An assessment of the current practice in determining the amount of the environmental guarantee fund DENR Administrative Order 96-37

Date

1999

Abstract

The Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF ) under DENR Administrative Order 96-37, series of 1996, was specifically established in order to answer for the risks and hazards that a development project may effect on the environment, despite the mitigating measures that a proponent must initially undertake following the conditionalities of an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC). It is meant to answer for damage to life, health, property and the natural environment, or it is a fund source for the identification of damages caused by the project. Because the EGF plays such an important role in the Environmental Impact Assessment Statement System, it is necessary to examine how it is determined and to discuss the ramification of its implementation. The purpose of the EGF was discussed and its determination was assessed using the perspectives of all the parties involved, namely, the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), the stakeholders, the proponents, and the experts in the field of environmental impact statement. Interviews with the Task Force on EGF Mangement at EMB, the stakeholders and proponents revealed their offering bases for determining the EGF. The expert's perspective was obtained using the Delphi survey technique to achieve their consensus on the bases for computing the EGF. The survey resulted in a more detailed list of considerations to be used in the negotiation process involving the proponent, representatives of the affected stakeholders, representatives of a local non-government organization and the Environmental Management Bureau (or the DENR Regional Office). A common recommendation was the need to specify the list on a per project basis vis-a-vis site location to eliminate the ambiguity of the negotiation process. A similar method is employed by the Mines and Geosciences Bureau in the determination of the Contingent Liability and Rehabilitation Fund (CLRF) for mining projects. A discussion on the need to objectively assess the EGF followed because of the lack of scientific and economic methods employed in the determination process. In valuing damage costs, the economic methods of benefits transfer and replacement or restoration costs were explained. An application of a compensatory fund, in the form of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund program, was discussed as well. The final assessment of the study is that the current practice of determining the EGF is arbitrary and qualitative.

Document Type

Master Thesis

Degree

Master of Science in Environmental Science

College

School of Environmental Science and Management (SESAM)

Language

English

Location

UPLB Main Library Special Collections Section (USCS)

Call Number

LG 995 1999 E8 C35

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS