VII. Conclusions and recommendations

The Philippines has achieved much in terms of prioritizing the objectives of sustainable development in the national development agenda. While recognition of the importance of the environment and the ecological services it provides dates back to the 1970s, when the EIA system was instituted, PSSD was not launched until 1989 as the first official document on sustainable development. PSSD recognized that development efforts could actually lead to environmental degradation, since conflicts over the use of environmental, demographic, economic and natural resources often result from development-related activities.

Those early efforts were further pursued and the consequent issues given due importance when the Philippines participated in the UNCED summit in Rio in 1992. That participation led to the creation of PCSD, primarily to monitor the compliance of the country with Agenda 21. That also led to the creation and/or strengthening of a number of mechanisms where the integration of environmental considerations in policy decision-making could take place (e.g., the Investment Coordination Committee, the EIS system, the policy and planning formulation process which now involves multi-stakeholder consultations, etc.). Likewise, a number of measures, policy tools and instruments that would facilitate the integration of environmental concerns were also formulated, including the design of market-based instruments, the formulation of sustainable development indicators, and the use of new valuation methodologies for evaluating the benefits and costs of development projects. An environmental and natural resources accounting system is also being set up to ensure that the national indicators of economic growth take into consideration the environmental consequences of economic activities. The attention of the bodies concerned will then be drawn to the resulting policy implications of new estimates.

As a result of growing global concern for the environment, a variety of international and multilateral agreements have been forged. Since the Philippines has participated in a number of those agreements, it has meant ensuring compliance with the commitments made as signatory. However, those commitments often have specific implications for the domestic policy formulation process. Therefore, the domestic capacity for dealing with such implications as well as implementing the necessary follow-up actions needs to be strengthened.

The new paradigm on sustainable development calls for rethinking on how the development process is to be approached. That will require the development of capabilities at the technical and policy levels. Awareness among policy makers and practitioners needs to be raised to levels that would integrate environmental concerns into the decision-making process. Environment and natural resources should be viewed not only as a productive resource but even more so as a resource that provides ecological services. Policy makers and practitioners should be able to perceive the environmental consequences of specific economic activities, so that measures can be taken to avoid any resultant damage, which could prove irreparable. That requires the availability of adequate information and data for bringing about integration. Likewise, it is important to build technical capabilities for the design and use of appropriate policy instruments that facilitate integration.

Despite previous efforts at integration, the current state of policy-making in the Philippines leaves much to be desired in terms of incorporating environmental concerns into the decision-making process. Existing structures and mechanisms for integration are either not fully equipped in terms of capabilities and/or policy tools, or they lack the teeth and the mandate to implement their recommendations. In most cases, policy decisions go through a number of consultations in various bodies where the members do not necessarily have a full grasp nor even an appreciation of the environmental implications of specific policy actions. Moreover, those bodies also have priorities which, when taken into consideration, relegate any environmental issue to a lower level of priority, thus preventing such issues from being considered in the decision-making process.

In view of the bottlenecks described above, the following recommendations are proposed:

• Reassess the role of PCSD in the policy decision-making process. PCSD appears to be a redundant venue for policy discussion and it often lacks the teeth to implement its decisions. That is especially true when considering the fact that key policy decisions are often made outside PCSD. The perceived redundancy, however, is justified considering the radial approach of the government to decision-making. One clear value-added advantage of PCSD, which is not present in the other multisectoral bodies, is the membership of NGOs and people's organizations which provides a perspective that is often lacking in other bodies.
  
  
• To address the redundancy and lack of power to implement policy decisions, existing membership of the Council needs to be reassessed. At present, most of the members hold ranks which range from Director IV to Under-Secretary. Only NEDA and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources are represented by Cabinet-rank officials. It would be useful if the PCSD membership rank could be elevated to the level of at least Under-Secretary to facilitate the consideration of PCSD decisions in the other planning and policy-making bodies which all comprise Cabinet-level members. Moreover, while designation of membership is important, actual attendance at meetings by the permanent representatives is equally important. To ensure attendance, the PCSD agenda should include more issues related to conflicts arising from policy implementation by the various agencies. The PCSD mandate should also be reviewed in the same light.
  
  
• Systematic data collection relevant to the development of appropriate tools for integration needs to be undertaken. Data play a critical role in convincing decision makers of the importance of taking into account the environmental consequences of any decisions they make, as they allow rational choices to be made.
  
  
• Strengthening capability-building on all fronts. The war against environmental degradation and unsustainable uses of natural and environmental resources should be fought on all fronts. To do so requires that the population, legislators and policy makers as well as technical staff be properly educated on the merits of considering all environmental consequences in the decision-making process. Thus not only is there a need for training programmes which are designed for those engaged in the formulation of decisions, but also the inclusion of environmental education in student curricula. An educated population would result in a critical mass that is both environmentally aware and alert to the consequences of incorrect policy decisions. If that level of awareness exists, the result is an environmentally aware voting population who will put in place legislators and chief executives who are not only concerned with the short term (i.e., their period of office) but also the long-term effects of any law, programme or policy they formulate.
  
  

Top