Sunday, November 1, 2009

Opportunities to Improve the Governance of the Electricity Sector: Selected Cases in Renewable Energy

by Alan S. Cajes

Note: This article was written as an output for the Electricity Governance Initiative Phase 2 implemented by the Ateneo School of Government, Ateneo de Manila University with funding support from the World Resources Institute. The paper reflects the opinion of the writer.


The Electricity Governance Initiative (EGI), a collaborative undertaking of the World Resources Institute (WRI) in partnership with the Prayas Energy Group (PEG) in Pune and the National Institute for Public Finance and Policy, developed The Electricity Governance Toolkit: Benchmarking Best Practice and Promoting Accountability in the Electricity Sector and published the pilot version in February 2005. The toolkit was used in conducting a pilot assessment of governance of the electricity sector in the Philippines. 

The key objectives were to gather primary and secondary data and identify the strengths and areas for improvement. The Academy’s Center for Sustainable Human Development was involved in the pilot assessment, focusing on the Environmental and Social Aspects (ESA).

The findings of the assessment team are summarized in the table shown below. For ESA, the sector is rated medium for transparency and access to information but rated lowest for accountability and redress mechanisms. Overall ESA rating is low middle.

Table 1. Overall ESA Rating for the Philippines
Governance Principle
Policy Processes
Regulatory Processes
Environmental and Social Aspects
Total Average Score
Transparency and access to information
Accountability and redress mechanisms
Total Average Score
Note: A rating of ‘not assessed’ yields a score of ‘0’, lowest = 1, low-middle = 2, medium = 3, medium-high = 4, highest = 5.

This paper focuses on the Environmental and Social Aspects (ESA) and uses selected cases of renewable energy projects to expound the governance principles. The objectives are to show concrete examples whether the environmental and social aspects are considered in the governance of the electricity sector and to pinpoint opportunities to enhance the governance of the said sector. 

The table below shows the 21 ESA indicators, together with the corresponding governance principles and rating.

Table 2. ESA Principles, Indicators and Ratings
Governance Principle
Access to Information and Transparency
1 - Clarity of authority and jurisdiction to grant environmental clearances/approvals for power sector projects
Access to Information and Transparency
2 - Clarity and transparency of the executive’s environmental and social mandates
Access to Information and Transparency
3 - Scope and transparency of the environmental and social mandates of the regulatory body
4 - Executive’s capacity to evaluate environmental and social issues
5 - Regulator’s capacity to evaluate environmental and social issues
6 - Legislative committee’s capacity to assess environmental and social issues
7 - Public participation in setting minimum environmental performance standards
8 - Inclusion of environmental consideration in the national plan for the electricity sector
9 - Inclusion of environmental consideration in sector reform process
10 - Public participation requirements in environmental impact assessment laws and procedures
11 - Comprehensiveness   of EIA laws, policies and procedures
Accountability and Redress Mechanisms
12 - Regulatory response to environmental and social petitions or complaints
Not applicable/ assessed
13 - Electricity provider engagement with civil society organizations and potentially-affected populations
14 - Capacity of civil society to address the environmental and social aspects of decision-making
Accountability and Redress Mechanisms
15 - Quality of the judicial or administrative forums that address environmental and social claims
Accountability and Redress Mechanisms
16 - Accessibility of   the judicial or administrative forums that address environmental and social claims
Accountability and Redress Mechanisms
17 - Assessment of job losses linked to policy changes or sector reforms in the electricity sector
18 - Participation in   decision-making about access to electricity
19 - Scope for project-affected people to exercise their rights
20 - Participation in   decision-making related to affordability of electricity prices
21 - Participation in   development of policies to promote low environmental impact technologies and management


The ESA indicators are relevant given that energy is a “crucial commodity,” which could serve as an “instrument for poverty reduction and social equity,” and given the “environmental dimensions of energy policies”[1].

As a crucial commodity, it may be pointed out that the cost of commercial electricity in the country at 13.58 US cents/kWh in June 2005 was higher compared to countries like Indonesia (at 12.53), Singapore (10.58), Lao PDR (10.49), Vietnam (9.79), Bangladesh (8.62), China (8.24), Malaysia (7.74), Thailand (7.19) and Brunei (3.10) although lower compared to Cambodia (20.00), Japan (17.54), India (14.37), and Hongkong (13.89)[2]. In the same period, the country’s residential electricity rate at 14.43 US cents/kWh was second only to Cambodia (at 15.18) and higher than the rates of India (at 8.47), Hongkong (12.99), IndonesiaSingapore (10.59), Lao PDR (10.49), Vietnam (9.86), Bangladesh (8.20), Malaysia (5.78) and Thailand (8.65)[3]. (10.10),

It is not difficult to see the possible negative impact of the high cost of electricity to the competitiveness of Philippine industries, as well as to the purchasing power of the households. The situation is aggravated by the “projected power supply shortages in Mindanao by 2009, Visayas by 2010 and Luzon by 2012” if the required new capacity is not installed in the next four years[4].

From an environmental perspective, the country’s energy-related carbon dioxide emission, based on 2003 estimates, is 72 million metric tons, of which oil contributed 66 percent, coal contributed 26 percent, and natural gas contributed seven percent. The estimated per capita energy-related dioxide emission is 0.9 metric tons, which is a bit lower than India’s one metric ton per capita and much lower than Thailand’s 3.4 metric tons per capita[5]. Although the Philippine Energy Plan (PEP) extensively discusses programs to mitigate hydrogen sulfide emissions from geothermal plants, no parallel intensive discussion is made to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal, gas and oil plants. In fact, the PEP projects an increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 68.5 percent between 2004 and 2014.

2.1 Relevance of the ESA Indicators to Renewable Energy

In 2004, geothermal and hydropower plants contributed 14 and 20 percent, respectively, to the total installed capacity mix[6]. Under the 2005 PEP update, the Department of Energy (DOE) aims to double the country’s renewable energy-based capacity, as provided under the Renewable Energy Policy Framework (REPF). The identified technologies are those that will harness energy from water, biomass, sunlight and wind.

There are realities, however, that must be confronted when promoting renewable energy RE) technologies. Says former DOE Secretary Raphael Lotilla:

“One, the reality of the high upfront cost of renewable energy. Second, the limitations as to site-specificity of many of the renewable sources of energy available to us. Thus in order to be able to tap the geothermal resources of this country, we’ve had to build expensive transmission lines connecting the different islands of the country to bring the energy supply from the source to the markets. And third, of course, the limitations themselves on the availability of renewable energy. Given the present state of technology, the amount of renewable energy available to the Philippines as a whole would not be adequate to meet the needs of a growing economy”[7].

Lotilla told his audience that the Philippines has made a decision to invest in RE and cleaner energy projects although “fullest assistance” is required “in order to be able to move forward significantly on this front” because RE projects “right now are costing us 2.5 to 3 times the cost of conventional sources of energy”[8].

Another challenge that the electricity sector faces is the difficulty of convincing the stakeholders, especially the communities, that the energy sector can meet the environmental standards of the government. As Lotilla emphasized:

“[t]he burden of showing or convincing our communities that indeed they can rely both on government and on private sector to be responsible in the implementation of environmental laws and standards is a burden that lies not on the community but upon us. And so here we need to harness the academic and scientific community that will allow us to give enough information to the communities that would give them a higher level of comfort as to the ability of the government and private sector to live up to the highest standards of environmental protection. This is a major challenge for us, but definitely it is not an impossible task”[9].

2.2 Considerations in Implementing RE Projects

Even for rural communities that may not be connected to the grid, the use of RE technologies in such areas should not only be aimed to provide electricity to the households, “but should also achieve measurable improvements in terms of addressing the poverty-environment nexus identified as both a source and a symptom of underdevelopment[10].” Thus, there is a need to design RE projects based on previous performance in the use of such technologies. Some of the lessons learned from the experiences of development institutions, such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank (WB), in several countries, including the Philippines, draw attention to the need to: “(i) provide microfinance options for technologies with high front-end costs like solar photovoltaic energy systems; (ii) understand the market characteristics of renewable energy, including the willingness and capability of the poor to pay; and (iii) build capacity among stakeholders.[11]

Take the case of the use of solar cells or photovoltaic (PV) devices that convert sunlight into electricity. This technology “is most competitive” in far-flung communities that are not connected to the grid and do not require large supply of electricity[12]. The ADB designed a pilot project in Afghanistan that would show the following:

·         Improvement in the quality of life;
·         Successful program implementation through community-based approaches, and
·         Achievement of “sustainable human development” by enabling the communities to manage the technology.

The project’s design is primarily based on the assumption that the technology does not only provide “an appropriate solution for heating, cooking, and lighting in rural areas, but also contributes significantly to progress in education, health, agriculture, and rural industry and other income generation activities that could help reduce poverty.[13]

Although PV has been shown to be feasible, there are limited case studies that “directly resulted in tangible and measurable improvements in the income of poor communities on any significant scale.[14]” ADB cites the following as among the probable causes:

·         The high initial costs of technology, which the poor cannot afford;
·         The limited number of locally relevant productive applications suitable for alternative energy;
·         The poor communities’ limited or no access to supply markets;
·         The absence of efficient technology service providers and of suitable projects in remote areas that could be bankable through financial institutions; and
·         The lack of support from the central energy ministries, because their mandate is energy provision and not income generation for the poor[15].

2.3 Lessons Learned from Philippine Experience[16]

As of February 2003, about 5,409 or 18 percent of the country’s 41,999 barangays were still unelectrified. The country’s target is one hundred percent electrification of barangays by 2006. Since 1,671 or about 30 percent of the non-energized barangays have little or no prospect to be connected to the grid system, the government pursued the use of new and renewable energy (NRE) technologies to provide these areas with electricity.

As a matter of policy, the government decided to “facilitate the energy sector’s transition to a sustainable system with NRE as an increasingly prominent, viable, and competitive fuel option.” By the end of 2001, the country had “5,120 solar and 380 wind installations with contribution equivalent to about 0.3 million barrels of fuel equivalent (MMBFOE). From 1999 to 2001, about 1,000 barangays were electrified using NRE technologies including solar, micro-hydro, and hybrid systems.”

When the government sough ADB’s technical and financial assistance in 2002 to rehabilitate the RE projects in the country, the DOE has set as a long-term goal a 100 percent increase in NRE-based capacity over a ten-year period, i.e., by 2012. By 2012, the NRE contribution, specifically from solar, wind and ocean energy, was planned to reach three (3) MMBFOE. As early as 2002, the government has set the following targets:

·         Be the top geothermal energy producer in the world;
·         Be the top wind energy producer in Southeast Asia;
·         Double its hydro capacity by 2012; and
·         Expand the contribution of biomass, solar, micro-hydro, and ocean by 250 megawatts.

The government’s strategy to achieve the target includes accelerating the promotion and commercialization of NRE systems. The DOE also set up the NRE program with the following objectives:

·         Reduce poverty;
·         Enhance energy self-sufficiency;
·         Encourage private sector investment and participation, and
·         Reduce emissions by applying cleaner energy systems.

In addition, the DOE pursued the “gift of light” program, which was intended to provide electrification to all barangays and to provide the necessary rural infrastructure through NRE technologies. There were 1,500 barangays that were programmed to be electrified using NRE systems.

According to ADB, the country’s NRE project interventions are to a large extent dependent on the support by the development financing agencies, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), WB, and bilateral agencies such as the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These agencies have financed NRE technologies like solar, wind, and mini-hydro projects. To streamline and better coordinate these initiatives, DOE is presently implementing the Capacity Building for Renewable Energy Development (CBRED) project, which is funded by UNDP.

An estimated $100 million worth of NRE projects have been carried out in the Philippines since 1970. The projects were mostly initiated by funding agencies. These projects are technology-based. About 20 to 25 percent of these projects was rated as “less than successful”. Some of the projects, including the ADB-financed mini-hydro schemes in the early 1980s, were rated partly successful by the project performance audit report.

The reasons for failure are divided into the following categories:
·         Institutional problems, including improper management schemes;
·         Lack of stakeholder mobilization and beneficiary participation;
·         Technical problems, including lack of skill and spare parts for operation and maintenance as well as technology obsolescence; and
·         Financial problems, including high initial and maintenance cost, and high tariffs for consumers.

The ADB, however, noted the recently increasing number of successful NRE projects in the Philippines. The key factor that contributed to project success “is the close collaboration of the beneficiary communities, non-government organizations (NGOs), and private sector for the resource assessment, project design, construction, management, operation, and maintenance of the established NRE systems and related livelihood activities.” It also emphasized the need for future projects to “ensure productive use and sustainable operation of the installed NRE systems” by developing “a renewable energy-based community livelihood opportunities, such as installation of rice mills to increase the value from rice production, mini-ice plants for cold storage of fish products, and provision of skills and training, identification of potential markets, and marketing of products from such livelihood projects.”

Based on the assessment of 106 projects, visits to 23 project sites and workshops with stakeholders, a Technical Assistance Team from ADB came up with the following findings:

·         Most projects were unsuccessful due to non-adherence to standards and specifications in equipment installation; weak management structure and ineffective after sales service; and lack of ownership and interest in the project due to negligible monetary or non-monetary benefits;
·         Physical rehabilitation, community preparation and facilitation for livelihood linkages were demonstrated for one Solar Battery Charging Station (SBCS) in barangay Bunog in Palawan, and for the twin Micro-Hydro Plants (MHP) in barangays Talalang and Secec-an in Kalinga;
·         Capacity building of the involved stakeholders was facilitated for one more MHP in barangay Malabog, Davao and one hybrid      (solar-wind-diesel) project in barangay Atulayan in Camarines Sur that can be rehabilitated in the near future;
·         The main components of the rehabilitation program are: “(i) system redesign, retrofitting, and reinstallation; (ii) leveraging TA funds with that of local governments, entrepreneur and communities to ensure stakeholder commitment and ownerships; (iii) developing local capacity to manage the projects by selecting, training, and contracting women entrepreneurs in case of SBCS and the local rural energy service company for the MHP to operate and maintain the rehabilitated facilities; and (iv) identifying and facilitating livelihood options linked with the provision of electricity to ensure that NRE projects bring direct benefit to the community.[17]

In summary, the lessons derived from the country’s experience in implementing NRE projects point to the following:

·         The need to establish a proper scheme to manage the project;
·         Proper mobilization of the stakeholders and participation of the beneficiaries in all phases of the projects;
·         Ensuring the viability of the technology by building up the capability of the beneficiaries to operate and maintain the technology, and
·         Ensuring financial viability given the high initial and maintenance cost of the technology and the high tariffs for consumers by providing livelihood projects.


The ESA governance principles include access to (a) information and transparency, (b) capacity, (c) participation and (d) accountability and redress mechanisms. Each of the governance principle has indicators as shown in Table 2.

3.1 Principle of Transparency and Access to Information

31.a Brief Description

This principle promotes meaningful decision-making by ensuring the transparency and clarity of decisions related to the granting of environmental compliance certificates and/or permits for power sector projects. This also helps in enabling relevant government agencies or bodies to clarify and communicate their environmental and social roles and mandates to the stakeholders.

3.1b Microhydro power project (MHP) in Tinglayan, Kalinga[18]

The beneficiaries of a 33 kW MHP installed in 1999 in Kalinga live in the three upland villages of Tulgao East, Tulgao West (collectively referred to here as Tulgao) and Dananao, located within the municipality of Kalinga, north of the Cordillera Mountain Region in Northern Luzon. The three communities are neighbors and a steep valley, through which flows Bunog Creek, separates Dananao from the Tulgaos. Bunog Creek, from where the MHP system gets its energy, forms a natural boundary between the two tribes. During the dry months, Tulgao is accessible by a four-wheel-drive vehicle. Dananao is never accessible by vehicle, but can be reached by a four hour hike along another route from Tinglayan. It takes around one hour on foot from Dananao to Tulgao.

The two Tulgao villages have 213 households, while Dananao has a further 124 households. The total population is estimated at 1600 people. There has been a steady migration of people to Tinglayan, Bontoc and Tabuk seeking education, work and marriage.

The people in Tulgao belong to the Tulgao tribe and the people of Dananao to the Dananao tribe, both are part of the larger Kalinga ethno-linguistic group. Conflicts among tribes in Kalinga, where disputes commonly arise from border or territorial and resource issues, are nowadays settled through the peace pact. Tulgao and Dananao have a long tradition of rivalry and disputes over territory and, as recently as 1997, a border conflict broke out between the barangays. It is worth mentioning that since the conception and installation of the MHP, any disputes arising between the two villages have been resolved without violence.

There are rice-drying areas in both communities, and recently rice mills were installed that run on the electricity provided by the MHP. A sugar cane press was provided in 2002, but was unused until it was connected to the MHP in November 2003.

Indigenous cultural practices have been sustained in these villages despite the inroads of religion and other external influences. Community rituals covering each stage of rice production in both wet rice terraced farming and swidden, following the traditional agricultural calendar, are still strongly observed and enforced by traditional elders. Community cooperation remains relatively intact for certain traditional activities such as harvesting, forest protection, and emergency assistance to members of the tribe. This strong traditional cooperation has been tapped to build the community-based MHP. The differentiated roles of men and women in Tulgao and Dananao villages are rooted in the typical warrior culture of these indigenous societies.
Aside from agriculture, there are other activities that augment the income of families especially during the lean months of rice and food shortages. These include basket weaving, carpentry, construction or road-building and blacksmithing. Men and women also carry out waged labor on other farms.
In general, both men and women in these upland communities are involved heavily in economic and community work. But rice cultivation has defined roles for men and women in these upland villages. Building rice terraces, land preparation and the repair of rice terraces are in the male domain, although women provide assistance.

Swidden farming in Tulgao predominantly involves women, who play the major part in the production of legumes and vegetables. Traditionally, it is the women who sow the legume seeds, although men dig the holes for the seeds to be sown. Legumes are sold bywomen in nearby towns for cash. As in wet rice agriculture, women select and store the seeds for the following crop.
Most of the community affairs related to school, church and festivities involve both men and women. Decision-making is a shared role on matters pertaining to households, the family and children, church and school. The women were observed as being predominantly active in school and church concerns.

Community labor for waterworks construction is in the domain of men. In the case of the MHP, however, women shared in some of the manual tasks such as hauling. This was a result of the community mobilization invoked by the lead organizations for this innovative project.

The 33 kW community-based microhydro project (MHP) located in the cluster of remote and upland barangays of Tulgao East, Tulgao West and Dananao in Tinglayan, Kalinga have benefited the three barangays. This project had enabled them to work together in its installation and subsequent operation. SIBAT had undertaken the technical assistance for this project, which was initiated by EDNP and funded by KEEP of Japan. The Tulgao Farmers Association has been the core organization, which has owned the operation and management of the project from its conception onwards. Its members represent the community in this project.

The MHP project site, which provides electricity to the barangays of Tulgao East, Tulgao West and Dananao, was initially surveyed in 1997. The feasibility of the MHP project was established in 1998 which led to the construction of the system and its commissioning in 1999. Research conducted by SIBAT as part of the feasibility study in November 1997 showed that Kalinga was among the least-served provinces in CAR, with less than 16% of its barangays having an electricity supply. The nearest point on an electricity grid was more than 30 kilometers away from the communities and, moreover, operated by MOPRECO whose area of operation was limited to Mountain Province and so did not cover these three villages. The nearest point on KAELCO’s grid, the operator most likely to connect Tulgao and Dananao, was, in 1997, more than 70 kilometers (km) away. Further, discussions with members of these electricity cooperatives revealed that these communities were unlikely to be connected to the grid within the next 10-20 years due to the distances involved coupled with the rugged terrain, which made connection expensive. As of 1996, MOPRECO and KAELCO stated that the installation costs for transmission lines only was about PhP 450 000 per km. Thus, alternative energy sources for these barangays needed to be explored.

