Certificate of non-coverage issued to Manila Bay white sand project, EMB chief says

People gather at a pedestrian overpass to see the controversial sand made of crushed dolomite boulders along the shoreline of Manila Bay while viewing the sunset on September 6, 2020.
The STAR/Miguel de Guzman

MANILA, Philippines — The controversial “beach nourishment” of Manila Bay—classified as an “enhancement” project—did not go through the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System, the head of the Environmental Management Bureau said.

Projects in the country that may affect the environment are covered by the country’s EIS system. These projects include “proposed major expansion, rehabilitation and/or modification of existing projects as well as resumption of projects that have stopped operations for a prolonged period.”

But William Cuñado, EMB OIC director, said a certificate of non-coverage (CNC) was instead issued to the project by the former bureau chief. EMB is an agency under the DENR.

CNC is issued by the EMB to certify that the undertaking is not covered by the EIS system and is not required to secure an environmental compliance certificate.

“It’s an enhancement project. There’s no need for environment impact study because it’s a nourishment, enhancement [project] of the areas,” Cuñado said in a forum organized by Oceana Philippines Wednesday, adding the “beach nourishment” project of Manila Bay falls under Category C.

Under Category C are undertakings which are intended to directly enhance the quality of the environment or directly address existing environmental problems.

Cuñado's statement was similar to what DENR Undersecretary Benny Antiporda told Philstar.com earlier that the project to fill a stretch of Manila Bay’s shoreline with white sand is not covered by the country’s EIS system. But in a statement issued by the DENR Tuesday, it said the project “passed the required environmental impact assessment.”

An environmental impact assessment evaluates the likely impacts of a project on the environment and the surrounding communities and includes mitigation and preventive measures to address the identified consequences of a project.

“It is a rehabilitation project, not a construction project. It’s only a beach nourishment [project] in which we’re beautifying it,” Antiporda said on September 3.

Antiporda, however, said the agency had studied the environmental impacts of the project and that the crushed dolomite boulders would not “disrupt” the coastal ecosystem.

Environmental lawyer Estenzo-Ramos, Oceana Philippines vice president, earlier said the issuance of CNC “is a solid evidence of non-compliance and wilful violation of national laws.”

Publicize studies

Manila Bishop Broderick Pabillo and Infrawatch PH convenor Terry Ridon urged the DENR to publicize studies on the project.

“If there are already studies that had been done as some government officials have said, let these studies be openly brought out. If there are yet no studies, then the project should first wait before a study is made and people are assured,” Pabillo said.

“Regardless of whatever it is for as long as the project is located in a historical area, potential tourist spot, it needs to undergo the EIS process. It cannot be exempted. It needs an ECC. Without ECC, the project can’t proceed,” Ridon said.

Groups also called on the DENR to release the project's certificate of non-coverage. 

Government officials have said that the project to build an artificial beach along Manila Bay’coastline is part of the government's rehabilitation program for the entire bay. They also said that the crushed dolomite sand will prevent erosion and neutralize the acidity of the water.

But for environment, fishers and religious groups, the project will pose harm not only to the bay’s marine ecosystem but also to communities around the area. The Department of Health, however, said the crushed dolomite rocks used for the project do not pose health hazards.

Critics of the bay also stressed that the project violated at least five laws on the environment and culture and failed to undergo consultation with stakeholders.

Show comments