as unregulated inland development and reclamation of coastal zones.

Due to the lack of a compliance mechanism, the integrated coastal management framework

espoused by the national government is largely not followed at the local level (La Viña,

2014).

In addition, a number of local ordinances that regulate mining activities do not

correspond with the Mining Act (RA 7942). For instance, the Provincial Environment Code

implemented by the provincial government of South Cotabato, which banned open-pit mining

as a matter of precautionary principle, was deemed inconsistent with RA 7942. The glaring

inconsistency became more apparent when a conflict ensued between the provincial

government and the national government over the still uncertain future of the Tampakan

Copper-Gold Mining Project (ASOG, n.d.).

Policy fragmentation is also evident in the forestry sector, which is rather governed

by an outdated forestry policy in the form of the Revised Forestry Code (PD 705). Many new

forestry policies have emerged, most of which do not coincide with the provisions of PD 705

(La Viña, 2014). Carandang (2005) elaborated that instead of coordinating forestry policies,

agencies have resorted to band-aid solutions that merely covered up past weaknesses in

guidelines and regulations. This resulted in what Carandang called a “maze of guidelines”

that restricts activities of forestry stakeholders. Pulhin (2002), on the other hand, highlighted

efforts to establish a comprehensive law that would replace PD 705. However, lack of

legislative and political support hampered the passage of bills in Congress. Instead,

changes have been made at the administrative level and were thus prone to revisions by

subsequent administrations. These administrative mandates and decrees were also rather

prone to many different interpretations at the regional and local level (Pulhin, 2002;

Carandang, 2005).

In the field of biodiversity, the 5th National Report to the Convention on Biological

Diversity reflected improvements such as increase in mangrove cover, discovery of new

wildlife species, refinement of river basin master plans, and identification of additional

protected areas. But the report also acknowledged that gains have yet to impact other

sectors, such as agriculture, genetic resources, and urban development (DENR-BMB, 2014).

Meanwhile, in the area of biosafety, increasing scientific and regulatory complexity made it

more difficult for government regulators, scientific research agencies, and civil society

groups to review and refine biotechnology policies and protocols (STEPS Centre, n.d.).

Mainstreaming of climate change adaptation and mitigation had also been both a

compelling and challenging task. The Climate Change Act of 2009 (RA 9729) provides for

mainstreaming of climate change component in different sectoral policies. It also mandated

the creation of Strategic National Action Plans on Disaster Risk Reduction (SNAP).

However, with the emergence of the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management

Act of 2010 (RA 10121), the government still has to review the consistency between SNAP

and the said policy (NEDA, 2013). In addition, despite the existence of a national law,

climate change-related policies remain disjointed and independent of one another (La Viña,

2014).

The abovementioned policy conflicts show that, at the status quo, the existing

environmental policy framework, consisting of highly sectoralized and fragmented policies

without any clear cross-cutting policy instruments to integrate or at the very least coordinate

these mandates, would leave unaddressed the a number major policy challenges identified

in the PDP 2011-2016 Midterm Assessment report, especially the following: 1) lack of a

harmonized land use policy; 2) inadequate policies to ensure sustainable management of

minerals and wastes; and 3) conflicting and overlapping government mandates (NEDA,

2013). Problems of environmental degradation are becoming inextricably linked with climate

change and other natural hazards. Multiple actors, technological advancements, greater

focus on human security and public participation, and the complex power dynamics between

and among stakeholders involved in crafting environmental policies—these factors hinder

policy integration, yet make it more imperative at the same time.

Policy integration: opportunity for improved environmental policies

As mentioned in the preliminary sections of this paper, different ecological processes in the

environment are physically and socially interconnected with one another and are also linked

with the population and the economy. Integrating different environmental policies that

highlight these linkages may pose a number of difficulties. As in the case of protected areas,

several environmental policies protect and conserve the country’s natural resources, but

when taken as a whole, these policies do not offer substantial support to the ENR sector.

The trend towards sustainable development as envisioned by the Philippine government

implies that one of the ways by which environmental protection and conservation would be

effective is by integrating relevant environmental policies into a comprehensive framework.

To do this, however, would require, at the very least, cooperative action within and among

implementing agencies across different ENR subsectors.

Works of scholars such as Dominic Stead and his associates (Geerlings & Stead,

2003; Meijers & Stead, 2004; Stead, 2008), Challis, et al. (1988), Ling (2002), and

Briassoulis (2004), looked into the nature and scope of policy integration, barriers and

facilitators, as well as the costs and benefits involved in policy integration. Many definitions

of policy integration abound in literature, but for the purpose of this paper, the term is defined

in view of intersectoral policies within the ENR sector.

There are two policy integration approaches that could be operationalized. First is the

vertical or intrasectoral approach, which aims to increment on existing sectoral policies,

incorporating issues that were not included in its original content, leading to an integrated

policy (Lafferty & Hovden, 2002, as cited in Briassoulis, 2004). In the field of environmental

policymaking, emerging environmental goals and concerns are simply incorporated into the

sectoral policies; the main focus of vertical integration is the consistency of policy goals,

guidelines and mechanisms at all hierarchical levels. Subsequently, the complexity or ease

of vertical policy integration depends on the hierarchical level at which policies are

integrated. Policy integration is easier to attain at the higher levels (e.g. central government,

head offices, etc.), while getting local authorities and other groups at the lower end of the

organizational hierarchy to integrate guidelines and rules would be much difficult. If linkages

between organizational levels do not exist or are nonfunctioning, policy integration may

never be possible (Briassoulis, 2004).

Horizontal or intersectoral approach takes a more rational-comprehensive view to

policymaking. Briassoulis (2004) referred to this as the more effective means for policy

integration, particularly in addressing ENR concerns. Here, the aim is to define relationships

among policies to environmental protection, conservation and management as well as other

interlinked policy concerns. The definition of policy integration by Meijers & Stead (2004)

mainly implies this approach. They refer to it as the management of cross-cutting

policymaking concerns that go beyond boundaries of different policy fields, as well as the

existing roles and responsibilities of individual implementing agencies (Meijers & Stead,

2004). In this aspect, a single integrated policy may not necessarily be the policy instrument

(Briassoulis, 2004). This paper shall focus on intersectoral policy integration to address

policy fragmentation in the ENR sector.

Briassoulis (2004) highlighted the raison d’etre for environmental policy integration,

which is “to secure the long-term, coherent functioning of human-environment systems”

(p.3). Policy integration addresses unexpected and unwanted externalities that were not

previously considered in the policymaking process. It also helps avoid fragmented policy

and decision making (Meijers & Stead, 2004). In particular, the following are some of the

practical reasons for horizontal/intersectoral policy integration (Stead, 2008, p. 140):

1) Promoting synergies (win-win solutions) between sectors;

2) Reducing duplication in the policy-making process, both horizontally and

vertically;

3) Promoting consistency between policies in different sectors (horizontal) and at

different levels of decision making (vertical);

4) Improving the achievement of cross-cutting goals or objectives;

5) Giving more focus to the achievement of a government’s overall goals rather than

the achievement of narrower sector-oriented goals;

6) Helping to promote innovation in policy development and implementation; and

7) Encouraging greater understanding of the effects of policies on other sectors.

A comparison of the two approaches to policy integration entails that

horizontal/intersectoral integration may more effectively address policy fragmentation in the

Philippine ENR sector than vertical integration. But to what extent should policies be

integrated? However, weighing in on the costs and benefits of integration, as well as

facilitators and barriers, may determine the degree and nature of policy integration that

should be enforced.

Levels of policy integration

Stead (2008) provided a hierarchical framework of approaches with respect to the horizontal

management and integration of sectoral policies. These are, from the lowest to highest level

of intersectoral policy integration: 1) policy cooperation; 2) policy coordination; and 3)

integrated policymaking (Figure 2).

At the bottom of the hierarchy is policy cooperation. This involves better informing

policymakers and implementing agencies working on different ENR sectoral policies and

encouraging them to a dialogue. The main goal here is not quite on integration but more on

increased efficiency of sectoral policies. This is attained by determining avenues for the joint

accomplishment of individual sectoral goals (Meijers & Stead, 2004; Stead, 2008).

Policy coordination is more far-reaching than cooperation, because there is

deliberate adjustment of sectoral goals and guidelines to meet higher-level collective goals

(Meijers & Stead, 2004). The key to effective policy coordination is consistency and

coherence among sectoral policies, in terms of the policy content, implementation and

outcomes (Challis, et al., 1988). Because considerable adjustments in sectoral policies are

needed to make them more coherent and consistent with one another relative to the

overarching goals, more resources are mobilized to affect policy coordination. There is also

increased interdependence among sectors, which requires that certain agencies give up part

of their autonomy. In addition, joint decisions and/or actions may lead to joint outcomes that

in turn may be different from that which policymakers initially intended (Meijers & Stead,

2004).