The energy consumption in the community before the installation of the MHP was primarily for lighting and cooking, with additional battery-powered flashlights and transistor radios used by some residents.
Each barangay had a small-capacity diesel generator, potentially useable to charge batteries, but the five households in the three barangays who did own rechargeable (car) batteries would take them to Tinglayan or Tabuk to be charged. The Anglican Church had a solar PV system for lighting and battery charging connected to the multi-purpose center in Tulgao West, site of the clinic and reading center.

A needs assessment yielded the community’s desire for better lighting. The reasons given for this emphasis were the cost of kerosene, and the dirty soot that it left behind in the houses. A rice mill was also said to be a good option, to reduce the workload of women and children.
The feasibility study showed that, on average, PhP 38 per month was spent on kerosene, by the minority who used it. The average monthly expenditure on saleng was given as PhP 79 per household per year.

The community’s roles in MHP’s development were through community mobilization and counterpart contributions in the form of labor and locally procured materials. A community plan was developed for the entire installation phase. The roles of the community, the church and SIBAT were outlined in the plan. The community organized various committees to organize the tasks relating to their counterpart role. A watershed preservation and enhancement project was also undertaken in cooperation with SIBAT, with thousands of pine tree seedlings successfully planted. However, this project was discontinued in 2003, just over half way through its planned duration of 2000-2004.

The microhydro project was officially inaugurated in November 2000, with festive ceremonies attended by representatives from many indigenous villages in Kalinga.

The project has been fully operational since then, except for an eight-month shutdown in 2003. The lead organizations involved in the project were the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Philippines (ENDP) and the Sibol ng Agham at Teknolohiya (SIBAT), which divided the tasks between them of organizing the community and providing technical assistance. The project was funded by the Kyosato Experimental Education Program (KEEP). The total investment cost was projected as PhP 2,587, 450, with the value of community work and materials provided locally estimated at PhP 293,000.

The microhydro project uses the energy of moving water to turn a turbine, like a water wheel, which turns a generator and so produces electricity. Bunog Creek has a typical flow of 0.17 m3/sec. It is also tapped for the community’s communal irrigation system. To achieve a 30kW power output, the flow was diverted to a forebay site from where it drops 40 m to the turbine. The powerhouse site is approximately 1.5 km from Tulgao and 1.2 km from Dananao.

The project fulfilled its objectives of providing enough electricity for lighting and small appliance use in over 300 households; as well as in community buildings such as the church, the school and the health clinic. Although the capacity of the system is 30kW, only 4-5kW is currently being used. Two rice mills were installed in 2002, and a sugarcane press in November 2003. These facilities are powered during the day, thus generating additional income for the community and reducing people’s workloads.

The target beneficiaries of the MHP were the entire communities of Tulgao East, Tulgao West and Dananao, comprising of 300 households, plus various communal buildings including the church, a multi-purpose hall, school and health clinics. In practice, the MHP was able to reach around 80 percent of the total population of the three communities. The number of beneficiaries has fluctuated due to the migration of some families to other places. Most of the households have one or two light bulbs in their houses linked to the system.

Some families chose to invest in appliances, and in total there are 21 families with 24 appliances. Aside from own entertainment use, the VHS and televisions are used as additional sources of income, with children in particular paying to watch videos. Payment is one pine pithwood (a log or piece of wood from a pine tree), used for fuel, per show. It was commented that this causes problems within the community as children steal the pithwood. Most of the families able to afford appliances had income from outside employment, such as teachers and government employees.

Most appliance purchases are related to entertainment rather than alleviating household chores. Only the rice cooker, the food grinder and the two washing machines can be seen as in the latter category, and just one sewing machine was bought for productive purposes.

The output from the microhydro plant is primarily used for lighting, with some small appliances, plus for processing farm produce with a rice mill and sugarcane press, and some blacksmithing (making farm implements). The system generally operates from 4.40 pm to 7 am (based on an agreed policy), and during the daytime if needed for the rice mill or lighting for the school. As agreed by the community, each household pays a monthly tariff of PhP 25 for their first 10W bulb and an additional PhP 5 for each extra bulb. For appliances, a household pays an additional PhP 30 per month per appliance.

The MHP is managed by the Board of Directors, and there is a Manager responsible for the day-to-day operations. The Board of Directors is composed of three women and four men. The Manager is the pastor of the Episcopal Church. The MHP has a staff comprising one cashier/bookkeeper, three fee collectors and two operators.

3.1.c Lessons Learned

The MHP enabled some households to pursue income-generating activities, such as tailoring and rice milling, reduced the gathering of pine pithwood, instilled environmental awareness of the importance of forests and their conservation, reduced the incidence of respiratory and eye diseases, and abated the conflict between the Tulgao and Dananao tribes. The single biggest negative impact of the project has been, as a result of the commercial use of Video Home Systems to show films, is stealing to get the PhP 5 (in cash or in kind) payment to watch a film. This problem, however, is currently being resolved through community policies.

The case does not say whether the project promoted meaningful decision-making by ensuring the transparency and clarity of decisions related to the granting of environmental compliance certificates and/or permits by the national, local and community decision points. It did not also show how it helped in enabling relevant government agencies or bodies to clarify and communicate their environmental and social roles and mandates to the stakeholders. No related project has been found to illustrate such attributes of the governance principle.

3.2 Principle of Access to Participation

3.2.a Brief Description of the Principle

There are many ways by which this principle can influence the process and content of decision-making. Based on the indicators, this principle can help in setting the minimum environmental performance standards of the electricity sector, integrating the environmental considerations in the national plans and reforms, and enhance the environmental impact assessment system. It can also facilitate the engagement of stakeholders by the electricity providers, particularly in such areas as access to electricity, exercise of stakeholders’ rights, affordability of electricity prices, and formulation of policies to ensure that the RE technology will nor cause significant negative impacts that cannot be mitigated.

3.2.b PV-battery charging in Malitbog, Southern Leyte

The PV-battery charging station is implemented in Malitbog, Southern Leyte, particularly in the two remote villages of New Katipunan and Cadaruhan Sur.Malitbog (13 km), from the town market (also 13 km) and also from the nearest city of Maasin (55 km), than Cadaruhan Sur. It remains two kilometers away from the nearest electricity grid whereas Cadaruhan Sur is now connected.

Women in the two target areas, just like the men, are involved in development activities and share livelihood tasks with them. Women are prominent in growing and harvesting root crops and cut flowers, small-scale selling in the neighborhood, and layering the single abaca twine. Women also appear to be the more dominant gender in meetings; they often represent the households while the men tend to the farming and other tasks.

The traditional role of women focuses primarily on the rearing of children – from feeding, babysitting, providing child care and health care, to tutoring and overseeing their activities in school, at church and in the community. Apart from this, they have to ensure that food is available at every mealtime, and then wash the dishes and pots. Matters regarding family size and the futures of their children are usually discussed between couples and are mutually agreed upon.

It was mainly the men who were involved in providing assistance in the installation of the PV system: due to the heavy nature of the work, the skills required and their experience such as in hauling materials and equipment and in the installation of lighting fixtures. The women took charge in the preparation of food for the workers. The tasks of collecting charging fees and monthly dues, and keeping records were assigned among the women. Further, the project involves women in the operation and maintenance of household systems since they decide when to switch the light on and off, maintain the battery by cleaning the surfaces and terminals and monitoring when the battery needs to be recharged.

Overall, income from livelihood activities is generally low in Cadaruhan Sur both before and after the electrification program, and average in New Katipunan since the electricity projects provided no benefits to the vegetable garden and farming activities except in abaca twining, which was extended by four to six hours at night time.
Assessment of project performance in each of the two barangays provides insights into the implementation of the project. This off-grid BEP in Malitbog, Southern Leyte, has established the need for sustainable livelihood projects to pay for the electricity. However, the availability of electricity and lighting extends working hours, which can be used for productive livelihood projects.

Before electrification, products were only stored for family use in both barangays. Afterelectrification, products were also stored for commercial purposes in Cadaruhan Sur and only for commercial purposes in New Katipunan. Both barangays need additional training for new livelihood skills. Although program participants have gained new skills, possibly in anticipation of livelihood expansion and initiating new livelihood activities, Cadaruhan and Katipunan villagers still need additional training for new livelihood activities, which offer a realistic promise of income.

Environmental protection has always been considered. DAR, DA and LGU representatives visit and monitor activities in the two barangays. However, no specific targets have been set for monitoring such as assessing community rubbish and human waste disposal, smoke pollution in charcoal making and tree planting along the cleared and sloping sides of the two dirt roads. Generally, the areas of Cadaruhan and Katipunan, as well as the residents, appear environment friendly.

The women expected that the project would extend their available hours for household chores while the men thought they would have more time to repair farm tools and that the children would have better lighting for studying. The community was looking forward to the project enabling families to be together while listening to their favorite radio program or watching TV shows. The newly created Barangay Power Association (BAPA), under the leadership of the LGU, was the overseer and decision-maker in the installation of the PV-BCS and in wiring households. The systems were installed by the supplier. Men were mostly involved in providing assistance in the installation due to the heavy nature of the work, and their skills and experience in areas such as hauling materials and equipment and installing lighting fixtures. The women, however, took charge of preparing food for the workers.

After the PV-BCS and household lighting fixtures were installed, the BAPA was responsible for the operation and maintenance of the systems through hired technicians who were trained by the supplier to do simple repairs and troubleshooting. However, the task of collecting charging fees and monthly dues and record keeping were assigned to women. Further, the project has involved women in the operation and maintenance of the household systems since it is they who decide when to switch the lights on and off, and look after their battery by cleaning the surfaces and, terminals, and monitoring its condition to determine when it is to be recharged.

3.2.c Lessons Learned

The beneficiaries of the project are involved in the installation, operation, and maintenance of the PV system. Although the project had one clear positive benefit, i.e., the extension of abaca twinning by four to six hours per day, it contributed little, if any, in increasing the income of the beneficiaries. The two beneficiary barangays need training on new livelihood skills. Similar projects in other areas, such as the Batanes Alternative Energy and Enhancement Project, do not show details of the income-generating activities. Accordingly, “it is not clear that community solar battery charging stations save households money over regular battery use. Batteries still must be purchased and replaced regularly. However, if residents previously traveled far to a grid-based charging station, the travel time and costs may be eliminated.[19]

Although the stakeholders have always considered environmental protection as important, no specific target has been set for monitoring. The case also does show how the stakeholders were engaged in identifying the PV system, determining the electricity charges, and in formulating local policies to sustain the project.

3.3 Principle of Capacity

3.3.a Brief Description of the Principle

This principle refers to the government’s ability to provide the public with access to mechanisms related to environment and social decision-making, such as the environmental impact assessment system, and the ability of stakeholders, particularly the civil society organizations, to make use of such mechanisms. Its attributes include the “capacity of government and official institutions to act autonomously and independently; the availability of resources (both human and financial) to provide access; as well as the capacity of civil society (particularly NGOs and the media) to analyze the issues and participate effectively[20].”

3.3.b NorthWind Bangui Bay Project

The NorthWind Bangui Bay Project is a 33 MW (Phase I 24.75 MW and Phase II 8.25 MW) wind power plant located in Bangui Bay, Province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines. Plant production, at a projected load factor of 30%, is expected to produce in annual electricity generation of approximately 86.7 GWh. The project is expected to displace grid electricity generated from fossil fuels and thus avoid 56,788 tCO2e (tons of carbon dioxide equivalent), or 397,516 tCO2e over the first 7-year crediting period.

The first turbine was erected on March 12, 2005. The first turbine went on line, under testing conditions, and delivering the first electrical energy generated by the plant to Ilocos Norte Electric Cooperative (INEC), on April 13, 2005. Commissioning of the first 15 wind turbines under Phase I project occurred on May 28, 2005 when these units completed their initial 100 hour reliability performance. The Conditional “Taking Over Certificate” was issued to the wind farm contractor on June 20, 2005 for the operating turbines and the 30 MVA sub-station and the 69 kV Transmission Line. Phase II of the project is scheduled to be commissioned end 2007.

The project falls under Sectoral Scope #1 for Renewable Energy, with Project Activity described as “Grid-connected renewable power generation; electricity addition from a wind power project.”

The Project’s Sustainable Development Monitoring Plan (“SDMP”) covers the project’s area of influence and inhabitants. Based on audit findings, the project has provided silt barriers/canals around the earth excavations and boulders and placed excavated sands away from the tidal zone during construction to prevent possible silting of coral reefs. During construction, 80 percent of the workers were local residents. Other mitigation measures include the adoption of Transco Compensation Guidelines for possible damage to private properties, provision of safe oil and grease equipment and grease and oil monitoring, monitoring of bird collisions, and preparation of a social development plan.

As benefit to the host community, NorthWind has to remit one-centavo per kWh sold to DOE, which will disburse the amount according to the following: 50 percent of PhP 0.12/kwh for electricity fund, 25 percent of PhP 0.12/kwh for development and livelihood plan, and 25 percent of PhP 0.12/kwh for reforestation, watershed management, health and/or environment enhancement fund.

Emission reduction (tCO2) has also been documented and verified in 2005 and 2006 GHG displacements are estimated at 46,960 tons/year for CO2, 802 tons/year for SO2, and 1602 SPM/year.[21]

A five percent discount to the “effective cost of delivered electricity” based on the cost of electricity generated by NPC and TransCO cost of delivering the electricity to INEC will be the savings of the electricity consumers of INEC. The direct benefits to the Provincial Government of Ilocos Norte include REM and Chattel Mortage Registration Fees of PhP 10 million, about PhP 3.5 million real estate taxes to the Municipality of Bangui, business tax of about PhP 1.5 million per year, about PhP 750 thousand per year to host communities, direct employment for the local population, savings from the consumers of electricity in the Province, and a landmark commemorating Ilocos Norte’s position on global warming and environmental protection.[22]

In 2006, the NorthWind Bangui Bay Project generated savings in the amount of approximately US$ 1.4 million (PHP 70 million) for the electricity consumers of INEC.

Primary funding of the Bangui Bay wind project is through the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) , which provided a concessional loan sourced from ABN-AMRO and Nordea Bank of Copenhagen, Denmark, amounting to US$ 29.35 million. The loan is guaranteed by the Philippine Export-Import Agency (PhilExim)[23].

The DENR issued its first Letter of Approval in December 2005 to the NorthWind Bangui Bay Project, confirming that this project activity meets the national criteria for sustainable development. The Project is the first commercial wind power project in the country and in the ASEAN Region, and the first of its kind to be connected to the Philippine main.

The local stakeholders regarded the “project favorably due to the anticipated economic benefits in terms of increased investments, additional tax revenues, improved employment opportunities and transfer of technology… Unquestionably, the project catalyzes the growth in investments, tourism and commerce in the area and the Philippines as a whole and thus instills a greater sense of national identity, pride and commitment among Filipinos[24].”

3.3.c Lessons Learned

The Project’s designated operational entity, Det Norske Veritas Certification Ltd. (DNV), has found out that comments from the local stakeholders “were invited according to the Philippines Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirements. No major concerns were raised. Public stakeholders’ input has also been invited via the UNFCCC website, and no comments have been received”[25].

The Project was issued an environmental compliance certificate (ECC) #01 04 04-23 0027-0802 dated 23 April 2004 (Batching plant during construction), ECC#011 00 12-18 0036-1405 dated 18 Dec 2000 (Wind farm), and ECC #01 04 04-23 0024-1404 dated 23 April 2004 (Transmission Line and Sub-station).

The case shows at least two mechanisms by which the public can participate in environmental and social decision-making related to the wind project, namely, the environmental impact assessment system and comments system using the UNFCCC website. It, does not show, however, how the stakeholders used such mechanisms. It also does not indicate whether the stakeholders, such as civil society organizations and media, have the capacity to analyze the issues and participate effectively.

3.4 Principle of Accountability and Redress Mechanisms

3.4.a Brief Description of the Principle

This principle is necessary to hold public and private sectors answerable to the public as regards environmental and social petitions or complaints. It is necessary to ensure that stakeholders can protect their rights to information and participation, as well as challenge decisions that do not take their interests into account. It helps take into consideration the quality and accessibility of the judicial and administrative remedies for environmental and social claims, especially the potential social and environmental repercussions of policy changes or sectoral reforms.

3.4.b Planned Production of Biodiesel from Jatropha for Power Plants[26]

The Philippine Forest Corporation is a wholly government owned and controlled corporation; a subsidiary of the Natural Resources Development Corporation of DENR tasked to undertake agro-reforestation projects and mandated to derive economic productivity out of idle lands. It adapted a simple framework that represents the critical parameters of its program to create economic productivity that can be appreciated by serious investors and farmers as well.

As part of its mandate, Phil Forest shall work with industry stakeholders and partners (farmers, ranchers, woodlot owners, agro-forestry product buyers and producers, families) to achieve a vision of dynamic, self-sustaining and productive development by providing beneficiaries, as well as other stakeholders, access to capital and investments, identifying technologies, and building marketing capabilities to make available every opportunity for economic productivity, long term sustainability and proper ecological stewardship.

Its main goal is to provide assistance to the landless poor, first in acquiring tenurial rights and subsequently in providing support services to its beneficiaries. Through this framework, Phil Forest seeks to transform idle lands and unemployed citizens to productive lands and productive people that will ultimately result in transforming the economy of the Philippines.

Phil Forest is inviting the public to participate in their program to create productivity out of the vast idle lands in the country. It currently holds the rights to an initial area of 375,091 hectares of public forest lands, evidenced by a Memorandum of Agreement with the DENR signed last Sept. 1, 2006, which it will bid out to potential investors that are classified as follows: Landless Families, Small and Medium Enterprises, Cooperatives, NGOs, Single-Proprietorships and Entrepreneurs, Partnerships and Corporations, Industrial Plantation Developers, Local Corporations, and Foreign-owned corporations. This is part of an initial 2,000,000 hectares that will be transferred over a period of time.

Phil Forest, under its “Lupang Hinirang Program” and operating on the basis of the MOA with DENR, will begin distributing usufructuary rights to potential shareholders through auction process.

Phil Forest will conduct the identification, delineation and parcelarization of lands in preparation for the auction of lease-hold rights where the public, including government employees, are included. It likewise seeks to “auction” lease rights for Land to be Developed by potential developers to different types of investors.

Under the Transaction Structure of the 25-year Lease Agreement between Phil Forest and its lessees, Phil Forest retains legal ownership and/or management of the land, leases out the rights to develop the land, helps the lessee to acquire necessary permits from DENR to develop the land, and takes over the land if the Lessee defaults on the agreement to develop. The Lessee shall be the Highest-winning Bidder for the land, obtain the final approval for their Full Development Plan, implement the development plan, construct and install necessary assets, and handle the overall management of the project.

Pre-qualification criteria and requirements for different investor packages are as follows: between 1 to 10 hectare development size for individuals and farmers (family package), 11 to 500 has. for corporations, partnerships, single-proprietorships and cooperatives (SME package), and 501 has. and above for legal and foreign corporations (industrial package).

For the family package, the reserve price is PhP 500 per hectare and the minimum amount of development cost is PhP 1,000 per hectare. For the SME package, the reserve price is PhP 500 per hectare and the minimum amount of the development cost if PhP 20,000 per hectare. For the industrial package, the reserve price is the same but the minimum amount of development cost is PhP 40,000 per hectare.

According to Irwin Santos, former officer-in-charge of Phil Forest, the corporation is working on a project to produce biodiesel, which will be sold to Napocor to displace its bunker oil requirements for power plants. Phil ForestPhil Forest will provide PNOC with the jatropha seeds from the lessees[27]. According to Phil Forest, jatropha grows throughout the country, thrives even with little water, and can be grown quickly even in adverse land conditions. It has a productive age of 35 to 50 years and can start yielding fruits and seeds on the 10th month of its planting. will come up with an agreement with PNOC for the refinery.

Phil Forest estimates the cost of jatropha plant management at PhP 41,394 per one (1) hectare plantation using seedling as planting source. The operating expenses are PhP 25,916 for the first year, and PhP 15,516 per year onwards. The IRR is placed at 30 percent with NPV (@12%) of PhP 83,887. The payback period is four (4 ) years, while the yield threshold is up to 40 percent.

Phil Forest signed a Memorandum of Agreement with DENR-ERDB to qualify and estimate the amount of Carbon Sequestration of the Jatropha curcas L. plant species for purposes of the aforestation/reforestation methodology of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Phil Forest’s plantations will be submitted as potential CDM projects before the upcoming commitment period in 2008. On June 25, 2006, Phil ForestState Colleges and Universities (SUCS). The contract covers capability building for Jatropha nursery establishment and plantation. On October 9, 2006, Phil Forest contracted the University of Santo Tomas to conduct studies on the optimization of oil extraction and production of biodiesel through the esterification process. signed the Memorandum of Agreement on Research and Development of Biofuels for Enterprise Development with 17

3.4.c Lessons Learned

Phil Forest plans to use crude Jatropha oil (CJO) extracted from Jatropha to produce Jatropha methyl ester (JME) based on trans-esterification with methanol, and to use the resulting Jatropha biodiesel fuel (JME-BDF) as a substitute for diesel fuel. Assuming that JME-BDF is carbon neutral, combusting it as fuel does not entail the discharge of CO2. The planned project, therefore, has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions.

It is not clear, however, how the jatropha oil will be extracted and collected from the lessees. There is also no information about the location of the JME-BDF production plant, and how JME-BDF will be distributed and at what cost. There are no copies of the project feasibility study and business plan that can be consulted. The interview also did not yield such information, although Mr. Santos said that the corporation has a feasibility study. The corporation’s Primer for jatropha plantation does not mention as reference its feasibility study. The Primer discusses mainly the agronomy side. Very briefly, it states that based “on the experience of India, 3 kilos of Jatropha seeds can produce 1 liter of crude Jatropha oil”.

According to Mr. Santos, Phil Forest has no environmental impact assessment study for any of its existing and proposed projects. Since there is no information as regards the total number of hectares that will be planted to jatropa, rated capacity of the JME-BDF production plant, as well as the construction of oil refining facilities and chemical storage facilities, it is difficult to determine the category of the proposed project under the country’s environmental impact statement system. It is also difficult to state the significant positive and negative impacts of the proposed undertaking.
Similar proposals in other countries point to the fact that the financial validity of this type of project does not approximate that of a general commercial direct investment undertaking. If the project is pursued without emission trading, it is deemed as not commercially viable.

Surprisingly, the corporation claims that the IRR of the investment is at 30 percent and the payback period is four (4) years. Its Primer on Jatropha for Biodiesel, however, states that the “return of investment ranges from 0.90 - 0.95 while payback period is between 2nd to 3rd year”. A review of a similar project in Tanzania[28]. showed that the financial IRR would be less than eight (8) percent

In summary, the case presented does not provide information regarding the corporation’s accountability to the public as regards its environmental and social performance given the absence of environmental impact assessment of its programs and projects. The public is left with judicial action as possible remedy for environmental and social claims, if there is any. It is also difficult for the stakeholders to determine the environmental and social viability of the programs and projects given the absence of project feasibility studies and business plans[29].


4.1 Lessons Learned in relation to the Philippine Agenda 21 Principles

The Philippine Agenda 21 adheres to 15 principles of sustainable development. About nine of these principles are related to the lessons learned from the reviewed RE projects. The principles and the corresponding key lessons learned are as follows:

·         Primacy of developing the full potential of the human being. Connecting households to the grid or an alternative system is providing a social service and an opportunity to contribute to human well-being in the form of CO2 reduction, natural resources regeneration, etc.;

·         Holistic science and appropriate technology. Choosing the right technology based on the needs or requirements of the target partner-beneficiaries, as well as the available resources;

·         Cultural, moral and spiritual sensitivity. Designing projects that nurture local or indigenous knowledge, practices, beliefs, ethics, particularly in areas where there are indigenous communities, people having the same religions affiliation, etc.;

·         Self-determination. Integrating this principle in the design of social preparation activities to ensure a meaningful and enlightened stakeholders’ participation;

·         Gender sensitivity. Recognizing the important and complementary roles of both men and women in the establishment, operation and maintenance of an NRE system;

·         Participatory democracy. Improving the capacity of stakeholders and interest groups to effectively participate in decision-making processes and take advantage in utilizing the participatory mechanisms;

·         Institutional viability. Providing capacity-building interventions to improve the ability of communities or people’s organizations to manage an NRE system as an enterprise;

·         Viable, sound and broad-based economic development. Purposive and planned identification of opportunities to earn additional income as a result of the availability of electricity in the community, and

·         Ecological soundness. Instilling environmental protection, rehabilitation and stewardship in communities, especially in areas where there are microhydro projects.

4.2 Governance and Ecology

These lessons imply that the value of the ESA indicators to governance, in general, is in answering the question: How to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs? This fundamental problem involves two components: One, the ecological problem, which covers the degradation of the ecological systems and reduction in the natural capital stock, and two, the political problem, which includes ineffective governance. The juxtaposition of the terms "ecology" and "governance" is, therefore, both meaningful and relevant considering that among "the most urgent tasks of our time is to understand the implications of ecology for social and political thought[30]." Here, governance is being summoned to address the ecological problem. On the other hand, ecology, both as a science and a paradigm, is seen as a philosophy that can enhance the art and science of governance.

It is clear that the basic problem has something to do with governance, which may be defined as "the capacity of the institutional environment" to manage the interaction among and between individuals and social groups, as well as the public agencies[31]. Robert N. Stavins explains the relevance of governance to ecological issues:

"The fundamental question that needs to be addressed by public policy in the area of environmental protection as we move into the next century is 'What is the appropriate role of government?' This question emerges along three fundamental dimensions in relation to environmental protection... (1) What is the appropriate degree of government activity; (2) what form should government activity take, and (3) what level of government should be delegated responsibility[32]?"

