Monitoring Roles and Responsiblities
Roles and Responsibilities
i. Annex 3-1 presents a standardized Semi-annual ECC Compliance Monitoring Report (CMR) which any Proponent, through its Environmental Unit or Environmental Officer, is required to submit to the designated monitoring EMB office on a semi-annual frequency. The CMR requirement is to report performance at three levels, at the minimum, as follows: a) performance against the ECC conditions; b) performance against the EMP; and c) performance against the monitoring of actual impacts (including residual impacts) as against predicted impacts in the EIA Report and as related to current project operations.
ii. The detailed report on compliance to environmental standards specific to environmental laws shall be submitted thru the Self-Monitoring Report (SMR) as required by DAO No. 2003-27 on a quarterly basis to the concerned EMB RO.
iii. The semi-annual CMRs shall be submitted as Module 5 of the second and fourth quarter SMRs. Moreover, the second CMR shall include a simple trend analysis of the environmental standards and a summary of the cumulative annual and historical performance/compliance analysis on key environmental and social parameters, e.g. total areas successfully re/planted for the year and since project implementation; total local jobs generated; total population covered by IEC; total benefits given and total beneficiaries; total/% exceedances to standards; total violations and resolutions, etc.
iv. The First CMR shall be submitted mid-year after the start of project implementation. The Proponent notifies EMB on the start-up date of project implementation.
v. The Proponent may commission third party experts to undertake monitoring on its behalf. In such cases, respective notarized Sworn Accountability Statements similar to Annexes 2-21 and 2-22 shall be submitted to the EMB with the monitoring results. DENR-Recognized laboratories may also be availed of in the analysis of field samples.
i. Validate project compliance with the conditions stipulated in the ECC and the EMP;
ii. Validate Proponent's conduct of self-monitoring;
iii. Receive complaints, gather relevant information to facilitate determination of validity of complaints or concerns about the project and timely transmit to the Proponent and EMB recommended measures to address the complaint;
iv. Prepare, integrate & disseminate simplified validation reports to community stakeholders;
v. Make regular and timely submission of MMT Reports based on the EMB-prescribed format.
Annex 3-2 presents the generic Compliance Monitoring and Validation Report (CMVR) which shall serve as the MMT Report Form. The CMVR has to be customized by every MMT based on the project to be monitored. Considering that an EMB personnel is a member of the MMT, EMB can ensure that the quality and content of the MMT outputs may be such that these will be usable to the EQD/PCD in its evaluation of permit application and/or renewal. Thus, there may be no need for the latter to undertake separate validation of the Proponent's compliance report.
The CMVR shall be submitted semi-annually to the concerned EMB Regional Office, with the Proponent's CMR/SMR as attachment. Moreover, the second CMVR shall preferably present a qualitative desk-validation of the trend analysis report and cumulative environmental performance of the Proponent.
Only projects required an EIS are required to form project-specific Multi-partite Monitoring Team (MMT). However, for EIS-based projects with no resident communities within the direct impact areas AND are outside any LGU jurisdiction, the MMT requirement shall not be applicable. For these types of projects, concerns on environmental impacts/risks shown to potentially affect the nearest islands shall be referred by the DENR-EMB to the appropriate government agency with mandate and permitting authority over the management of such concerns (e.g. Philippine Coast Guard for projects entirely in national waters). Further, for projects with ECCs issued based on a PEPRMP and EPRMP, an authenticated ISO certification issued by BPS-accredited firms may be submitted in lieu of forming an MMT, on the condition that the projects have no significant opposition and have no current /pending violations.
i. For each project issued an ECC, primary responsibility is lodged with the EMB Regional Offices who shall implement the Project Environmental Monitoring and Audit Prioritization Scheme (PEMAPS), an internal EMB strategy for selecting and prioritizing projects to be subject to compliance monitoring, based on the EMB's evaluation and the Proponent's responses to the Environmental Risk Categorization Questionnaire attached as Annex 2-7d in this Manual. The PEMAPS considers four (4) key parameters: 1) potential of the process/ technology to cause impacts; 2) existence and profile of the pathway of impacts; 3) existence and profile of receptors; and 4) project environmental performance, particularly on received complaints and confirmed violations during the period of PEMAPS review.
ii. EMB shall form composite teams composed of EIAMD and PCD personnel to jointly evaluate the effectiveness of environmental management measures being implemented by the Proponent. No field monitoring or sampling need necessarily be undertaken by the team. Regardless of the PEMAPS environmental risk categorization of the project and its PEMAPS rating, a desk evaluation of the Proponent's SMR, preferably already validated by the MMT (for projects with MMT), shall be initially done to serve as the primary basis to determine need for field monitoring/sampling, particularly in relation to permit application or renewal. Any sampling activity shall be undertaken based on a coordinated schedule of the composite team, and the MMT (only if there is an existing MMT).