Figure 2. Integrated policymaking, policy coordination and cooperation (Stead, 2008)

At the apex of the hierarchy is integrated policymaking, which requires more

interaction and interdependence among policy stakeholders and implementing agencies. It

is also characterized by the need for more formal institutional arrangements and resources,

and because of the degree of interdependence needed, agencies may have to give up a

certain level of autonomy. The difference between policy coordination and integrated

policymaking lies in the outcome/goal—while coordination aims for more effective and well-

adjusted (i.e. coherent and consistent) policies, the outcome of policy integration is a new

joint policy with objectives that cut across different sectors (Meijers & Stead, 2004).

Facilitators and barriers to policy integration

The figure above denotes that policy integration requires more and more of the policy

actors as they aim for higher levels of policy integration (i.e. policy coordination and

integrated policymaking). Challis, et al. (1988) and Ling (2002) explained that, aside from

administrative and temporal costs, process factors as well as cost and benefit considerations

play an important role in the success of policy integration initiatives. Ling (2002) elaborated

that policy integration, up to a certain extent, may require policymakers to define:

1) New types of organization (e.g. culture and values, information and training);

2) New accountabilities and incentives (e.g. shared outcome targets and performance

measures);

3) New ways of delivering services (e.g. joint consultation and involvement); and

4) New ways of working across organizations (e.g. shared leadership, pooled budgets,

merged structures and joint teams).

Below are some of the common costs and benefits that entail policy integration

(Table 2). While integrated policy making allows for a holistic perspective in looking at

issues such as environmental degradation, policymakers may face the challenge of

monitoring or assessing effectiveness and impact across different interrelated subsectors. A

considerable amount of resources may also have to be spent to establish cross-cutting

mechanisms (Cabinet Office, 2000).

Table 2. Policy integration: potential benefits and costsCosts Benefits

Less clear lines of accountability for policy and service delivery

Greater difficulty in measuring effectiveness and impact, because of the need to develop and maintain more sophisticated performance measurement systems

Direct and opportunity costs of management and staff time spent establishing and sustaining cross-cutting working arrangements

Helping to convey the “big picture” for strategic issues

Helping to realize synergies and maximize effectiveness of policy and/or service delivery

Exploiting economies of scale Improving customer/client focus and

thus the quality and user-friendliness of services

Providing a framework for resolving potential conflicts and making trade-offs

Improving service delivery for particular groups

Aside from this, policy makers have to consider other potential factors that may

inhibit or facilitate policy integration, specifically horizontal/intersectoral integration. Peters

(1998) grouped these factors into four dimensions, namely:

1) Pluriformity (uniformity or autonomy of departments) – governments may either

consist of integrated agencies, or they may be composed of autonomous

departments. If the policies and programs are developed separately and with no

relation to any overall goals, then policy integration is less likely to happen.

2) Interdependence (connectivity of departments) – government agencies may be linked

together via formal networks, or through a coordinating body that will manage

horizontal relationships between sectors. Policy integration may be hampered if

there are weak or nil formal linkages (to the point of competition or adversarial

relationships) between sectoral agencies.

3) Formality of relationships – this refers to the formal recognition of linkages between

sectors, as one of the important facilitators of policy integration. However, Peters

argued that despite the existence of formal intersectoral relationships, there might be

instances wherein the influence of some sectors may dominate that of other sectors,

e.g. economic growth taking precedence over social and environmental goals. As

such, Peters suggested that policymakers should also take into account the informal

relationships that shape policy integration.

4) Instruments – these are mechanisms that contribute to the consistency of policies as

they are formulated and implemented across different sectors. These include

intersectoral working groups and committees, formalized policy assessment and

auditing procedures (e.g. EIA), formalized financial allocation systems, among others

(Stead and de Jong, 2006, in Stead, 2008). It is important to determine which

instrument best works for a particular policy integration initiative, otherwise ineffective

policy instruments may instead be barriers to integration.

Stead (2008) also cited other institutional barriers to policy integration, such as

resistance to change, lack of incentives, and education or training concerns. He iterated that

for every innovation in policies there is almost always a strong resistance to change, making

it a daunting task for policymakers to promote and justify policy integration. In addition, the

government may find it hard to determine appropriate incentives for intersectoral

collaboration and attainment of multisectoral policy goals. Differences in profession and

specialization across sectors, owing to the diversity of educational or training backgrounds of

staff and unit heads, may also impede policy integration.

Taking into consideration some of the costs, benefits, facilitators and barriers of

policy integration may actually lead policymakers to ask if there is a need to integrate

sectoral policies or if it is practical to do so. As mentioned earlier, policy integration has the

potential to make policies coherent and consistent, thus leading to more improved policy

outcomes. However, Briassoulis (2004, p.24) raised three important questions that should

be considered before planning for policy integration:

1) Is a general, all-purpose and all-encompassing policy integration scheme possible

and desirable or is a case, or issue, specific policy integration scheme more

appropriate?

2) Is horizontal integration sufficient to tackle crosscutting issues or is vertical

integration necessary too, or both?

3) Is policy integration at a given level sufficient or is cross-level policy integration

necessary—or even a grand scheme of full-blown integration on and across levels?

The assessment of the existing Philippine environmental policies earlier made in this

paper suggests a great need to create a policy integration scheme to, at the very least, make

sectoral policies coherent and consistent and to avoid policy fragmentation. Meanwhile,

since the concern of policy fragmentation deals with intersectoral relationships in the ENR

sector, the paper deems it important to focus on horizontal/intersectoral integration. The third

question offered by Briassoulis (2004), on the other hand, provides for the central idea of this

paper.

Problem Statement and Objectives

Figure 1 represents a mini-problem tree analysis on the causes and outcomes of

policy fragmentation in the environment and natural resources (ENR) sector, which this

paper will be trying to address through a given set of policy options and recommendations.

The paper mainly aims to explore options for integrating different ENR sector policies to

address the problem of policy fragmentation and ensure a more comprehensive

environmental policy framework. In particular, it addresses the following questions:

1) What level of policy integration (i.e., cooperation, coordination, or integrated

policymaking) could best address the problem of policy fragmentation in the

environment and natural resources (ENR) sector?

2) What concrete institutional mechanisms or policy instruments could facilitate the

preferred level of policy integration?

William Dunn’s (2015) criteria for policy prescription: effectiveness, efficiency, equity,

responsiveness, adequacy, and appropriateness, shall be used for evaluating policy

alternatives. Below is the description for each of the criteria:

1) Effectiveness – extent to which policy alternative helps attain policy goals or

objectives.

2) Efficiency – amount of effort required to produce a given level of effectiveness

3) Adequacy – extent to which any given level of effectiveness satisfies a particular

standard

4) Equity – distribution of effects and effort among different groups in society

5) Responsiveness – extent to which policy satisfies needs, preferences and values

of groups/stakeholders involved

6) Appropriateness – value/worth of a policy/program objectives and tenability of

assumptions underlying these objectives

The paper then concludes with the preferred policy option and how this can be

further improved in pursuit of a sustainable, resilient environment and natural resources for

the country in the future.

Figure 1. Problem analysis: fragmentation of environmental policies

Assessment of policy options

Three options are analyzed and evaluated based on Stead’s (2008) levels of policy

coordination, to determine the level of policy integration (i.e., cooperation, coordination, or

integrated policymaking) that could best address the problem of policy fragmentation in the

environment and natural resources (ENR) sector. These are the following:

1) Policy cooperation – promoting dialogue and exchange between different

departments or agencies handling specific ENR subsectoral concerns (e.g.

forestry, coastal management, air and water quality, solid waste management,

etc.);

2) Policy coordination – promoting intersectoral dialogue and exchange, as well as

incrementing on existing sectoral policy gaps to improve coherence and

consistency of the different sectoral policies and address conflicting or

overlapping provisions; and

3) Integrated policy making – crafting a new, comprehensive environmental policy

that not only encourages dialogue, coherence and consistency of policies, but

also determines ways by which sectoral policies may be jointly applied and

implemented.

Stead (2008) provided a number of concrete institutional mechanisms that help

facilitate each level of policy integration. Meanwhile, it should be noted that while these

three options are potentially effective with respect to addressing the problem of policy

fragmentation in the ENR sector, not all of them are the panacea to the problem. A

combination of the three approaches, or perhaps a fourth option, may emerge as a more

optimal solution from the ensuing analysis of the said options.

Option 1: Promoting dialogue and exchange between different departments or agencies

handling specific ENR subsectoral concerns

There are several institutional mechanisms that could promote at least policy

cooperation. Among them are by establishing organizational arrangements, particularly

interdepartmental committees, commissions, and technical working groups that could help

different sectoral agencies work together in implementing their policies more efficiently.

Human resource development strategies that build capacities of personnel for intersectoral

cooperation, such as changing work arrangements, as well as learning activities, e.g.

workshops, seminars, training activities, could also help promote policy cooperation.

Alternatively, agencies could also conduct benchmarking and share best ENR practices with

other sectors. Reporting strategies that look into the present state of environment and

natural resources and sustainable development indicators can also be tapped to promote

intersectoral dialogue and information sharing (Stead, 2008).

Central steering agencies could also facilitate policy coordination across different

sectors. NEDA as a planning and policymaking agency had already laid out strategies for

intersectoral policy coordination across different sectoral outcomes and policy areas, through

the PDP 2011-2016. Intersectoral programs that allow different departments to cooperate

with one another in policymaking and implementation could also be created to enhance

cooperation. Examples of these are the National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP), as

well as the National Biodiversity and Action Plan (NBAP) that delineates the roles and

cooperation of different departments, private sector institutions, NGOs, among other groups.

