ANNEX 2-8 GENERIC CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF EIA REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS, EIARC CHAIR AND ANNEX 2-8

RESOURCE PERSONS A. General Considerations 1) An EIA Module may be any of the physico-chemical, biological or socio-cultural components of the environment as well as the following: a) Environmental Risk Assessment and b) Environmental Management Planning. The formation of an EIARC for the review of an EIA Report shall be primarily based on the key issues or potential impacts the project may have on its environment. Thus, DENR-EMB is prescribing only 2-4 EIARC members per project, with one serving as Chair. The selection of the EIARC is done right after the submission of the Letter-Request of the Proponent for the EIA Scoping activity. Thus, it is imperative that the Proponent submits the prescribed Project Description in Annex 2-6 and accurately fills out the EIA Scoping Checklist (Annex 2-7a/b) since these are the documents to be used as bases of the EIA Case Handler in determining the fields of expertise to be represented in the EIARC and Resource Persons. The selection discussed in this Manual is specific for project applications. This assumes that the EIA Review Committee members come from the reviewers pool that has been precommissioned by the DENR-EMB. The pool is continually being updated and expanded to include EIA practitioners who apply and are evaluated to be qualified to undertake review. A note is made on Reviewers for Quantitative Risk Assessment. A detailed QRA should normally be post-ECC requirement since the project specifications and quantitative assumptions for operations are not yet available at the FS/EIA stage. The independent review of the QRA Report is to be done by a specialized group of reviewers, commissioned as an ERA Review Committee. The general guidelines presented below on the constitution and leadership of the EIARC will apply to the ERARC. However, the EIARC may selectively consider and recommend the advisability and merits of requiring a QRA during the conduct of the EIS, with the final decision to be made by EMB. In this case, an ERA specialist may be invited as part of the EIARC. The roles of the EIARC and Resource Persons are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Roles of EIARC and Resource Persons EIARC Chair Primarily a technical and administrative facilitator of EIARC meetings; Integrator of EIA Findings Secondarily, a reviewer of assigned EIA modules EIARC Member Primarily, a reviewer of assigned EIA modules Resource Person Primarily, a provider of professional, technical or policy advice and guidance

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

140

ANNEX 2-8

B. Selection of EIA Review Committee Members for Project-Specific EIA Report Review Assignment EMB selects the projects EIA Review Committee from its pool of commissioned reviewers. Table 2 may serve as a guide to EMB on the selection of EIARC members specific to the project to be reviewed. a) b) c) d) e) f) Table 2. Criteria for Selection of Project-Specific EIARC Member Is not a part of the EIA team or firm that prepared the EIA Report under review Is an EIA practitionerexpert (i.e. not purely an academic expert with no EIA experience); has preferably prepared an EIA in the past specifically on the module/s assigned to review Field of competence and expertise is relevant to the module/s assigned to be reviewed Has operational knowledge of the Philippine EIA process, preferably EIA exposure on similar projects Has preferably done EIA reviews of similar projects Is a qualified reviewer as determined by EMB or has been recommended by an institution with proven expertise/s in the concerned area/field such as the academe, Department of Science and Technology or the Development Academy of the Philippines. Is not a staff or employee of the concerned government agency that prepared the EIA Report or who issued guidelines/regulations mandating the preparation of a part of the EIA Report. For example, a person from the Department of Energy should not review an energy project; a DENR-MGB staff should not review a mining project. The person, however, may be invited as a Resource Person of the EIA Review Committee. Is neither a current employee nor consultant of the proponent of the project. In the case of previous employee or consultant, the person must not have been connected with the company of the proponent for a minimum of one (1) year before the review assignment starts. If a member of the EIARC in the past, EIARC shall have a current satisfactory performance rating based on EMB evaluation Is an enabler of development (with a balanced perspective of national development and environmental protection) Is a team player, able to consider and show respect for others opinions, particularly in situations where EIARC members have opposing views on critical matters

g)

h) i) j) k)

C. Selection of EIARC Chair for Project-Specific EIA Report Review Assignment The EMB may pre-assign the EIARC Chair when it reconvenes for Substantive Review work the prospective EIARC it commissioned during Scoping. Otherwise, the EIARC members may select the Chair from among themselves. Table 3 provides some guidelines on how to select an EIARC Chair. Table 3. Criteria for Selection of EIARC Chair Meets the selection criteria of an EIARC member in Table 2. Has been a member of the EIARC in the past with satisfactory performance based on EMB evaluation With experience in facilitating technical meetings, preferably previous EIARC meetings Has operational knowledge of the Philippine EIA process Has more than five (5) years experience in either EIA preparation or EIA review work.

a) b) c) d) e)

141

ANNEX 2-8

f)

Table 3. Criteria for Selection of EIARC Chair Is generally known to be fair, thorough, transparent and prompt in integrating the findings of the EIARC and on submissions to the EIA Case Handler

D. Selection of Resource Persons on Project-Specific EIA Report Concerns Resource Persons may be invited by EMB when Proponent or the EIARC or Technical Committee evaluates the need for such based on the following criteria, as presented in Table 4. Table 4. Criteria for Selection of Resource Persons When there is need for clarification or validation from the lead agency which has regulatory mandate over the implementation of the program or sector where the project belongs, e.g. DOE for energy projects, DPWH for infrastructures, MGB for mining projects, DOH for hospitals, EMB-EQD/PCD for storage facilities of toxic substances or hazardous waste, NSWMC for waste management projects, etc When there is need for information or disclosure from a government agency whose sector of jurisdiction may be significantly affected by the proposal; e.g. PAWB where biodiversity/protected area is an issue. When there is need to validate seemingly doubtful or questionable information from a government agency who serves as a provider or source of baseline information, PAG-ASA for meteorological information, PHIVOLCS/MGB for geological data and hazards, BSWM for soil types, etc

a)

b)

c)

142