iii. To lessen redundancy in monitoring/sampling, EMB shall prioritize the inclusion of EQD/PCD personnel in MMT sectoral teams or committees where the key environmental stressors or impacts of the project fall within the mandate of the sectoral environmental laws such as RA 6969 (on toxic substances/hazardous wastes), RA 8749 (air quality) and RA 9275 (on water quality).
iii. EMB does not in any way delegate its authority or devolve its monitoring function to the MMT. The MMT's report shall be the one of the bases of the DENR-EMB's actions without prejudice to DENR-EMB's undertaking a validation of the events covered or leading to the issuance of the MMT Report. The EMB representative in the MMT shall only witness the MMT report so as not to pre-empt DENR-EMB deliberations and decisions on the MMT recommendations.
v. For projects with MMT, documentation by the EMB of its evaluation findings shall be through use the EMB Compliance Evaluation Report (CER) form in Annex 3-3, with the MMT's CMVR and the Proponent's CMR/SMR as attachments. The CER shall be prepared semi-annually, with the second CER including a summary evaluation of the trend analysis and cumulative environmental performance of the proponent, as validated by the MMT. The EMB Central Office shall provide policy guidance and, if necessary, technical assistance to the units concerned. The EMB CO shall also conduct periodic monitoring and validation performance audit.
vi. For projects without MMT, validation function shall likewise be the responsibility of the EMB RO. The same CER form (Annex 3-3) shall be used as template, with the CMVR form (Annex 3-2) to be filled-out by the EMB RO itself as basis for the summary evaluation. Both EMB-accomplished CMVR and Proponent's CMR/SMR will be attached to the CER.
Table 2-1. Monitoring, Validation and Evaluation/Audit Schemes
1The EMP (Environmental Management Plan) is composed of the Impacts Management Plan (IMP), the Social Development Plan (SDP), Information Education and Communication (IEC) Plan,
i. All DENR-EMB RO are enjoined to cluster, merge or integrate MMTs based on sectoral (e.g. project types) or spatial considerations (e.g. at the area, municipal, or provincial level) as may be appropriate.
ii. The streamlining of MMT shall be guided by the following guidelines:
iii. The guidelines on the composition of MMT may be refined or revised accordingly to correspond to the particular conditions and characteristics of the area where the integrated MMT will have jurisdiction.
i. MMTs of projects whose significant environmental impacts do not persist after the construction phase or which impacts could be addressed through the mandates of other government agencies (e.g., DOH for health, LGU for building/structural safety, MGB for geological aspects), shall be time bound or have a specific term which is not of the same length as the project life (for example, MMT will only be organized for the construction phase).
ii. The operations of MMT shall be terminated upon transmittal of recommendation to other government agencies at the project stage where significant environmental impacts no longer exists. In the case of roads and bridges projects, MMT functions shall be terminated after construction and once project Operation and Maintenance (O & M) is turned over to the responsible management authority/organization.
iii. MMT functions shall be terminated for projects upon completion and upon compliance with the abandonment plan.
Environmental Monitoring Fund (EMF) - The EMF is a fund that a proponent establishes in support of the activities of the MMT. Annex 3-5presents the EMF administration and management guidelines based on the framework agreed upon and specified in the MMT MOA.
Environmental Guarantee Fund (EGF) - : An EGF is required to be established for all co-located or single projects that have been determined by DENR to pose a significant public risk or where the project requires rehabilitation or restoration. Annex 3-6 presents prescribed EGF guidelines.
Monitoring of Projects issued CNCs and those previously Issued ECCs but Reclassified as Non-Covered under Annex 2-1b - Projects issued CNCs are not subject to monitoring under the EIS System. Similarly, projects issued ECCs under the old IRRs of P.D. 1586 but are now non-covered shall be relieved of their ECC commitments upon written confirmation by the EMB provided the Proponents do not have pending accountabilities. Environmental monitoring of these projects shall be under the purview of any or all of the following entities:
i. EMB-Pollution Control Division (PCD)/ Environmental Quality Division (EQD) in cases when the projects are covered by other environmental permitting requirements of the DENR-EMB such as permits for air/water pollution sources and facilities and/or permits for toxic substances/hazardous waste generation, storage, transport and disposal.
ii. Lead Government Agency, which has direct jurisdiction over the project, e.g. DOE's environmental unit for non-covered energy projects; MGB's environmental unit for non-covered mineral mining projects; DPWH's environmental unit for non-covered roads and bridges, etc.
iii. Other Government Agencies (GAs) who may have mandates over the project, e.g. Philippine Coast Guard's National Operations Center for Oil Pollution (NOCOP) for non-covered offshore energy projects;
iv. Local Government Units (LGUs) who have jurisdiction over the project area, especially in cases when there are no required DENR regional permits or other GA approvals cover the project.
Environmental Impact Assessment Division - Environmental Management Bureau