Moreover, several other policies and administrative mandates—not just in the ENR

sector—provide for avenues for consultation and public hearings among different

stakeholders involved in the policy. That this is already part of many of the environmental

policies suggests that the government has the legal/institutional framework to address policy

fragmentation through policy cooperation. However, this is only half the battle.

Policy cooperation can be effective as far as enhancing dialogue and information

exchange is concerned, but in working towards a comprehensive environmental policy, this

kind of response alone may not be adequate. Costs may be incurred for ensuring clarity of

joint accountability for policy and service delivery; and there may also be direct costs on part

of the management and staff in creating and maintaining intersectoral working

arrangements.

While there are possibilities for ensuring equal participation and benefits among

policy actors involved, still, enhancing individual agency/sector goals is the main goal of

policy cooperation. As such, policy coordination may fall short in controlling overlaps or

conflicts between different sectoral policies. This could lead to conflicts that would

undermine intersectoral cooperation. However, consultation and dialogue inherent in policy

cooperation may help resolve these conflicts, and may also boost its responsiveness and

appropriateness to different sectors. Then again, this depends on the level of participation

and power/sphere of influence by different sectoral groups and players.

Option 2: Promoting intersectoral dialogue and exchange, as well as incrementing on

existing sectoral policy gaps to improve coherence and consistency of the different sectoral

policies and address conflicting or overlapping provisions

Based on earlier discussion, policy coordination ensures coherence and consistency

across different sectoral policies in terms of policy goals and implementation. On one hand,

integrated national strategies that would link different ENR subsectors with one another are

already abound in the Philippine setting. This includes, of course, the Philippine

Development Plan 2011-2016, which sets out specific goals, targets and indicators that need

to be achieved before the end of the year 2016. Goals set in 2011 have been revised in

2013 through the PDP 2011-2016 Midterm Update, to accommodate necessary changes in

circumstances (e.g. Typhoon Haiyan caused changes in plans and results framework of

ENR sector) (NEDA, 2013). Figure 2 presents the PDP 2011-2016 updated results

framework. Subsector outcomes were translated into specific end-of-plan (2016) quantitative

targets. However, national strategic frameworks that are sector-specific (e.g. fisheries,

biodiversity, wetland conservation, climate change adaptation) might still need to be

reviewed to ensure if they follow the nationally-determined targets and outcomes.

Internal consultations within and among the ENR subsectors might help anticipate,

identify and address conflicts between sectoral policies. Environmental impact assessment

(EIA) mechanisms should be tailored to include results and outputs from a wider range of

ENR sectors. Aside from this, multi-sectoral assessment of different ENR policies may help

identify and resolve gaps in policy coordination and consistency.

The Philippine government may also consider conducting inter-ministerial or

interdepartmental conference and meetings from time to time. This is to convene ENR sector

groups and agencies involved in the implementation of various environmental policies,

review their respective results frameworks and action plans, and resolve any conflict

between sectors.

The option of ensuring coherence and consistency of the different sectoral policies

and address conflicting or overlapping provisions can be effective in terms of harmonizing

policies and attaining higher-level joint outcomes among ENR subsectors. Coming up with

national objectives for improving the management of environmental and natural resources

may somewhat help implementing agencies and groups, particularly in the lower levels, to

come up with strategic environmental plans that coincide with the national targets.

Meanwhile, the conduct of joint meetings, policy dialogues and consultation activities would

also help review and revise national mandates and see if these are still applicable given the

situation on the ground. It could also help achieve as much as possible, a “win-win” situation

for each of the sectors involved.

Figure 3. Strategic framework on sustainable and climate-resilient environment and natural resources

However, given the complexity of environmental problems and the multiplicity of

actors in the ENR sector, plus the island-based or archipelagic nature of different sectoral

policies (Revilla, 2014), policy coordination is not an easy task. In fact it is much harder to

implement than Option 1 (policy cooperation), given the level of compatibility, accessibility,

and comprehensiveness needed to conjoin and harmonize ENR policies. Different sectors

may be required to give up some of their autonomy and resources to accommodate the

preferences or interests of the other sectors. As such, there are additional costs involved in

getting different sectors to agree upon and commit on collective targets or goals, revising or

harmonizing conflicting policies from time to time. Nonetheless, developing joint outcomes

or goals and ensuring continued support for these outcomes through constant dialogue and

reporting contributes to ensuring that positive impacts of different sectoral policies are

spread across different ENR subsectors.

Option 3: Crafting a new, comprehensive environmental policy that not only encourages

dialogue, coherence and consistency of policies, but also determines ways by which sectoral

policies may be jointly applied and implemented

Creating a comprehensive environmental policy would be highly effective in

addressing changes in the context of ENR policies, attaining collective outcomes, and

detailing specific mechanisms for joint implementation or application of different sectoral

policies. The formulation of joint outcomes, goals and implementation mechanisms would

also ensure that the benefits of the proposed law will be equitably distributed across the

different sectors.

However, there are many ways, but relatively few examples, by which a

comprehensive, integrated environmental policy could be implemented, or at least promoted.

Government budgets be adjusted to help promote integrated policymaking, but this would

entail a lot of debate and consultation. In the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2015,

funds for environment and sanitation, environmental protection, environment-friendly

infrastructure and equipment, research and development projects, among other ENR

components are allocated per sector, department or agency. The same is also true for the

allocation of funds to climate change-related infrastructure and capacity-building activities.

In sum, budget allocation in the Philippine government is according to agency or department.

It may be possible to develop joint budgets that relate to the environment and natural

resources (ENR) action plans, and perhaps it would be possible to adjust financial allocation

systems to allot funds based on policy areas rather than department/sectoral agencies. This

would, however, entail major amendments to the GAA and other policies, and would require

approval of the House.

While there are intersectoral or interdepartmental teams working on the

implementation of local environmental policies (e.g. the case of Bantay Dagat or Bantay

Kalikasan groups working with DENR, PNP, and other agencies in monitoring seas and

forests), it is relatively difficult to point out national environmental policies that are actually

being implemented through interdepartmental or inter-agency committees.

Finally, to create a single, comprehensive environmental policy that cuts across

sector is inherently difficult. Based on the experience of the Congress in 1996 (the attempt to

create a single policy), it is difficult and cost-intensive to lobby for and formulate a national

law that covers all ENR subsectoral policies. If anything, due to bounded rationality, the law

would not be inclusive enough to accommodate interests of different sectors and groups.

The most feasible way by which Option 3 can be implemented is to revise the

Philippine Environmental Policy and Philippine Environmental Code. The PD 1151 and PD

1152 provides for sector-specific requirements and standards, which are currently outdated.

While there are already existing policies that are rather in blatant disregard of the two laws,

the PD 1151 and 1152 may be revised to provide for joint implementation or application of

the said laws. However, again, to do so would require considerable cost, e.g. in

reformulating, lobbying for, and enacting a revised law. Additional costs would also be

incurred in getting different sectors with originally individual goals and targets to commit to

and comply with the revised law. Nonetheless, in the long run, Option 3 would be more

effective than the former two options in addressing long-term environmental and natural

resource issues, as it possesses a stronger legislative power than an administrative or

executive mandate.

Table 3 provides for a summary of the assessment of the three options offered by

this paper, in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, equity, adequacy, responsiveness and

appropriateness.

Recommendations

As much as integrated policymaking is ideal for addressing the problem of policy

fragmentation, the current institutional set-up and budgeting process may slow down efforts

to craft a comprehensive environmental policy. The process of formulating a new policy and

having it approved may take a long time. Creation of a single, integrated policy requires that

sectors give up considerable level of autonomy, resources and other commitments, which

may be difficult to forgo.

Hence, in the meantime, it may be argued that the second alternative—ensuring the

coherence and consistency of policies—may be the best alternative among the three options

considered. Gaps between different sectoral policies may first be addressed while a

comprehensive policy is being crafted. While considerable costs are involved in amending

or revising each of the sectoral policies in pursuit of collective ENR goals, it is relatively a

more adequate response than just getting different sectoral agencies to cooperate with one

another (Option 1). However, if integrated policymaking is extremely necessary, it may be

wise to increment on the existing Philippine Environment Code and Philippine Environmental

Policy.

Figure 3. Assessment of policy options

Alternative CriteriaEffectiveness Efficiency Equity Adequacy Responsiveness Appropriateness

Option 1: Policy cooperation

Possible strategies/instruments:

- Interdepartmental committees

- Human resource policies that reflect joint working arrangements

- State of the environment reports

- Benchmarking and sharing of best practices

Effective in terms of making individual policies efficient, but may lack in ensuring consistency and coherence since sectoral goals are the target of policy cooperation

Efficient relative to the amount of resources and little loss of autonomy involved in ensuring cooperative arrangements

Costs are incurred in ensuring joint working arrangements and defining joint accountability mechanisms

Weak in ensuring equity across ENR subsectors, since the aim of policy cooperation is ultimately the enhancement of individual sectoral outcomes

May not be an adequate response in terms of making ENR policies more comprehensive and integrative

May be responsive to some sectors (particularly those that are willing to work with other agencies); consultations with other sectors may help address sector-specific needs and interests

Appropriate, since there are ENR policies that allow for intersectoral cooperation, public hearings and consultation, etc.

Option 2: Policy coordination

Possible strategies/instruments:

- Internal consultation processes

- Strategic environmental assessment

- Multisectoral policy evaluation

- Intersectoral

Effective in addressing policy overlaps and conflicts between ENR subsectors, and formulation and attainment of joint outcomes or goals; but may need to have legislative power to be

On top of costs entailed by policy cooperation, additional costs may be incurred in revising sectoral policies and establishing joint targets or objectives among different sectors and

Formulation of joint outcomes/goals, bridging gaps between sectoral policies helps contribute to ensuring equitable distribution of policy benefits across ENR subsectors

May be sufficient enough to address joint needs and make environmental policies coherent and consistent, particularly in the absence of an updated comprehensive environmental law

Regular internal consultations, reporting and meetings may bring up sectoral needs; multisectoral monitoring of impacts and outcomes of sectoral policies contributes to the responsiveness

Appropriate, although the feasibility of joint interdepartmental conferences/meetings at the national level are yet to be explored

Alternative CriteriaEffectiveness Efficiency Equity Adequacy Responsiveness Appropriateness

programs- Central committees- Cross-cutting units

within departments- Joint

interdepartmental conferences

further effective agencies, which are to be done on a regular basis

of policies to different sectors’ needs

Option 3: Integrated policymaking

Possible strategies/instruments:

- Joint budgeting/financial allocation

- Intersectoral policy teams

- Revision of existing comprehensive environmental laws (e.g. PD 1151 and PD 1152)

Highly effective in terms of integrating different sectoral policies, as this also has legislative power compared with the other two options

May not be immediately efficient, considering the time and costs involved in formulating, lobbying for and enacting a new, comprehensive policy and enjoining different sectors to commit to the said policy

Formulation of mechanisms for joint implementation may contribute to the equitable distribution of policy benefits across ENR subsectors

Adequate to address policy fragmentation

Opportunities for joint policymaking makes policy integration responsive to the needs across different sectors

Given the existing framework and process of financial allocation, it may be inappropriate to determine avenues for joint or intersectoral budget implementation

Creation of intersectoral policy teams and revision of the existing PD 1151 and PD 1152 may be more appropriate

Establishing a strategic environmental policy framework helps ensure that different

sectoral policies are consistent with the national goals and priorities of the government.

Existing national frameworks for climate change adaptation, biodiversity, or even the PDP

2011-2016, may already be a good start. However, simply agreeing on national targets and

compliance mechanisms is not enough. Institutional strategies for policy cooperation, such

as formation of central committees and multidisciplinary working groups, are also important

to monitor consistency among different policies, as well as reconciling them with budgetary

imperatives. The latter is a bit more challenging, since budget allocation in the government

is more sectoral-based than issue-based or policy area-based.

Strategic monitoring mechanisms provide policymakers a better insight, clearer

definition and deeper analysis of different but interrelated ENR concerns and issues, and a

better foresight of possible inconsistencies that come along with proposed ENR policies.

Implementation guidelines must also ensure that policies are adjustable amid fast-paced

developments, new information and changing circumstances.

No matter what level of policy integration is being adopted, however, political

commitment is essential to initiate and enhance policy coherence and consistency. In

addition, promoting an administrative environment that engenders intersectoral cooperation,

dialogue, and sharing of information, could also contribute to policy coordination.

References

Amezaga, J. M., & Santamaría, L. (2000). Wetland connectedness and policy fragmentation: steps towards a sustainable European wetland policy.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere, 25(7), 635-640.

Ateneo School of Government (ASOG). (n.d.). Is There a Future for Mining in the Philippines? Policy Brief. Quezon City: ASOG.

Briassoulis, H. (2004, December 3-4). Policy integration for complex policy problems: What, why and how. Paper presented at the 2004 Berlin Conference “Greening of Policies: Interlinkages and Policy Integration.”

Brundtland, G., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., Fadika, L., ... & Singh, M. (1987). Report of the World Commission on environment and development: Our common future. United Nations.

Cabinet Office (2000). Wiring it up. Whitehall’s Management of Cross-cutting Policies and Services [online]. The Stationery Office, London. Retrieved from http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page86.asp.

Cagalanan, D. (2015). Governance Challenges in Community-Based Forest Management in the Philippines. Society & Natural Resources, 28(6), 609-624.

Carandang, A.P. (2005, July). National Forest Assessment: Forestry policy analysis Philippines. Working Paper 101/E. Forest Resources Assessment Programme. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Forestry Department.

Challis, L., Fuller, S., Henwood, M., Klein, R., Plowden, W., Webb, A., Whittingham, P., & Wistow, G. (1988). Joint approaches to social policy: rationality and practice. Cambridge University Press.

Cruz, R.V.O. (2014). Watersheds in a changing climate: Issues and challenges. SEAMEO-SEARCA Policy Brief Series 2014-1. College, Laguna: Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Biodiversity Management Bureau (2014). The fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Quezon City: DENR-BMB.

Geerlings, H., & Stead, D. (2003). The integration of land use planning, transport and environment in European policy and research [PDF file]. Transport policy,10(3), 187-196. Retrieved 17 November 2015 from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Harry_Geerlings/publication/222664957_The_integration_of_land_use_planning_transport_and_environment_in_European_policy_and_research/links/54103be50cf2d8daaad28210.pdf

Giddings, B. Hopwood, B., & O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development [PDF file]. Sustainable Development, 10, 187-196, doi: 10.1002/sd.199. Retrieved 17 November 2015 from http://200.23.34.56/convocatoria/lecturas/sustainable%20development.pdf

Guiang, E.S. & G.C. Braganza. National Management Effectiveness and Capacity Assessment of Protected Areas in the Philippines: Draft Report. Manila, Philippines: GIZ, 2014

La Vina, A. G. (2014). After More than 100 Years of Environmental Law, What's Next for the Philippines. Phil. LJ, 88, 195.

Ling, T. (2002). Delivering joined-up government in the UK: dimensions, issues and problems. Public administration, 80(4), 615-642.

Malayang, B.S. III (2004). Environmental policy concerns in the Philippines today (A suggested framework). Retrieved from http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/billtext_13/envipolicy_drmalayang.pdf

Meijers, E., & Stead, D. (2004). Policy integration: what does it mean and how can it be achieved? A multi-disciplinary review [PDF file]. Paper presented during the 2004 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: Greening of Policies – Interlinkages and Policy Integration. Retrieved 19 November 2015 from http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2004/download/meijers_stead_f.pdf

National Economic and Development Authority (2011). Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016. Pasig City: NEDA.

National Economic and Development Authority (2013). Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016 Midterm Update with Revalidated Results Matrices. Pasig City: NEDA.

Pascual, R. V. J. (2005, May). Impacts of Philippine Environmental Regulatory Policies on PNOC-EDC’s Corporate Environmental Management Initiatives. In World Geothermal Congress (pp. 24-29).

Peters GB. 1998. Managing Horizontal Government, Research Paper 21. Canadian Centre for Management Development: Ottawa.

Presidential Decree 1151. Philippine Environmental Policy. 1977.

Presidential Decree 1152. Philippine Environmental Code. 1977.

Pulhin, J.M. (2002). Trends in forest policy of the Philippines. Policy Trend Report 2002: 29-41.

Quental, N., Lourenço, J. M., & da Silva, F. N. (2011). Sustainable development policy: goals, targets and political cycles. Sustainable Development, 19(1), 15-29.

Rappler.com (2015, March 9). Fisheries code amendments oppressive, says fishing group [online]. Rappler. Retrieved 20 November 2015 from http://www.rappler.com/business/industries/247-agriculture/86269-fishing-group-protests-fisheries-code-amendments

Salvador, A.O. (n.d.). Environmental governance in the Philippines [PDF file]. Retrieved 19 November 2015 from http://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Chap2.pdf

Siason, I.M., Ferrer, A.J., & Monteclaro, H.M. (n.d.). Philippine case study on conflict over use of municipal water: Synthesis of three case studies in the Visayan Sea [PDF file]. University of the Philippines in the Visayas. Retrieved 20 November 2015 from http://pubs.iclarm.net/resource_centre/WF_1772.pdf

Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability (STEPS) Centre. (n.d.). Biosafety regulation: Lessons from Kenya and the Philippines [PDF file]. STEPS briefing. UK: STEPS Centre, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Retrieved 20 November 2015 from http://steps-centre.org/wp-content/uploads/STEPSsumBiosafety.pdf

Stead, D. (2008). Institutional aspects of integrating transport, environment and health policies. Transport Policy, 15(3), 139-148.

Steurer, R. (2007). From government strategies to strategic public management: an exploratory outlook on the pursuit of cross‐sectoral policy integration. European Environment, 17(3), 201-214.

Waisman Center (2014). Policy & systems change: Area of emphasis [online]. Retrieved from Waisman Center: https://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cedd/policy.php