World overview

All parts of the world are involved in nuclear power

development, and a few examples follow.

China
The Chinese government plans to increase nuclear
generating capacity to 58 GWe with 30 GWe more under
construction by 2021. China has completed construction and
commenced operation of over 30 new nuclear power reactors
since 2002, and some 20 new reactors are under
construction. These include the world's first four
Westinghouse AP1000 units and a demonstration high-
temperature gas-cooled reactor plant. Many more are
planned, with construction due to start within about three
years. China is commencing export marketing of a largely
indigenous reactor design. R&D on nuclear reactor
technology in China is second to none.

India
India’s target is to have 14.5 GWe nuclear capacity on line by
2020 as part of its national energy policy. These reactors
include light- and heavy water reactors as well as fast
reactors. In addition to the 22 on line, of both indigenous and
foreign design, five power reactors are under construction,
including a 500 MWe prototype fast breeder reactor. This will
take India's ambitious thorium programme to stage 2, and set
the scene for eventual utilization of the country's abundant
thorium to fuel reactors.

Russia
Russia plans to increase its nuclear capacity to 30.5 GWe by
2020, using its world-class light water reactors. A large fast
breeder unit, the country's second, is producing power and
development proceeds on others. An initial floating power
plant is under construction, with delivery due in 2018. Russia
leads the world in nuclear reactor exports, building and
financing new nuclear power plants in several countries.

Europe
Finland and France are both expanding their fleets of nuclear
power plants with the 1650 MWe EPR from Areva, two of
which are also being built in China. Several countries in
Eastern Europe are currently constructing or have firm plans
to build new nuclear power plants (Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey).

A UK government energy paper in mid-2006 endorsed the

replacement of the country’s ageing fleet of nuclear reactors
with new nuclear build, and four 1600 MWe French units are
planned for operation by 2023. The government aims to have
16 GWe of new nuclear capacity operating by 2030.

Sweden is closing down some older reactors, and has

invested heavily in life extensions and uprates. Hungary,
Slovakia and Spain are all implementing or planning for life
extensions on existing plants. Germany agreed to extend the
operating lives of its nuclear plants, reversing an earlier
intention to shut them down, but has again reversed policy
following the Fukushima accident and is phasing out nuclear
generation by about 2023.

Poland is developing a nuclear program, with 6000 MWe

planned. Estonia and Latvia are involved in a joint project with
established nuclear power producer Lithuania. Belarus has
started construction of its first two Russian reactors.

United States
In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new
AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new
build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful
evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years,
changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power
plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new
1000 MW plants being built.

South America
Argentina and Brazil both have commercial nuclear reactors
generating electricity, and additional reactors are under
construction. Chile has a research reactor in operation and
has the infrastructure and intention to build commercial
reactors.

South Korea
South Korea has three new reactors under construction
domestically as well as four in UAE. It plans for eight more. It
is also involved in intense research on future reactor designs.

SE Asia
Vietnam intends to have it first nuclear power plant operating
about 2028 with Russian help and a second soon after with
Japanese input. Indonesia and Thailand are planning nuclear
power programs.

South Asia
Bangladesh has contracted with Russia to build its first
nuclear power plant. Pakistan with Chinese help is building
three small reactors inland and two large ones near Karachi.

Central Asia
Kazakhstan with its abundance of uranium is working closely
with Russia in planning development of small new reactors for
its own use and export.

Middle East
The United Arab Emirates is building four 1450 MWe South
Korean reactors at a cost of over $20 billion and is
collaborating closely with IAEA and experienced international
firms. Iran’s first power reactor is in operation, and more are
planned.

Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are also moving towards

employing nuclear energy for power and desalination.

Africa
South Africa is committed to plans for 9600 MWe of further
nuclear power capacity.

Nigeria has sought the support of the International Atomic

Energy Agency to develop plans for two 1000 MWe reactors.

New countries
In September 2012 the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) expected seven newcomer countries to launch nuclear
programs in the near term. It did not name these, but
Lithuania, UAE, Turkey, Belarus, Vietnam, Poland, and
Bangladesh appear likely candidates. Others had stepped
back from commitment, needed more time to set up
infrastructure, or did not have credible finance.

See also WNA paper Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries.

Other nuclear reactors

In addition to commercial nuclear power plants, there are
about 245 research reactors operating, in 55 countries, with
more under construction. These have many uses including
research and the production of medical and industrial
isotopes, as well as for training.

The use of reactors for marine propulsion is mostly confined

to the major navies where it has played an important role for
five decades, providing power for submarines and large
surface vessels. At least 140 ships, mostly submarines, are
propelled by some 180 nuclear reactors and over 13,000
reactor-years of experience has been gained with marine
reactors. Russia and the USA have decommissioned many of
their nuclear submarines from the Cold War era.

Russia also operates a fleet of six large nuclear-powered

icebreakers and a 62,000 tonne cargo ship. It is also
completing a floating nuclear power plant with two 40 MWe
reactors for use in remote regions.
Note: Taipower used nuclear energy to generate 16% of electricity on
the island of Taiwan in 2014.

See table of the World's Nuclear Power Reactors with full

listing of countries, which complements this paper.

Sources:
WNA, data to publication date.
IAEA.
Nuclear Engineering International, (load factors)

Nuclear power ‘a
good option’ for
PH—Cusi

SHARES: 517

VIEW COMMENTS
By: Tarra Quismundo
@TarraINQ
Philippine Daily Inquirer

12:25 PM August 31st, 2016

Bataan Nuclear Power Plant AFP FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—Despite doubts on its safety, nuclear power is “a

good option” for the Philippines.

Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi said this before the Senate on Wednesday as
he bared that the Department of Energy (DOE) has initiated a study on the
possible utility of the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP).

READ: For gov’t, nuclear energy now a viable option

At hearing of the Senate committee on energy, Cusi said nuclear power was
among options that the DOE was pursuing to ensure long-term energy
stability for the country, along with other power sources.
“Based on my knowledge, based on what I’ve seen, based on what I studied,
based on the experience of other countries that we have heard, it is a good
option for our country. It is safe to use,” said Cusi when Sen. Leila De Lima
sought his categorical response on the use of the BNPP.

“The hard fact is that even while nuclear power is unpopular, we’re looking
at it, we’re studying it. It’s an option,” he told the hearing chair by Sen.
Sherwin Gatchalian.

He said the nuclear option was under consideration as the DOE endeavors to
build a 30,189 megawatt (MW) reliable supply for the country by 2030,
given the forecast demand and anticipated economic growth.

READ: PH gov’t considers nuclear energy as int’l conference kicks off

The current national energy supply is at 17,925 MW, sufficient for the
demand for 13,500 MWs. Cusi said the supply is only compromised by
unexpected outages and simultaneous maintenance shutdowns of
powerplants, a situation that led to the supply shortage in Luzon a month ago.

Cusi pointed out that nuclear power was viable as it is cheap to produce and
has greater longevity than other depletable sources such as natural gas and
coal.

“Coal and fuel has a lifespan. Nuclear power has a longer life, so we will
have a more secure [supply]. The hard fact is that we know that nuclear
power is not popular, but it is our responsibility to look at it and study it for
nation-builiding,” he said.
He cited the wide use of nuclear power in other countries, including
Indonesia, where the Philippines sources its coal.

The BNPP, built in the 1970s at $2 billion, has never produced a single
kilowatt, as Sen. Richard Gordon noted. It has been maintained at an annual
cost of P27 million.

Cusi said the DOE will “go through the process” in deciding on its operation,
adding that the public will be consulted about the option. Opening the power
plant will cost an estimated $1 billion. RAM

Read more:http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/811351/nuclear-power-a-good-option-for-ph-
cusi#ixzz4JFg5HJi2
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter |inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Filipinos protest nuclear energy in Manila on Tuesday during

an international conference on nuclear power in the region. |
AP

BUSINESS

Philippines conference discusses nuclear power in Asia-Pacific

region
KYODO
 SEP 2, 2016
ARTICLE HISTORY
  PRINT
 SHARE


MANILA – A three-day international conference on the

prospects of nuclear power in the Asia-Pacific region has
wrapped up in Manila, finding the stigma-laden source of
energy to be increasingly relevant in the region because of its
continuing development and rising population, and the
growing campaign for lowering carbon emissions amid threats
of climate change.
“The prospects for nuclear power in the Asia-Pacific region
are not only promising. Moreover, it is relevant and will
continue to remain so in the coming years,” Maria Zeneida
Collinson of the Philippines’ Foreign Affairs Department, who
chaired the conference, said in her summary statement late
Thursday.

“Nuclear energy could contribute to sustainable development

by meeting rising energy demands and, at the same time,
mitigating climate change,” she added.

The conference, which was organized mainly by the

International Atomic Energy Agency, gathered more than 60
participants from 15 countries.
Among the topics discussed was the role of nuclear energy in a
low carbon future, how to develop a nuclear energy policy and
the legal framework for nuclear power, the prospects of small
modular reactors in the region, developing a policy and
strategy for spent fuel and radioactive waste management,
and developing the environmental impact assessment process.

“A high nuclear scenario in the Asia-Pacific takes into account

more potential newcomer states such as Indonesia, Malaysia
and Thailand, in addition to Vietnam,” Collinson said.

Of the 30 countries in the world that currently operate nuclear

power plants, six are in the Asia-Pacific region: China, India,
Iran, Japan, Pakistan and South Korea.

“This Asia-Pacific region has one of the fastest economic and

growth rates in the world. Hence, it follows that the demand
for affordable and sustainable energy sources is expected to
rise. Thus, as IAEA Deputy Director-General Mikhail
Chudakov pointed out, our region is expected to be the driver
of nuclear energy in the future,” Collinson said.

In an interview at the opening of the conference on Tuesday,

Chudakov said the prospects of nuclear power remain high
despite the nuclear accidents of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl
and Fukushima, with 10 plants put into operation last year,
and the same number expected to run also this year.
Collinson said the conference touched on these accidents by
learning lessons from them.

“No one country can just start creating nuclear power

because, especially after the accidents of Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl and Fukushima, (it showed) that the whole world is
connected,” Chudakov said in his closing remarks Thursday.

Collinson said the conference revealed that the key challenges

to the development of a high nuclear scenario in the region
are public acceptance and safety concerns, nuclear waste
issues, large up-front investment, and uncertainty in
government support.

Citing as one example the revived interest of the Philippine

government under the new administration of President
Rodrigo Duterte in nuclear power, having built one plant in
the 1970s only to be mothballed when it was ready for
licensing a decade later due to politics and fears caused by the
Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine, Collinson said Energy
Secretary Alfonso Cusi is now actively holding public
discussions about the matter.

“For me, the most important is that understanding by our

people about what nuclear energy, nuclear power is all about.
Having understood that, we can form our own opinion as to
whether we really want this, will this be good for the
Philippine nation. So, that’s No. 1: public acceptance,”
Collinson said.

Chudakov said some of the advantages of nuclear power are

the reliability of supply, and predictability of price over a long
period, something that former Philippine Energy Secretary
Zenaida Monsada acknowledged.

“If we pursue the nuclear power plant project, we would have

increased investments in the country, that will generate jobs
and government revenue. If we have more sufficient, reliable
power, we can have more investments in manufacturing that
will help improve the economy,” Monsada said at the closing
session of the conference.

Chudakov said that while the decision to put up nuclear power

plants is a sovereign one, the IAEA stands ready to assist in
the undertaking.

For gov’t, nuclear energy now a viable

option
By: Amy R. Remo
@inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer

03:54 PM December 24th, 2012

Read more: http://business.inquirer.net/99427/for-govt-nuclear-energy-now-a-viable-
option#ixzz4JFiszbDJ
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Nuclear energy is back on the government’s list of possible alternatives for power
generation in the future, according to the Department of Energy, as it faces stiff
opposition from environmentalists and various militant groups.
Energy Secretary Carlos Jericho L. Petilla stressed that even before he was appointed
to his current position, he was already looking at nuclear energy as a possible power
source option.
“We’re looking at it on a long-term basis. We’re counting on [nuclear as an option].
At the same time, we have to look at the technical side, and then recommend later on
if studies show that it’s good for the country,” Petilla said.
“In the end however, we always have to [consider] social acceptability. One thing I
can guarantee, nuclear power will have a level playing field, but we just need to take
into account social acceptability,” he added.
Petilla said that it is this social dimension—or the possible non-acceptance of nuclear
energy by the public—that is currently limiting the government from including it in its
energy mix.
“Nuclear is not in the energy mix today. The major advantage of nuclear power
generation is that it’s cheap—you’re talking generation of P2.50 to P3 per kilowatt-
hour, compared to today’s generation of P5 a kWh and up. Another advantage of
nuclear is that it’s clean, meaning no emissions,” he further explained.
The energy reform agenda, which was formulated during the term of Petilla’s
predecessor, Cabinet Secretary Jose Rene D. Almendras, stated that the DOE planned
to implement a national nuclear power program, and even set 2025 as the target year
for the start of operations of the proposed 2,000-megawatt nuclear facility.
The target will clearly be pushed back to a later date as the Philippines has not even
started with the program and is awaiting for advances in technology, particularly those
that deal with safety.
Last year, the Philippine government was studying the possible conversion of the
mothballed 630-megawatt Bataan nuclear power plant (BNPP) into either a coal-fired
or natural gas-fed facility.
Based on the initial findings of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST)—
the agency tasked to look for the technology and fuel type that would best suit the
BNPP—a conversion to coal would be more feasible.
The BNPP was built during the Marcos era by Westinghouse Electric at a cost of $2.2
billion. It was mothballed in 1986 due to safety concerns, even before it could begin
operations.
The structure is now dilapidated and outdated

PH gov’t considers nuclear energy as

int’l conference kicks off
By: Kristine Angeli Sabillo
@KSabilloINQ
INQUIRER.net

02:39 PM August 30th, 2016

A 3-day international conference on nuclear power kicked off on Tuesday in Manila
as the Philippine government reconsiders nuclear energy to solve power shortage and
the high cost of electricity.
The conference on the prospects of nuclear power in the Asia-Pacific region was
organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International
Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC).
Eighteen countries are participating in the conference, which is being held at the
Diamond Hotel: Bangladesh, Canada, Finland, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Kenya,
Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka,
Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, Vietnam and the Philippines.
In his welcome remarks, Energy Undersecretary Donato Marcos said the event will
look into the potential and “crucial role of nuclear energy in improving a nation’s
energy supply” amid institutional and regional challenges.
“We will also learn from the planning and decision-making mechanisms and good
practices of experienced countries and organizations,” he said.
Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi said the conference is in line with the country’s
commitment to the earlier APEC Energy Ministers’ Meeting where member
economies highlighted “the importance of safe and efficient development of civil
nuclear power as a baseload power option to clean, high-quality and advanced modern
energy.”
Energy mix
In an ambush interview, Cusi said that the Philippines has to find a right “energy mix”
that would secure its power supply in the long run.
He said the country cannot rely on coal or oil alone and should consider nuclear,
which he said does not fluctuate in prices.
“Among all the studies, the cheapest power source is nuclear…We want to be
competitive with the rest of our neighbors so we have to come up with a cheap source
of energy and that is really nuclear,” he said. “Our neighbors are starting already.”
He explained that renewable energy will remain. “We want to develop our
geothermal, our hydro. The solar will continue, the biomass will continue. That’s part
of the mix,” he said.
Nuclear power for PH
Cusi said there is no timeline yet for the government’s development of nuclear energy.
“What we are doing now is part of the process of information campaign,” he said,
adding that it is part of their agency’s job to look into alternatives.
He said the Philippines was once ahead of the pack when the controversial Bataan
Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) was constructed in the 1970s.
“We are the first in our region and suddenly we are the last,” he said.
Asked if the country can still use the BNPP, he said initial findings show that it can
still be operated but they will have to determine up to what capacity or if it is
“worthwhile.”
The BNPP was constructed during the term of former President Ferdinand Marcos.
Because of nuclear-related disasters in other parts of the country, it was decided by
the next administration that it should not operate. Earlier inquiries also revealed that it
was built near a major geological fault line.
Cusi also dismissed questions about the large upfront capital needed for a nuclear
power plant.
“You will spread your capital cost so even in the beginning it will still be the cheapest
source even if the capital investment is big,” he said.
The secretary said they are already working on a road map and consulting Filipino
experts on nuclear power. He said Mindanao can be an option as a nuclear power
plant site since it is not prone to earthquakes.
The results of their study will be presented to President Rodrigo Duterte.
Consequences
In his welcome speech, Senate President Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III said that the
country needs an economy “powered by clean, cheap, and reliable sources of energy.”
However, he said that while nuclear power has so much potential, it can also have
“serious negative consequences” for a country like the Philippines that is in the
earthquake-prone region of the Pacific “Ring of Fire.”
“Our conclusions must be based on scientific evidence and not on political or
ideological considerations,” Pimentel said.
The Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ) said the conference seems to be
another move of the government to revive the mothballed BNPP, which has resulted
in millions of dollars of debt for the country.
“Nuclear energy while it is not a major contributor to climate change poses more
danger to humanity than any kind of calamity or disaster known,” PMCJ national
coordinator Ian Rivera said in a statement.
The group said that even with advanced technology, nuclear disasters still happened in
industrialized countries.
“The Chernobyl in Russia, the partial meltdown in Pennsylvania, USA and most
recently in Fukushima, Japan all resulted in catastrophic effects that lasted for several
years,” it said.
The group warned that a nuclear meltdown can cause “massive deaths and destruction
to environment.”
“Why are we desperately trying to have a nuclear (plant) that is so expensive and
dangerous when cheap, clean and safe renewable energy is vast and readily available
in the Philippines? They are actually becoming more and more cheap than any other
kind of energy sources,” said PMCJ energy transformation officer Glenn Ymata.
Ymata said the Philippines and its high poverty incidence cannot withstand the
disaster that may be brought about by a nuclear accident. RAM/rga

President Rodrigo Duterte early Saturday declared “a state of lawlessness” or “a state

of lawless violence” to counter terrorism and strengthen the campaign against illegal-
drug trade.
Speaking in a televised interview, he clarified “it’s not martial law but it would
require nationwide, well-coordinated efforts of the military and the police.”
“I have this duty to protect the country. I have this duty to keep intact the integrity of
the nation,” he added.
“There will be major checkpoints,” he said.
Around 4 a.m. Saturday, Duterte visited the site of the explosion at the Davao City
night market that had left 14 dead and 67 wounded, based on the latest police reports.
READ: 14 dead, 67 hurt in Davao blast—police
“This is not the first time Davao has been sacrificed in the altar of violence,” he
added, citing there have been terrorist acts in the past.
He considered the incident a police matter, “not a war.”
He said such thing happened because Davao “is not under a fascist state. “
“Everybody can come in and out of Davao,” he said. “Davao is safe, there is no
criminality here except terrorism.”
He ordered the police and the military to conduct searches and set up checkpoints in
the city.
Asked for his message his Davao residents, he said “keep calm.”
“The government is with you. We will protect everyone,” he said. With a report from
Anthony Esguerra/INQUIRER.net

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/812368/duterte-declares-state-of-

lawlessness#ixzz4JFh6wUs9
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Show map
Philippines - Country Profile
Biodiversity Facts
Status and trends of biodiversity, including benefits from
biodiversity and ecosystem services
The Philippines is one of 18 mega-biodiverse countries of the world, containing
two-thirds of the earth’s biodiversity and between 70% and 80% of the world’s
plant and animal species. The Philippines ranks fifth in the number of plant
species and maintains 5% of the world’s flora. Species endemism is very high,
covering at least 25 genera of plants and 49% of terrestrial wildlife, while the
country ranks fourth in bird endemism. The Philippines is also one of the world’s
biodiversity hotspots with at least 700 threatened species, thus making it one of
the top global conservation areas. The national list of threatened faunal species
was established in 2004 and includes 42 species of land mammals, 127 species
of birds, 24 species of reptiles and 14 species of amphibians. In terms of fishes,
the Philippines counts at least 3,214 species, of which about 121 are endemic
and 76 threatened. In 2007, an administrative order issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources established a national list of threatened
plant species, indicating that 99 species were critically endangered, 187 were
endangered, 176 vulnerable as well as 64 other threatened species.

This unique biodiversity is supported by a large variety of ecosystems,

landscapes and habitats, most of which are also greatly threatened by human
activities. According to the FAO definition, the Philippines has 7.2 million ha of
forest ecosystems, comprising approximately 24% of the total land area. It is
however estimated that, between 2000 and 2005, the Philippines lost 2.1% of its
forest cover annually, representing the second fastest rate of deforestation in
Southeast Asia (second to Myanmar) and seventh in the world. The country’s
agricultural ecosystem is also noteworthy. The Philippines is part of the center of
diversity of rice, coconut, mung bean, taro and yam, as well as the center of
origin and diversity of bananas in Southeast Asia. Yet this agricultural biodiversity
is nowadays experiencing general decline, as is the land area devoted to these
activities.

The trend is similar for inland water biodiversity, with findings indicating a
decreasing trend in water quality, fish, biodiversity and cultural value in the
country’s largest lake (Laguna de Bay) and its tributary rivers. The Philippines
presents unique coastal, marine and island biodiversity. It is indeed located
within the Coral Triangle, at the center of highest marine biodiversity. A study
conducted in 2005 noted that there is a higher concentration of species per unit
area in the country than anywhere in Indonesia and Wallacea. Yet this
ecosystem is also greatly at risk. While the 2005 review of the state of the marine
and coastal environment indicated an increase in the mangrove cover, reef
cover, seagrass cover and fishery production are nowadays decreasing
substantially.

The Philippines derives large benefits from ecosystems. In particular, the country
recognizes the important role played by watersheds, river basins and coastal
areas in the environment and in society as a source of livelihood (supporting
fisheries, recreation and tourism and many other activities). For instance, a
watershed with adequate forest cover provides water that supports lowland
agriculture, prevents soil erosion and siltation of coasts and water bodies, and
sustains the supply of surface and groundwater for domestic use. Likewise, the
forest ecosystem provides ecological services that benefit agriculture, industries,
water and power needs. Production forest areas for tree plantations and
agroforestry activities are sources of jobs and revenues, with agriculture having
represented 18.4% of the country’s GDP in 2007.

Main pressures on and drivers of change to biodiversity

(direct and indirect)
Threats to biodiversity differ from one ecosystem to another. In the forest
ecosystem, the primary causes of forest loss are commercial exploitation and
population growth (including lifestyle and consumption patterns) and the
introduction of invasive alien species. Loss of biodiversity in the agricultural
ecosystem is a direct consequence of habitat destruction via conversion of
agricultural land to other uses; the possible negative impacts of biotechnology;
natural calamities or extreme weather events associated with climate change;
introduction of invasive alien species, pests and diseases; and inherent
institutional problems of government agencies responsible for conserving
agrobiodiversity. Yet the observed decline is also the indirect result of the
increased demand for food, land and other agro-based resources; pursuit of
economic growth through intensive agriculture, export-oriented policies and the
promotion of extractive industries, such as mining, that are potentially damaging
to the environment; and lifestyle change of farmers brought about by
urbanization. Major threats to inland water biodiversity, as well as marine and
coastal environments, include chemical pollution and eutrophication, fisheries
operations, habitat alteration, invasion of alien species and global climate
change.

Measures to Enhance Implementation of the

Convention
Implementation of the NBSAP
The Philippines started formulating its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan in 1994 with the formulation of the Philippine Strategy for the Conservation
of Biological Diversity (PSCBD). In 1995, the Philippines undertook an
assessment of the country’s biodiversity through the UNEP-assisted Philippine
Biodiversity Country Study. As a result, the National Biodiversity Strategy and
Action Plan (NBSAP) was developed and published in 1997. Five years later, in
2002, a review of the NBSAP was undertaken that identified 206 conservation
priority areas and species conservation priorities, collectively known as the
Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Priorities (PBCP), which is considered the
second NBSAP revision and incorporates six major strategies and immediate
actions. Finally, the PBCP was reinforced in 2006 with 228 key biodiversity areas
(KBAs) identified covering an estimated 10.56 million hectares.

The updating of the NBSAP is on-going. The process builds on the current status
and achievements of the Philippines with respect to biodiversity planning and
reporting. It aims to integrate the Philippines’ obligations under the CBD into its
national development and sectoral planning frameworks through a renewed and
participative ‘biodiversity planning’ and strategizing process. It is expected to
produce measurable targets for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.
Interim biodiversity targets were also incorporated into the Philippine
Development Plan (2011-2016).

Actions taken to achieve the 2020 Aichi Biodiversity

Targets
Among the major achievements toward the 2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets is the
increase of the forest cover from 23.9% in 2003 to 52.6% of the total land area in
2006 (2007 MDG report), the extension of the terrestrial protected areas network
from 8.5% in 1992 to 12.8% of the total land area in 2008 (2007 MDG report),
along with 1,169 marine protected areas (in the form of reserves, sanctuaries
and parks), and improvement in management effectiveness of these sites, which
rose from 10-15% in 2000 to 20-30% in 2007. In addition, threatened flora and
fauna were given further protection through various species conservation
programs and executive and administrative issuances (with positive trends
recorded for marine turtles and mangroves); the number of confiscations of
illegally traded wildlife species regulated under CITES increased from 513 heads
in 2005 to 11,124 heads in 2011; measures such as fish farming and eco-tourism
in protected areas are being implemented to promote sustainable use and
benefits for local livelihoods; indigenous knowledge and the practices of 16 tribes
were documented by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
between 2005 and 2008; policy-making and access and benefit-sharing have
been institutionalized through the process of free and prior informed consent
from indigenous and local communities.

Support mechanisms for national implementation

(legislation, funding, capacity-building, coordination,
mainstreaming, etc.)
Traditionally, sectoral approaches have been used in the Philippines to manage
environmental and natural resources, which have led to separate governance
mechanisms for different resource uses, and conflicts in management. In the
1990s, the watershed approach, integrated Ecosystem Approach, bay regional
planning, integrated river basin and coastal zone management approach to
development and management emerged for planning and addressing issues that
cut across ecosystems. Presidential Memo Order No. 289 (1995) was issued,
directing the integration of the NBSAP, as was Executive Order No. 578 (2006)
establishing national policy on biodiversity and directing all concerned
government agencies and offices and local government units to integrate and
mainstream the protection, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into
their policies, rules and regulations, programs and development planning
processes.

Since then, several initiatives have been launched, notably in terms of integrated
watershed management. Moreover, Executive Order 533 (2006) mandated the
adoption of integrated coastal management (ICM), with a recent review indicating
that significant resources had been invested into ICM, with the participation of
various stakeholders, and that several concerns were taken into account, ranging
from poverty alleviation to food security and sustainable development.

Finally, enhanced cooperation on biodiversity management is promoted through

the formalization of partnerships, either through Executive Orders, as in the case
of the Bicol River Basin and the Watershed Management Councils in Lake Lanao
and Bukidnon Watershed, or through a Memorandum of Agreement or
Understanding, such as in the case of the Kabulnan Watershed Multi Sectoral
Council. Under said councils, multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary task forces,
committees, and technical working groups are organized to address specific
policy decisions or implementation problems or issues, either at the local,
provincial or regional level, depending on the extent of coverage of the river
basin and watershed. A multi-sectoral, multi-institutional mechanism called
“Network for Nature” (N4N) should be put in place to proactively disseminate,
monitor and coordinate the implementation of the Philippine Biodiversity
Conservation Priorities (PBCP).

Mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing

implementation
Monitoring activities are led in relation to water quality, coral reefs cover (notably
recording the impacts of climate change in the framework of the ICE CREAM
project), and species conservation. Several biodiversity monitoring tools have
been developed but sustaining the effort remains a challenge, especially after
donor exit. In 1999, the Biodiversity Monitoring System (BMS) was introduced as
a tool to collect data on priority species and resource use and to guide decision-
making by the Protected Areas Management Board (PAMB). This was
institutionalized through policy. For a time, monitoring efforts yielded promising
results and resulted in management interventions. In some protected areas, the
BMS was sustained through local efforts but, in general, monitoring ceased due
to lack of funds. Efforts regarding the development and implementation of criteria
and indicators for sustainable forest management, requiring the participation of
multi-disciplinary teams, etc., had a similar fate after donor exit. The Biodiversity
Indicators for National Use (BINU) for Coastal and Marine Ecosystems remain to
be implemented by other stakeholders, although the Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources is slowly piloting them within its bureaucracy. Implementation
of Conservation International’s framework for monitoring biodiversity
conservation outcomes held promise however has failed to fully take off due to
lack of funds.