As early as 1994, it has been observed that "contemporary societies are unprepared for global transformations, and present forms of governance are in varying degrees obsolete and not equipped to cope with the needs and opportunities now emerging." Thus, novel approaches are needed to deal with the recent manifestations of traditional problems like "what constitutes 'the good life' and how governance should promote it.[33]"

Starting in the late 90s, it has become customary to compare the performance of the different countries using selected indicators that have governance and ecological dimensions. The 2008 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), for instance, centers on two broad environmental protection objectives, namely, reducing environmental stresses on human health, and promoting ecosystem vitality and sound natural resource management[34]. The Philippines is ranked 61st (the higher, the better) with a score of 77.9. Thailand is ranked 53rd with a score of 79. Vietnam places 76th. In the 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), ThailandPhilippines and Vietnam ranked 77th and 127th, respectively[35]. was ranked 73rd, with the

The recent Human Development Report (1007/2008) of UNDP ranks the Philippines 90th and falls within the medium human development classification. Thailand is 78th, while Vietnam places 105th, but still in the same classification[36].

Comparative assessment of country performance requires governments to understand their strengths, as well as identify and exploit opportunities for improvement to make their ratings higher in the long term. Understanding the ESA indicators and using them within the framework of performance excellence in the electricity sector are, therefore, opportunities that must not be forgotten because governance generally "impacts directly on the lives of poor people who are less able to avoid the adverse consequences of poor governance and therefore bear a disproportionate share of the ill effects of systems and structures of governance that do not reflect their interest[37]."

[1] From the presentation of Usec. Mariano S. Salazar entitled “The Philippine Energy Situation, Oil Price Rise and Climate Change” presented during the ADB Conference on November 16, 2007.
[2] Senate of the Philippines-Senate Economic Planning Office, Electric Power at a Glance, July 2005, no pagination.
[3] Ibid. There were no data presented for Japan, China and Brunei for residential electricity rates.
[4] Ibid. Based on the forecasts of the Department of Energy, an additional 9,225 MW of new capacity is needed to prevent the power supply shortages.
[5] United States Department of Energy, Country Analysis Briefs, November 2006.
[6] Senate of the Philippines-Senate Economic Planning Office
[7] Raphael Lotilla, Sustainable Development and Energy: Energy for All; All for Energy, a speech delivered at the Opening of the “Asia Clean Energy Forum: Policy and Finance Solutions for Energy Security and Climate Change” on 26 June 2007 at ADB Headquarters, Manila, Philippines)
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Asian Development Bank, Technical Assistance to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for Poverty Reduction and Rural Renewable Energy Development (Financed by the Poverty Reduction Cooperation Fund), December 2004, p. 2
[11] Asian Development Bank, Technical Assistance to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for Poverty Reduction and Rural Renewable Energy Development (Financed by the Poverty Reduction Cooperation Fund), December 2004, p. 3)
[12] United Nations Environment Programme, Energy Technology Fact Sheet available at (last viewed on August 7, 2007, 9:57 PM).
[13] Asian Development Bank, Technical Assistance to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan for Poverty Reduction and Rural Renewable Energy Development (Financed by the Poverty Reduction Cooperation Fund), December 2004, p. 3
[14] Ibid., p. 2
[15] Ibid.
[16] This part of the paper is taken liberally from Asian Development Bank, Technical Assistance (Financed by the Danish Cooperation Fund for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in Rural Areas) to the Republic of the Philippines for the Rehabilitation of Renewable Energy Projects for Rural Electrification and Livelihood Development, September 2003, pp. 1-2
[17] Asian Development Bank, Technical Assistance Completion Report, TA 4174-PHI: Rehabilitation of Renewable Energy Projects for Rural Electrification and Livelihood Development, no date, no pagination
[18] A lot has been said about the Casecnan hydroelectric project. In the final report of the electricity governance initiative assessment team, the team used the 150 megawatts (MW) hydroelectric plant and irrigation control facility on the Casecnan and Taan rivers. The project was conceptualized as early as 1983. It was issued an ECC in 1995 by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) – about a decade earlier when the assessment team completed its study. Large-scale hydro projects generally have significant negative environmental impacts, especially if they are built as part of large dam projects. Due to the environmental impacts of such projects, hydro projects nowadays focus on smaller-scale projects. These projects generally have less than ten MW generating capacity. These include mini-hydro that has less than one MW, micro-hydro with less than 100 kilowatts (kW), and pico-hydro with less than one kW. Unless otherwise indicated, this part of the paper is lifted from the work of Feri G. Lumampao, Victoria Lopez and Lisa Go, Gender and Renewable Energy in the Philippines, supported by the APPROTECH ASIA (The Asian Alliance of Appropriate Technology Practitioners, Inc.)
[19] UNDP, The GEF Small Grants Programme at last viewed at 11:18 PM, February 25, 2008.
[20] Electricity Governance Toolkit, which is available online at
[21] NorthWind Bangui Bay Project Monitoring Report Volume 1, Monitoring Period: May 1, 2005 through August 31, 2006, In reference to: PDD Version 2, December 23, 2005 UNFCCC Reference Number: 0453
[22] See a PowerPoint presentation at (last viewed 10:45 PM, February 25, 2008).
[23] See (last viewed 10:57 PM February 25, 2008).
[24] See “Sustainable Energy and Sustainable Tourism,” a paper delivered by DENR OIC Armando de Castro at the Ministerial Consultations of the Ninth Special Session of the Governing Council / Global Ministerial Environment Forum, Dubai, 7-9 February 2006.
[26] Unless otherwise indicated, this part of the paper is liberally lifted from (last viewed 11:06 pm February 25, 2008).
[27] Interview conducted by this writer on February 13, 2008, 8:30 pm at the Development Academy of the Philippines.
[28] Construction Project Consultants Inc., CDM Project Formulation Study for Jatropha Biodiesel Development in Tanzania Summary Report, March 2007.
[29] Mr. Santos confirmed on February 27, 2008 that he has emailed a copy of the feasibility study that covers only their model plantation. He was briefly interviewed at DAP around 6:30 PM.
[30]See Tim Hayward, Ecological Thought, An Introduction (UK: Polity Press, c. 1994).
[31]See Joachim Ahrens, Prospects of Institutional and Policy Reform in India: Toward a Model of the Development State? in Asian Development Review, vol. 15, no. 1, 1997, pp. 111-146
[32] See Robert N. Stavins, Environmental Protection: Visions of Governance for the Twenty-First Century, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, July 23, 1998.
[33] See Yehezkel Dror, The Capacity to Govern, Report to the Club of Rome (Executive Summary). Ciculo de Lectores, July 1994.
[34] For details visit (last viewed on February 27, 2008 at 1:00 pm).
[35] See (last viewed on February 27, 2008 at 12:50 pm). Note that the two reports are not comparable over time due to differences in data and methodology.
[36] UNDP, Human Development Report 2007/2008 Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. UNDP: Palgrave Macmillan: NY, 2007.
[37] See Andres Gouldie, Is a Good Government Agenda Practical? An Approach to Governance. Talk given at Overseas Development Institute, March 25, 1998.

No comments: