Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

2010 Development Agenda: Environmental Management

A number of environmental problems have plagued the Philippines for decades. These
include urban congestion, water shortage, depletion of forest resources, degradation of coastal
and marine resources, loss of biodiversity and habitat destruction, land-use conversion, waste
disposal, and water and air pollution. Among these problems, the country faces four broad
environmental challenges: degradation of forest and marine resources; urban water, air
pollution and the declining quality and availability of water resources; solid waste generation;
and government capacity to enforce environmental policies.1 In turn, a rapidly disintegrating
environment increases pollution, threatens public health and food security, and widens the
gap between rich and poor.2 Recent tragedies brought about by natural disasters have also
been blamed on lack of disaster risk preparedness on the part of the government, crisis
mitigation and deforestation.

This paper aims to present the major environmental problems in the Philippines with
a focus on how they affect human welfare and sustainability. It will also try to identify
opportunities for ecological reform and intervention.

Degradation of Forest and Marine Resources

1. Deforestation. As with other countries in the Asia Pacific Region, the Philippines is also
facing severe environmental degradation. In the last 50 years, the Philippines has become a
seriously deforested country and the people have increasingly suffered the consequences.
Twenty-four percent (24%) – or about 7,162,000 hectares – of the Philippines is forested.3
Of this area, 11.6% – or roughly 829,000 hectares – is classified as primary forest, the most
biodiverse form of forest. Records from the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) show that in the 1950s, three-fourths of the country was covered with
forest. Since then, the Philippines has lost one-third of its forest cover, a 20% drop from
the rate of the 1990s.4 In a 2007 World Bank report, the rate of deforestation from 1990–
2005 was about 2.2% per year, on the basis of Food and Agriculture Organization data.5

Social Costs. The loss of forests and other critical habitats is threatening not only the
rich biodiversity in the Philippines but also human lives. The 1991 Ormoc tragedy, which
was blamed on massive deforestation that caused serious soil erosion, killed close to 5,000

1
World Bank. Country Environmental Analysis Philippines 2009
2
Asian Development Bank Report, 2004.
3
Internet accessed. <http://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation/2000/Philippines.htm> internet accessed
January 21, 2010.
4
By Henrylito D. Tacio, 'Rate of Deforestation in Philippines Erodes Topsoil, Kills Wildlife’, 20 August 2009.
<http://www.gaiadiscovery.com/latest-planet/rate-of-deforestation-in-philippines-erodes-topsoil-kills-wi.html>
accessed January 18, 2010.
5
Ibid.

1
people.6 This calamity has recurred many times since then, in Quezon, Aurora, Nueva
Ecija, Mindoro and Leyte.7 Thus, deforestation has become the focus of social awareness
efforts pressuring the government for effective rehabilitation and conservation measures.8
Although the number of protected areas has grown on paper, so has the rate of destruction
and habitat conversion within them. Reforestation efforts by the government have been
erratic, with low tree survival rates. Marine resources are heavily stressed by exploitation
and pollution. Deforestation issues have acquired broader dimension in the accumulation
of wealth on the part of a few commercial loggers at tremendous social costs. The sharp
edges of conflict between the affected private sectors and the government are at times
moderated by advocacy of a total log ban policy on the part of some government.

2. Coastal and Marine Resources. The importance of marine resources cannot be overly
emphasized. Philippine waters cover an area ten times bigger than the total terrestrial
environment, making it a potential major base for development. Ecosystems present in
the coastal zone include the coral reefs, identified as the most biologically productive
environment second only to a tropical rain forests, mangrove areas, sea grass beds, and soft
bottom communities.

The ruin of coastal and marine systems costs the Philippines about Php 5.7 billion a year,
or about one-quarter of the estimated net economic benefits.9 The broad distribution of
environmental costs is instructive – almost half is due to unsustainable fishing, largely
from overfishing (for example, driving down economic rents from fishing), with a much
smaller share attributable to habitat degradation and conversion (pollution and the
conversion of mangroves). Among the major issues that need to be addressed are (1)
sectoral/fragmented approach to coastal resources management; (2) lack of capacity among
local government to manage coastal resource; (3) poverty and other social problems of
coastal communities; and (4) loss of or damage to productive coastal ecosystems (e.g.,
mangroves, seagrass beds, and coral reefs).10

Deteriorating Urban Environment

1. Outdoor Air Pollution. Air pollution kills 2,000 Filipinos a year and costs $1.5 billion in
lost wages and medical treatment in most major cities of Metro Manila, and the cities of
Cebu, Davao and Baguio (P79.5 billion) – a figure equivalent to two percent of the
country’s annual gross domestic product.11 The problem is also felt in other cities where
urbanization has led to a rise in the construction of factories, an increase in population
density as well as in vehicular volume, all of which ultimately add up to the worsening air
pollution problem.

6
Marites Danguilan-Vitug. Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. Power From the Forest
7
Inquirer news report published 28 December 2004: Recurring tragedies
8
Magallona Meerlin and Malayang Ben S. III, ‘Environmental Governance in the Philippines’
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
World Bank. Country Environmental Analysis Philippines 2009.

2
Air pollution levels in Metro Manila and other cities exceed national air quality standards
and impose a serious economic burden on society.12 Health records show that deaths due
to various forms of respiratory diseases run into scores of thousands a year, including
those in far-flung barrios thought to be unaffected by air pollution.13 Causes of the high
mortality and morbidity rates due to respiratory illnesses like bronchitis were also traced
to "the very high fine particulate emissions generated by diesel engines, emissions from
factories and power plants and solid waste burning."14 Jeepney drivers are the leading
victims of air pollution in the Philippines in 2002; about 32.5 percent of jeepney drivers
are affected.15

A major step in curbing this problem was addressed by Republic Act No. 8749,16
otherwise known as Philippine Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1999. It set the provisions and
guidelines to mitigate and reduce emission levels from stationary and mobile sources. This
paved the way for the elimination of leaded gasoline in Metro Manila in April 2000,
followed by a nationwide phase-out in January 2001. Preliminary estimates for
implementing parts of CAA indicate that the country will need to spend at least PhP 25
billion (US$ 500 million) between 2000 and 2010 but the benefits are likely to far exceed
these costs.17

2. Water Pollution, Sanitation, and Hygiene. Increasing water pollution is destroying the
country’s groundwater, rivers, lakes, and coastal areas, and the quality of half of the
country’s rivers falls below water quality norms. The annual economic cost of water
pollution is estimated at US$1.3 billion, including health costs, losses in fisheries
production, and impact on tourism.18 Community and civil society-led recycling
programs have become popular, but hazardous and toxic waste disposal has emerged as a
major environmental challenge.

Domestic Wastewater and Sanitation. In the Philippines, household wastewater


contributes to 48% of water pollution. Often, household septic tanks are not emptied of
waste matter until they overflow, and when emptied, its non-treatment causes waterborne
diseases. While the country’s 2004 Clean Water Act mandates that urban communities be
connected to a sewerage system within 5 years, a staggering 94% of urban areas has no

12
Philippine Star, 20 January 2003: Air pollution and Clean Air Act
13
University of the Philippines’ College of Public Health study, 2003.
14
World Bank Philippines. Environment Monitor 2002 report.
15
Ibid.
16
Clean Air Act: Its key features include the following: (1) identification and characterization of all airsheds in
the country and establishment of multi-sectoral AQM Boards for each airshed; (2)development of a national air
quality management framework, and a fund to be earmarked for air quality management activities (4) imposition
of air quality management charges; (5) improvement in quality of gasoline and diesel and promotion of
alternative, cleaner fuels
17
World Bank. The Philippines Environmental Monitor 2002. (Pasig City, Philippines: World Bank, November
2002).
18
World Bank. Country Environmental Analysis Philippines 2009

3
sewerage system to connect to, posing a big challenge to the government. In rural areas,
the Act calls for the proper disposal and treatment of septic tank effluent.19 The discharge
of domestic and industrial wastewater and agricultural runoff has caused extensive
pollution of the receiving water-bodies. This waste is in the form of raw sewage,
detergents, fertilizer, heavy metals, chemical products, oils, and even solid waste. Some 25
% of the population still has no access to any sanitation services. On-site solutions for
wastewater are common in the Philippines, but due to poor operation and maintenance,
they are also the main sources of groundwater pollution and waterborne diseases. In
general, more than 90% of sewage is not disposed of correctly or treated in an
environmentally sound manner. Municipalities are now confronted with the challenge of
providing new wastewater treatment facilities, with little or no funds available to prevent
further pollution.

Potable Water. In a 2003 survey from the World Health Organization, access to
improved water supply20 of urban and rural households has slipped from 82% in 1990 to
93% in 2003.21 Seventy-six percent (76%) of households has access to improved toilet
facilities while the urban population is exposed daily to raw sewage.22 Contaminated
drinking water and waterborne diseases cause 4,200 deaths a year and 500,000 illnesses.23 A
World Bank report states that “it is critical that policy reforms … are implemented with a
sense of urgency.” In rural areas, the problems are much worse. On average, two out of
three people, particularly in the far-flung islands, lack access to potable water. This
proportion is markedly higher than the Asian average of one in three people.24

Water demand is increasing rapidly, but fragmented water management, weak


enforcement of regulations, and poor planning are preventing adequate responses. Fresh
water supply is limited throughout the country and water shortages are frequent and
severe in densely populated areas. Although water authorities have made good progress in
recent years, the supply of water and, in particular, wastewater treatment facilities,
remains inadequate.25

In the last few years, the government has employed economic instruments, such as
pollution fines and environmental taxes, to address the problem. The new Clean Water
Act proposes an integrated, holistic, decentralized and participatory approach to abating,

19
Asian Development Bank. Country Water Action: Philippines Using Solid Waste to Treat Water Waste,
February 2007
20
Improved water supplies are those that are generally accessible to people and for which some measures are
taken to protect the water from contamination
21
World Health Organization and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation:
Coverage Estimates of Improved Drinking Water, July 2008
22
Department of Health, 2003
23
World Bank, Philippines National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA): “Philippines: Meeting
Infrastructure Challenges” September 2005.
24
Asian Development Bank. Country Water Action: Philippines: Bringing Potable Water to the Far-Flung
Islands of the Philippines
25
Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Management in the Philippines: Ecological Sanitation Factsheet, 2009

4
preventing and controlling water pollution in the country. This step should help
consolidate the existing fragmented system and unify the work to reduce water pollution.

Solid Waste Generation

1. Solid Waste Management. With a rapidly growing population and lack of adequate
disposal sites, solid waste has become a major problem for most medium to large-size
cities. But Metro Manila's solid waste is highly organic and recyclable. Forty-nine percent
(49%) of this is biodegradable and includes large amounts of kitchen waste and to a lesser
extent, garden waste. This high percentage of biodegradable waste indicates that it could
be used as compost. There is also a great potential for recycling, as 42% of the waste is
made of recyclable items, such as paper, plastic and metal.

On January 26, 2001, the Government of the Philippines signed into law the Ecological
Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (R.A. No. 9003).26 To date, however, enforcement
of and compliance with R.A. No. 9003 has been ineffective due to technical,
organizational and financial shortcomings in government agencies and tasked LGUs.27
More than 10,000 tons of solid wastes are generated in the country every day with Metro
Manila accounting for more than 50% of the total produced.28 Finding dumping sites for
this waste has become a continual problem for the country’s governmental authorities,
especially those in local government units (LGUs). While household garbage collection is
improving, 90% of sewage is not treated and disposed of in an environmentally sound
manner. Less than 10% of the country’s total population is connected to sewers and
others rarely maintain adequate on-site sanitation.

2. Lack of Sanitary Landfills. Currently, there is a lack of active sanitary landfills


throughout the entire country. Only the re-opened San Mateo and Carmona Sanitary
Landfills serve as the official disposal sites for Metro Manila's solid waste but are not
currently operated according to design.29 On average, records show that each landfill
received 1,800 and 730 tons, respectively, before their closure in 2000-2001. Both sites
contain over 23 million cubic meters of degrading waste. Nationwide, the prevalent
practice of solid waste disposal is still by open dumping, although some cities and
municipalities have already started converting or are planning to convert their open
dumpsites to controlled and sanitary landfills. Incidentally, only 5% of the estimated
hazardous waste generation of nearly 2.4 million tons is recycled or treated annually and a
26
EMB (Environmental Management Bureau). “Republic Act 9003: The Ecological solid Waste Management Act
of 2000.” Quezon City: Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2001. This law requests all local
government units (LGUs) to establish an ecological solid waste management program within their jurisdiction.
The law also provides for the necessary institutional mechanisms to attain its objectives. R.A. 9003 addresses the
problems of environmental degradation and pollution resulting from refuse dumps and the consequent loss of
resources caused by steadily increasing volumes of waste.
27
Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Management in the Philippines: Solid Waste Management for Local
Government Units Factsheet, 2009
29
Asian Development Bank, Asian Environmental Outlook, (Pasig City: Asian Development Bank, 2001.

5
portion of this is incinerated. Today, incineration is no longer an option as it has been
theoretically banned after November 2003, following the passage of the Clean Air Act of
1999. Out of the total generation, 6,750 tons/year come from hospitals all over the
country, and are considered hazardous and infectious waste.

Government Environmental Policies

1. Institutions for Environment and Natural Resources (ENR). The three branches of
government – Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary – have distinct roles in formulating,
executing, and interpreting the ENR laws of the land. Their roles are crucial in ensuring
the successful implementation of the laws and meeting their intended outcomes. The
Legislative branch, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate, legislates
and appropriates resources for the implementation of the laws it passes, with the Executive
branch headed by the President mandated to implement the laws. The role of the
Judiciary is to interpret the provisions of the laws and ensure that they are in accord with
the Philippine Constitution.

The country’s lead environment agency is the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), created in 1987 by virtue of Executive Order No. 192, which
consolidated several government agencies performing ENR functions.30 Within the
DENR is the newly established Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) with
jurisdiction over environmental management, pollution prevention, and environmental
assessment. It administers control over air and water quality and conducts environmental
assessments, as well as coordinates with other governmental bodies.

2. Environmental Legislation. The country’s environmental policy is backed by a


comprehensive body of laws covering almost every aspect of the ENR sector. These laws
are divided into natural resources laws and environmental laws. Having enacted 118
environment-related laws in the country,31 the Philippines has been a forerunner in passing
sound and comprehensive ENR policies and legislation; yet, capacity in environmental

30
These include the Bureau of Forest Development, Wood Industry Development Authority, Bureau of Lands,
Bureau of Mines and Geosciences, Mineral Reservations Development Board, Gold Mining Industry
Development Board, National Environmental Protection Council, National Pollution Control Commission,
Environmental Center of the Philippines, Forest Research Institute, and National Mangrove Committee.
31
The basic environmental laws of the country are: Presidential Decree No. 1151: The Philippine Environmental
Policy, 12 Vital Legal Documents (VLD) 1 Presidential Decree No. 1152: The Philippine Environmental Code,
12 VLD 3; Presidential Decree No. 984: National Pollution Control Law (PD 984); Presidential Decree No.
1586: Environmental Impact Assessment Law; Presidential. Decree No. 704: Fisheries Decree of 1975, 6 VLD 36;
Presidential. Decree No. 705: Forestry Reform Code; Rep. Act No. 6969: Toxic Substances and Hazardous
Wastes Law; Rep. Act No. 1786: National Integrated Protected Areas System; Presidential Decree No. 1067:
Philippine Water Code; and, Presidential Decree No. 825: Sanitation Code. Republic Act No. 386: Philippine
Civil Code, particularly the provisions on Nuisance, Torts and Damages and Human Relations also find
application.

6
and natural resources governance still requires improvement, particularly among the
LGUs.32

The government suffers from weak implementation because of inadequate capacity, both
at the national and local levels. Rapid population growth, urbanization and
industrialization have far outstripped urban environment services, and weak natural
resource management systems have led to rapid degradation of those environments, too.
If the current state of the Philippine environment is to be the basis, it is apparent that
ENR laws and institutions have failed to address environmental deterioration effectively.

Some of the reasons cited for ineffective environmental management in the last decade
include:

• Lack of explicit environmental objectives/programs, inadequate leadership, and weak


enforcement of policies and laws;
• Inadequate financial and human capital, unclear distinction between responsibilities,
and conflicts of interest among ENR agencies and local governments;
• Absence of land-use planning and zoning and unclear property rights;
• Lack of routine environmental monitoring and poor use and dissemination of
environmental information33.

An Environmental Management Agenda

The government passed a succession of laws that have been hailed as landmark
legislation, including the Clean Air Act (1999), the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act
(2000), and the Clean Water Act (2004). These have been lauded for laying down a
comprehensive framework for environmental management in place of the piecemeal
legislation that previously governed these matters. But environmental management continues
to be hampered by inconsistent laws, inadequate regulations, over-lapping institutional
mandates, weak enforcement and funding shortages. A shift in strategy toward more
devolution to local levels of government, enhanced resource mobilization for environmental
management, better prioritization, and retooling of human resources are urgently needed to
accommodate new priorities.

In view of the foregoing conclusions, this paper recommends the following actions:

• A comprehensive review of ENR laws and institutions at the national and regional
level must be undertaken to find out where the fragmentation and overlaps lie and to
determine how to consolidate or reallocate mandates, powers, and functions.

32
World Bank. Philippine Environment Monitor 2000-2005.
33
World Bank report 2004

7
• Environmental and development policies must be integrated at the national and
regional levels. Currently, the DENR is responsible for environmental protection but
it lacks the authority to put environmental concerns high on policy agendas.
Environmental objectives must be achieved through the public and private sectors
rather than through national environmental agencies.34

• Improve interagency coordination and integrate planning and management of all


sectors (e.g area management, air quality management, solid waste management)

• Development by design should guide sustainable development. This means guiding


urban and industrial development according to publicly accepted and integrated
environmental and economic development plans.

• A strong political will is essential to translate environmental rhetoric into actions.


This will ensure environmental compliance, provide the budget and human resources
to get the job done, and eliminate subsidies that encourage degradation. In turn,
political will needs untrammelled access to information and an empowered civil
society.

Interventions for air pollution35:

• Rehabilitation of Current Traffic Management System

• Improve vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, introduction of cleaner fuels


and installation of pollution-control devices in vehicles.

• The increasing problem of vehicle-attributed air pollution in Metro-Manila necessitates


transportation planners and air quality analysts to work more closely than ever, both
in providing mobility and improving air quality. However, this requires needed
information and tools to bridge the gap between local transportation and air quality
issues.36

• Increase investments in additional mass transport systems, such as electric trains, to


significantly reduce the public’s reliance on jeepneys and tricycles, which are notorious
for outdoor air pollution emissions.

• Vehicle emission technologies are useful short-term interventions while the country is
building capacity, awareness, and adoption of cleaner fuels. As such, a national
program that requires vehicles (new and in-use)—especially public utility vehicles such
as jeeps, buses, and tricycles—to install pollution control devices must be implemented.
34
Asian Development Bank. Asian Environment Outlook 2001 (AEO)
35
World Bank. Country Environment Analysis, 2009.
36
Empirical Analysis on the Relationship Between Air Pollution and Traffic Flow Parameters: Teodoro, Rene
Val R. UP-National Center for Transportation Studies

8
The need for adequate solid waste management facilities in the Philippines is great. In many
rural areas, the lack of environmentally friendly, sustainable and affordable waste
management has led to the widespread open dumping and open burning of solid waste. Here
are interventions for solid waste management:

• Low-cost options are a welcome alternative to common and frequently more costly
sanitation solutions, especially in rural areas. At the national level, new laws and
regulations are required to meet the demand for environmentally friendly and
sustainable wastewater facilities.

• Manage solid waste in a manner that protects the public health and minimizes impacts
to the environment by using systems that are simple, sustainable, and economically
affordable;

• A massive public awareness campaign that would inform residents on proper waste
segregation into biodegradable, recyclable, and residual components, as well as
recycling and composting of recyclable and biodegradable components;

• Provide beneficial resources (i.e. compost) to the community to reduce the dependence
on outside resources.

• The assistance of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)


should be sought to reduce the problems associated with finding appropriate disposal
sites. This move could help reduce the bureaucracy associated with the Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC).37

Addressing water pollution, sanitation, and hygiene issues need not be grand. These are
some intervention for Water Pollution38:

• Access to clean water. Invest in the right ‘hardware’ in water supply and sanitation.

• Simple interventions, such as promoting washing of hands with soap at critical


junctures, have significant impacts on the reduction of disease, as does household
point-of-use treatment/disinfection of drinking water.

• Induce good sanitary practices and hygiene. Improved sanitation and hygiene practices
are essential for health protection. In order to make hygiene promotion more effective,

37
SWAPP (Solid Waste Management Association of the Philippines). 2002. “Sourcebook of Exemplary Practices
in Waste Management.”
38
World Bank. Country Environmental Analysis, 2009.

9
people need to have access to plentiful water. Educating people to wash their hands is
less effective when water for such activities is unavailable or insufficient.

The four main challenges faced by the Philippines to improve the quality of its surface,
ground, and coastal waters and provide healthy living conditions for all Filipinos include39:

• Public disclosure, raising awareness about health impacts of poor water quality, and
beach eco-watch program to increase stakeholder participation;

• Investing significantly in wastewater management in urbanized and tourist centers,


which is more cost effective, by expanding user base, promoting intermediate solutions
and using smaller and decentralized collection and treatment systems when
appropriate;

• Stimulating revenues and incentives to attract private sector participation in financing


wastewater infrastructure by increasing wastewater fees, industrial pollution charges,
and providing access to credit; and

• Providing effective regulations and incentives through the enactment of the Clean
Water Act with clear implementing rules and regulations.

39
World Bank. Philippines Environment Report, 2003.

10
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asian Development Bank. Asian Environmental Outlook 2001 (AEO). Governance And
Regulation Are Key To Saving Philippines Environment.

Asian Development Bank. Country Water Action, February 2007. Philippines Using Solid Waste
to Treat Water Waste

Asian Development Bank. Country Water Action. Philippines: Bringing Potable Water to the Far-
Flung Islands of the Philippines

Department of Health 2003 Report.

Environmental Management Bureau. “Republic Act 9003: The Ecological solid Waste
Management Act of 2000.” Quezon City: Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, 2001.

Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2004. (28 December). Recurring tragedies.

Philippine Star. 2003 (20 January). Air pollution and Clean Air Act

Republic Act 8749 Clean Air Act.

SWAPP (Solid Waste Management Association of the Philippines). 2002. “Sourcebook of


Exemplary Practices in Waste Management.” Makati City, Philippines: United States
Agency for International Development, United States-Asia Environmental Partnership
and Sold Waste Management Association of the Philippines. Magallona Meerlin and
Malayang Ben S. III. Environmental Governance in the Philippines.

Tacio, Henrylito. 2009. (August 20). Rate of Deforestation in Philippines Erodes Topsoil, Kills
Wildlife; available from: http://www.gaiadiscovery.com/latest-planet/rate-of-deforestation-
in-philippines-erodes-topsoil-kills-wi.html; accessed January 18, 2010.

Teodoro, Rene Val R. UP-National Center for Transportation Studies. Empirical Analysis on the
Relationship Between Air Pollution and Traffic Flow Parameters:

University of the Philippines’ College of Public Health study, 2003.

Vitug, Marites. Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. Power From the Forest.

Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Management in the Philippines. Ecological Sanitation
Factsheet, 2009

Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Management in the Philippines: Solid Waste Management
for Local Government Units Factsheet, 2009

World Bank. Country Environmental Analysis Philippines 2009. Available from http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSite
PK=523679&menuPK=64187510&searchMenuPK=64187282&theSitePK=523679&entit

11
yID=000333037_20091118233248&searchMenuPK=64187282&theSitePK=523679;
internet; accessed 12 January 2010

World Bank. Philippines Environment Monitor: Environmental Health. Available from


http://www.worldbank.org.ph/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/
PHILIPPINESEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20544920~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:
332982,00.html; Internet; accessed 18 January 2010.

World Bank. Philippine Environment Monitor 2005: Coastal and Marine Resource Management.
Available from:
http://www.worldbank.org.ph/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/
PHILIPPINESEXTN/0,,contentMDK:21459568~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:
332982~isCURL:Y,00.html Internet; accessed 18 January 2010.

World Bank. Philippine Environment Monitor 2004: Assessing Progress. Available from:
http://www.worldbank.org.ph/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/
PHILIPPINESEXTN/0,,contentMDK:21019639~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:
332982~isCURL:Y,00.html; Internet; accessed 18 January 2010.

World Bank. Philippines Environment Monitor 2003: Water Quality . available from:
http://www.worldbank.org.ph/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/
PHILIPPINESEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20209686~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:
332982~isCURL:Y,00.html; Internet; accessed 18 January 2010.

World Bank. Philippines Environment Monitor 2002: Air Quality . available from:
http://www.worldbank.org.ph/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/
PHILIPPINESEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20209700~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:
332982~isCURL:Y,00.html; Internet; accessed 18 January 2010.

World Bank. Philippines environment monitor 2001. Available from:


http://www.worldbank.org.ph/external/default/main?pagePK=51187349&piPK=51189435&t
heSitePK=332982&menuPK=333010&searchMenuPK=333010&theSitePK=332982&entity
ID=000094946_02010711090330&searchMenuPK=333010&theSitePK=332982; Internet;
accessed 18 January 2010.

World Bank. Philippines - Environment monitor 2000. Available from:


http://www.worldbank.org.ph/external/default/main?pagePK=51187349&piPK=51189435&t
heSitePK=332982&menuPK=333010&searchMenuPK=333010&theSitePK=332982&entity
ID=000094946_01051904144648&searchMenuPK=333010&theSitePK=332982; Internet;
accessed 18 January 2010.

12

Вам также может понравиться