Manila Bay Clean-up: A Venue for IEM Application

Hello mates! I was thinking today of a good topic on IEM to write and share with you. The first thing that came into my mind is how IEM can actually be applied in actual situation. I kept on listing several projects and activities being undertaken in the Philippines and I was drawn to this celebrated case of Manila Bay Clean-up which has been a headline for all major newspapers. Many environmentalists considered this as a major milestone, a major achievement in environmental protection and conservation. This is how it goes.

In December 18, 2008, an en banc decision of the Supreme Court issued a ‘writ of continuing mandamus’ and orders several various government agencies to clean, rehabilitate, and preserve Manila Bay, and restore and maintain its waters to SB level (Class B sea waters per Water Classification Tables under DENR Administrative Order No. 34) and make them fit for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation. This means that all concerned agencies are required to work together in cleaning and rehabilitating Manila Bay until its water achieves a level of safeness within established standards. Now, you may be wondering on what is happening to Manila Bay and why such case been battled within the highest court of the land. Hence, the following facts.

Manila Bay – Facts and Significance

Manila Bay is a natural harbour which serves the Port of Manila and used to be considered as one of the best natural harbours in Southeast Asia. It is located around the capital city of Manila which is the centre of trade and commerce in the Philippines. It has a total area of 1,994 km² and a coastline of 190 km. Several major rivers and tributaries from nine nearby provinces and 17 cities that make up the National Capital Region (NCR) drains in Manila Bay.

Manila Bay is known for being a significant part of the historical episodes that shaped the country’s human, political, and economic geography. It is a main source of food and livelihood for millions of Filipinos and the main route for maritime, trade and travel. Moreover, it is considered a major tourist destination and a sanctuary for migratory birds and other wildlife.

Indeed, Manila Bay has been regarded before as a place with the perfect sunrise and sunset and a haven for recreation and relaxation. It is quite unimaginable these time that these attributes have faded fade like a star losing its brightness. As the country’s economic progresses, many development projects and industries have been established near Manila Bay and have lured massive migration of Filipinos toward the city. NCR is the smallest region in the country but has the biggest population of 11,553,427 as of 2007. Maybe, no one has ever thought that such development will have a tremendous impact on Manila Bay as its overall present state has been deteriorated or maybe because the focus is more on economic development thereby losing attention and consideration to the environmental state of Manila Bay.

Problems Leading to the Case

So what have been the problems? What are the issues that drove the ‘concerned citizens’ to petition the Court with regards to Manila Bay Clean-up?

Well, from being considered as one of the world’s best natural harbour, Manila Bay is now declared as a pollution hotspot. This is a sad situation that Filipinos have to deal with and probably live with for the rest of their lives. It has been literally made a ‘comfort room’ or a ‘giant waste dump’ where various wastes from industry companies, households, informal settlers and establishments were dumped within its entirety. Be it solid, liquid or even gas wastes maybe, name it and Manila Bay probably has it. Within Manila Bay, ‘domestic sewage, toxic industrial effluents from factories and shipping operations, leachate from garbage dumps, and runoff from chemical agriculture, converge into a hideous cocktail’ said Greenpeace (Interaction.com, 2013). It is quite frustrating to see such situation, the Philippines has lost one important treasure.

There have already been some attempts and efforts in the past that aimed to address the deteriorating condition of Manila Bay. However, these activities are fragmented and scattered all over the place. Hence, they produces very little or no impact at all. More so, it is just a waste of effort and money. In other words, the problem remained the same and is in fact worsening.

However hopeless it may seem, there are still concerned groups that do believe a miracle can save Manila Bay through a concerted and more focused effort of the government. “When you think of Manila Bay, contrasting images come to mind: First of a coastline littered with trash, and second, of a beautiful sunset, but what is really interesting is that underneath these familiar images, Manila Bay, with all its pollution, still contains life and gives life,” said Dr. Laura David of UP-MSI (Interaction.com, 2013). Thus, a petition was filed in the Court and eventually rewarded with the continuing writ of mandamus to address issues on solid wastes, liquid wastes and informal settlers which are major contributor of pollution in the area. More specifically, the Court mentioned the full implementation of the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy Plan (MBCSP).

It is not my desire in this post to discuss lengthily on the legal issues however, but rather to show how I see the opportunity of applying the ideals of IEM to resolve the issues in Manila Bay through evaluation of the MBCSP and referencing the Court decision.

IEM in Action

As mentioned in my earlier post, with reference to Born and Sonzogni’s (1995) criteria in particular, an evaluation can be made if actions toward managing Manila Bay is integrated or not. It is quite fascinating to know how the Court decision and implementation of the MBCSP discusses impliedly the application of an integrated approach towards Manila Bay clean-up and rehabilitation. The following questions can be drawn to evaluate integration: First, are actions toward cleaning Manila Bay comprehensive? Second, have they considered interconnectiveness? Third, how do they work or possibly worked strategically? And lastly, is there a place for coordination/ interaction between and among various stakeholders?

As the decision of the Court primarily point to MBCSP implementation, the first criteria thus evaluates its comprehensiveness. The MBCSP probably have considered all important aspects of Manila Bay with specific activities addressing the triple bottom line (social, economic and environment). The set of activities ranges from cleaning and rehabilitating Manila Bay (environment), providing resettlement houses for informal settlers (social) and provision of alternative livelihoods (economic). But is it comprehensive enough? My respond is in the positive as the plan in my opinion is detailed enough to capture the problem. The second criteria talks about interconnectiveness. How has this been considered in the decision or plan? Specific regards were made regarding the flow of pollution from surrounding provinces and cities to rivers and waterways that eventually drains to the bay. Mapping of sources of pollution, location of industries, households and informal settlers, and water quality attributes were also undertaken. The interconnections among these important factors have been well established.

The decision and the plan may be considered strategic as they were focused on addressing the core problem which is pollution. All projects and activities identified were anchored to this core problem. More so, all government agencies tasked to address the issue were to gather and work as one in order to harmonise and solidify their efforts strategically. All activities are detailed with regards responsible person or agency to implement them, hence avoiding overlapping of functions. One of the best outcome resulted from the decision and the plan was that it promotes better coordination and interactions between and among various stakeholders. It does avoid fragmented actions with little significance or impact in solving the problem. Overall, I say that the Court decision and the plan promote an integrated approach to Manila Bay clean-up and rehabilitation based from the four criteria.

A Summary of IEM Application and its Benefits to Manila Bay

In general, Manila Bay clean-up and rehabilitation outstandingly promote an integrated management approach. The following specifically refer to integration and its benefits:

1.      It promotes integration of vertical and horizontal aspect of management where all concerned agencies were tasked to work together;

2.      It resolved issues of overlapping functions as each agencies have specific tasked to accomplished;

3.      It provides a holistic view of the problem by interconnecting systems (triple bottom line considerations);

4.      It creates a venue for better coordination and interaction of all key stakeholders;

5.      It avoids wastage of effort and resources;

6.      It provides a clearer direction and detailed road map to attain the objective of solving the problem;

7.      It is strategically implementable or doable; and

8.      It is purpose driven.

Future Challenges

The implementation of IEM in Manila Bay cleanup and rehabilitation call on more challenges such as development of public-private partnership, intensive information, education and communication campaign and more funding. 

The challenge in bringing Manila Bay back to its glorious day as a premier natural harbour may take some time. But it is not hopeless, nonetheless. With growing concerns for the environment by the Filipino people and an effective tool like IEM, the clean-up and rehabilitation is very much possible. The challenge now is to implement this as effective and efficient as possible. Together, I believed that the Filipinos can do this.

There you go mates. Today I just demonstrated how IEM worked and applied in dealing with a problem like that of Manila Bay. There may be similar situation in your area that you can share. I will be delighted to hear from you. Thank you very much!

References

Born, S.M., Sonzogni, W.C. 1995. Integrated Environmental Management: Strengthening the Conceptualization. Environmental Management 19:167-181.

Interaction.com (2013). Not Yet Sunset: Super Toxic Manila can be Saved – UP scientists, Greenpeace. July 23.

Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy (OPMBCS) as downloaded from http://www.emb.gov.ph/mbemp/dloads/opmbcs%20ex%20sum.pdf

Supreme Court Decision as downloaded from http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/171947-48.htm

Developing Criteria for Integrated Energy Management

Good day mates!

For several days now, our group has been working really hard for a case study “Integrated Energy Management in New Zealand”. And today we specifically focused and discussed the development of criteria to determine or evaluate how much is energy management in New Zealand been integrated. The following questions/inquiries were raised during our meeting: to what extent is energy being managed, what aspects of energy must be considered and integrated and how to design a criteria framework.

Indeed a lengthy discussion was made on so many things regarding energy integration. But we were able to agree to look on the following references in developing our criteria.

a.      The vertical and horizontal integration from Buhrs (1995) IEM matrix;

b.      The conceptual IEM matrix discussed by Born and Sonzogni (1995);

c.       Problem-framing by Bardwell (1991);

d.      Barriers to IEM by Cairns (1991); and

e.      Other relevant readings/literatures on IEM.

As Bardwell’s problem-framing and Cairns’ barriers to IEM have already been discussed on my previous postings, this blog will explore the possibility of developing criteria using the frameworks developed by Buhrs and Born and Sonzogni.

Vertical and horizontal integration

Buhrs (1995) suggested putting or combining together the vertical and horizontal axis to chart the diversity of approaches towards IEM in a matrix (see figure 1). But what does he actually mean by vertical and horizontal axis? The vertical axis of the IEM matrix simply refers to the environment which is represented as an integrated, holistic concept, comprising interdependent ecosystems or nature, including people (Buhrs, 1995). The key to effective integration of the vertical axis is to take into account interconnectedness of all elements under the environment concept (Buhrs, 1995). This is rather very ambitious if not very idealistic in my opinion. The environment itself for me is already a very huge and difficult subject to approach, hence, adding all associated concepts will rather make it more complex and complicated. However, it is the very essence of integration to take into account all the significant aspects of the environment for effective management. Thus, if we want to work on integrated energy management, all subjects associated with it must essentially be considered.

In contrast, the horizontal axis includes a variety of efforts and approaches to IEM which may be classified as integrated interpretation, institutional integration and policy integration (Buhrs, 1995). Integrated interpretation efforts refer to integrating information and knowledge about, and understanding of the environment. Institutional integration effort, on the other hand, is directed at integrating organizations, rules and procedures for environmental management. And lastly, policy integration effort is the process of formulating more integrated policy for managing the environment. The horizontal axis for me is more doable than the vertical axis. However, in order to come with a good IEM framework the both axis must be in integrated. But how can this help us developed criteria for our case study?

The IEM Matrix
Management
“The Environment”	Classification	Interpretation	Institutions	Policy	IEM
	Land
	Water
	Air
	Plants
	Animals
	Resources
	People

Figure 1. The IEM Matrix by Buhrs (1995)

Since environment is much broader in scope than energy, the IEM framework suggested by Buhrs may not totally be utilised in our case study. Nonetheless, I personally think of using the vertical and horizontal aspect in integrating energy institutions and policies. For instance, we will be looking on organizational structure in terms of decision-making within the vertical and horizontal level. Within the horizontal level we will be evaluating how cooperation and coordination is being undertaken between and among ministries of the government concerned with energy management and how energy policies are being implemented within their level. Under the vertical level, we will try to evaluate how energy policies and planning and decision-making process is being undertaken or translated from the central government to regions/districts down to local governments. Under this level we will also try to look on how key energy players are being involved in energy management such as the power generators, transmitters, distributors and consumers. Further, different relevant sectors which use energy mainly in their operation will be integrated such as the industries, transport, agriculture and household.

The Four Dimensions of IEM

Born & Sonzogni (1995) have conceptualized an IEM framework under four major dimensions or characteristics: comprehensive, interconnective, strategic, and interactive/coordinative. Comprehensive is inclusive of many things but must define the scope and scale of management. In IEM, it may include all critical biophysical, chemical, and human parts of an ecological system and all entities – public and private – that affect or can be affected by management (Born & Sogzogni, 1995). Comprehensive may answer the question: have all relevant aspects/areas of energy been considered for integration? Interconnective on the other hand may define interrelationships and linkages among processes and components of the environment within and among multiple, cross-cutting, and often conflicting resource uses. One appropriate question that interconnective dimension may answer is how do management of energy is being undertaken among the vast stakeholders. In other words, interconnective may show the linkages of all processes involve in energy management. In contrast, strategic or reductive or scaled-down involve interactions and trade-off decisions among stakeholders. Question on dispute resolution and prioritisation may be answered under this dimension. Lastly, interactive/coordinative may address how information is shared and dispersed between and among agencies and various stakeholders (Born & Sonzogni, 1995). A good question to look at in relation to interactve/coordinative dimension is how well energy information are being shared.

How can these dimensions help us create criteria for an integrated energy management? I constructed a table below to show possible aspects of energy that can be evaluated using the four dimensions of IEM by Born & Sonzogni.

Dimension	Aspects of Energy Management for Integration
1.      Comprehensive	a.      Integration of energy sources and uses into a single energy system; b.      Consideration of social, economic and environment into energy policies and strategies; c.       Integration of policies and regulations into energy company’s operations or goals; d.      Integration of the horizontal and vertical components of the energy institutions or organizations; e.      Integration of energy alternatives into planning; and f.        International or global linkages.
2.      Interconnective	a.      Consideration for all sectors for integration: households, agriculture, industry, commercial, transport, etc.; b.      Integration of key government agencies and energy companies; c.       Determination of supply and demand for energy market integration; d.      Define functions and responsibilities of all key players; and e.      Mapping and structuring to show interconnection/linkages of all energy management processes and determine the gaps.
3.      Strategic	a.      Integration of supply and demand in connection with population and economic present and future growth; b.      Determination of alternatives and their viability (must be integrated in the energy strategy); c.       Evaluation of consistency of policies and availability of alternative dispute resolutions; d.      Public communication and transparency for effective public involvement; and e.      Prioritisation of regional needs.
4.      Interactive/ Coordinative	a.      Evaluation of the extent of public participation with regard to energy management; b.      Institutional coordination and energy development strategy; c.       Inter-ministerial, inter-governmental coordination; and d.      Multi-partite or multi-stakeholder energy planning and decision-making.

Both works by Buhrs (1995) and Born and Sonzogni (1995) may be used as a guide only for the development of criteria for integrated energy management and not necessarily define energy integration. As mentioned earlier, environment is distinct and a lot different from energy in numerous aspects, hence a modification of the frameworks suggested by the authors is needed to establish criteria that will specifically and holistically define energy management. But by referring to this criteria, we may able to evaluate if integration in energy management is lacking, inadequate, strong or weak. I have provided herewith some aspects of creating criteria towards integrated energy management. They may be very general but somewhat useful nonetheless. I admit however that more research works are needed to be undertaken to put together various elements in one matrix for energy management.  

So, what do you think mates? Do you know any criteria that we can use for our case study? Please do not hesitate to suggest. Thank you very much.  

References

Bardwell, L.V. 1991. Problem-Framing: A Perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving. Environmental Management 15:601-612.

Born, S.M., Sonzogni, W.C. 1995. Integrated Environmental Management: Strengthening the Conceptualization. Environmental Management 19:167-181.

Buhrs, T. 2009. Integrated Environmental Management: Towards a Framwork for Application. Unpublished paper, Environmental Management and Design Division, Lincoln University.

Cairns, J. Jr.  1991. The Need for Integrated Environmental Systems Management. Pp 5-20, Chapter 2, In: John Cairns, Jr. And Todd V. Crawford (eds). Integrated Environmental Management. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan.