Catholic Lay Forum Joins Opposition to Landfill in Felisa

By Alan S. Gensoli

Last March 31st I received a copy of a document entitled, “Position Paper on Serious Danger of Brgy. Felisa Dumpsite to People of Bacolod City” signed by members of the Catholic Lay Forum of the Diocese of Bacolod. The position paper, referred to a column written by Atty. Andy Hagad for another local daily, and to a column of mine published in this newspaper, both on Jan. 5, 2009, urging the Bacolod LGU and the DENR “to transfer as soon as possible, the city dumpsite to a suitable area far from the present Barangay Felisa area where the BACIWA wells and distribution lines are located.” The paper further recommended a site in Brgy. Cabug. 

I would like to thank very much the members of the Catholic Lay Forum of Bacolod for taking up this urgent concern. This is a boost and a boon to our advocacy on Solid Waste Management (SWM). Not to look a gift-horse in the mouth, though, how I wish that this position paper arrived at my doorsteps much earlier. That it did only on March 31, the day before the city launched its “No Segregation, No Collection” policy, puts me in a jam. Much as I would like to trumpet the concern of the Catholic Lay Forum, I am wont to stand down and allow the city some room to work out its “No Segregation, No Collection” policy, which I totally applaud. 

But, the Catholic Lay Forum is right in keeping the matter about the sanitary landfill in Felisa alive, albeit hibernating for another day. 

By coincidence, last April 2nd, Jean Trebol of our alliance passed on to me some updates from Atty. Julie Carbon, GM of BACIWA. May I share these with you, but especially to the Catholic Lay Forum of Bacolod whose concerns may be temporarily addressed by the updates. 

BACIWA has five wells in the vicinity of the open dump in Felisa - these are Wells 36 to 40. Per Atty. Carbon, Well 36 is now operational, Well 37 will be energized by CENECO in two weeks’ time (which should be around April 16). Well 39 was supposedly energized by CENECO on April 5, thereafter to become operational, and Well 40 has been condemned after it was tested and found to contain salt. Meanwhile, there was no update on Well 38 and, as with any well threatened by fecal coliform, I guess no news is good news. 

If I recall right from my past conversations with Atty. Carbon, these five wells in Felisa are critical to Bacolod. I have the impression that they are the last of the Mohicans. While these five may be the later wells to be developed, this doesn’t mean that they are in addition to 35 older wells that are serving the city. Actually, BACIWA wells also dry up after some time, and some of the older wells have indeed dried up. So, to say that BACIWA has 40 wells does not mean that BACIWA has 40 functioning wells. 

This should concern all of us. And it should further concern us that BACIWA has already explored the possibility of importing potable water from sources in the mountains of Murcia. This means, we’re running out of water! Murcia Mayor Sonny Coscolluela may have told BACIWA that it will cost them an arm and a leg. It’s a seller’s market, you see: Bacolodians could lose more than just an arm and a leg if their drinking water in Brgy. Felisa proves to be “fecalized”. So, when the demand is high, the price goes up, and Murcia is happy. The market is efficient that way. 

Our concern shouldn’t end there. We should also be worried sick that while water supply is getting scarce, our annual population growth rate is still 2.12%. Worse, we have a squatter colony that comprises up to 60% of total population. That’s 300,000 people who may not afford to buy bottled water! If the BACIWA wells in Felisa become contaminated, we can have a cholera outbreak in our hands. Think about it. 

As far as the appeal of the Catholic Lay Forum of Bacolod for the garbage facility to be moved out of Brgy. Felisa, the chances of this happening could be remote if only for the fact that in 2008, our city already purchased a seven-hectare property, near the existing open dump in Felisa, purportedly to build a sanitary landfill. To be able to build the landfill, the city needs to get an Environment Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR. Thus, the only chance for the landfill to be built outside Felisa, as prayed for by the position paper of the Catholic Lay Forum of Bacolod, is for the DENR not to grant the Bacolod LGU an ECC to the Felisa property. Alas, we are talking about the same DENR that looked the other way while our LGU defied R.A. 9003 for many years. 

And this brings us to a Catch 22 situation - damned if you have a sanitary landfill in Felisa, and damned if you don’t have a sanitary landfill now. Why so? Because Brgy. Felisa is an active water source, the sanitary landfill shouldn’t be there. But because the city has started collecting segregated garbage, we should already have a sanitary landfill in place. That we do not should again alarm all of us. 

During the monthly General Meeting of the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance last March 30, its Monitoring Committee head Norman Campos reported that they have not seen a sanitary landfill, built or being built, anywhere near Felisa. Where then will the city deliver its residual and special wastes? 

Pursuant to the program of the Bacolod LGU to begin collecting segregated garbage on April 1, the city will pick up RESIDUAL WASTE and SPECIAL WASTE only. As far as I am concerned, these are the two worst types of garbage. Residual wastes are the dirtiest of the dirty - it’s a buffet of used sanitary napkins, used disposable diapers, used toilet paper, and everything else you wouldn’t want your manicure to touch. Meanwhile, special wastes are actually household hazardous wastes, such as household chemicals. Thus, these two types of waste require a garbage facility that has an impermeable lining at the bottom, to prevent juice coming from these to seep into the ground where our potable water source could be contaminated. And so now, what good is garbage segregation if there is no sanitary landfill to bring segregated garbage to? But then, too, can we allow a sanitary landfill to be built in Felisa?*

Burning Trash Won’t Make it Disappear

SOMETHING SMELLS!

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Gigi M. Campos

After more than eight years, the city of Bacolod took its first step towards an implementation of RA 2009 last April 1st. With this new policy of NO SEGREGATION, NO COLLECTION in place, the temptation to find other means of getting rid of garbage becomes very strong. Why? Because there are still some people who just don’t want to be bothered by the tedious task of segregating and may resort to the next easiest option - backyard trash burning. This is no longer allowed by RA2009, but in our country it has been a common method of disposing garbage, particularly in the rural areas. Many years ago when we used to live in the town of Pontevedra, I would see the household help of my in-laws religiously sweeping the dry leaves of chico, avocado and iba trees in the backyard in neat little piles and setting them to flame every afternoon. It was a common sight in many backyards. 

It was also said that smoking fruit trees would ensure prolific produce when fruiting time came. Sure enough, we always enjoyed an abundant supply of fruits from just the backyard. Nobody knew of the dangers of backyard trash burning. 

Burning backyard trash has been declared illegal because the burning of trash whether in a barrel, a pile or anywhere outdoors releases toxic smoke into the air. The content of the smoke emitted depends on the trash that went into the fire, the temperature of the fire and the available oxygen. Backyard trash fires can smolder and as a result produce greater amounts of harmful chemicals. Harmful chemicals can also be present in the ash from the fire. 

Trash containing plastics, polystyrene (such as foam cups), CCA (Chromated Copper Arsenate) pressure-treated wood, and bleached or colored papers are the worst kind because these materials can produce harmful chemicals when burned. For example, when CCA pressure-treated wood which contains arsenic is burned, arsenic can be released in the smoke or remain in the ash. 

A study by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the NYS Department of Health (DOH) and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) measured the types and amounts of many chemicals in the smoke from burning trash. For some of those chemicals, burning about 10 pounds a day of trash from a household burn barrel may produce as much air pollution as a modern, well-controlled incinerator burning 400,000 pounds a day of trash!! Emissions of dioxins and furans from backyard burning alone are estimated to be greater than for all other sources combined. 

We are all at risk from trash burning. Smoke from any fire can affect our health, our family’s health and our neighbor’s health. The smoke from backyard burning is released close to the ground where people can easily breathe it. The smoke from the fire can deposit dangerous chemicals on garden vegetables and garden soil. People can be exposed to those chemicals by eating fruits and vegetables grown near the trash-fire or in garden soil tilled with the ashes. Young children may be at greater risk than adults because of their playing behaviors, their small size and their developing bodies. 

The chances of developing health effects from contact (exposure) with smoke from backyard fires depends on how much smoke a person contacts, how a person is exposed (e.g., breathing the smoke or eating vegetables affected by the smoke) and how long and often the person is exposed. Some people may be more or less sensitive than others to chemicals in smoke. People exposed to smoke could experience burning eyes and nose, coughing, nausea, headaches, or dizziness. Some people find the odors produced by burn barrels disagreeable, and they may experience discomfort, headaches, and nausea. Smoke can trigger asthma attacks. People with heart and lung conditions are at greater risks for health effects. Repeated exposures to pollutants in burning smoke may occur when people burn trash on a regular basis, and this may increase the risk of chronic health problems. Of course, unattended backyard burning can also cause accidental fires. 

Information from studies showed that smoke from burning trash contains particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide, benzene, styrene, formaldehyde, arsenic, lead, chromium, benzo(a)pyrene, dioxins, furans and PCBs. Some of these chemicals are found in smoke from any fire. Although substances such as particulate matter, carbon monoxide and formaldehyde can cause immediate health effects with enough exposure, some chemicals such as dioxin can build up in foods and in your body. Some of these chemicals can remain in the environment for a long time and can remain on your property (for example, soil outside and dust inside your home). 

There are three ways burning trash can get chemicals into our bodies — breathing the smoke, eating food contaminated by smoke and ash, and playing in areas of contaminated soil or dust. Smoke and ash can settle on fruits and vegetables. If ash is mixed into the garden soil, chemicals can be taken up by crops. Chemicals can enter milk, eggs or meat if farm animals eat contaminated feed or soil. 

We need to break the habit and stop burning trash. Here are some simple tips to avoid the need to burn your trash: 

Reduce - Avoid waste. Buy fewer items and select products with the least packaging. 

Re-use - Buy products that can be re-used and/or come in containers that can be re-filled. 

Recycle - Learn about your community’s recycling programs. Dispose of your recyclables accordingly, and urge others to do the same. 

Compost - Compost plant-based kitchen and yard waste. 

Segregate - The only way you can get your trash collected and properly disposed of is if your trash and recyclables are segregated. 

Let’s be considerate of your neighbors and stop backyard burning. Remember, it is not only a bad idea, it is against the law!* 

Green House Pa-effect?

SOMETHING SMELLS!

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Alan S. Gensoli

The mission of the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance is to impel government to find lasting solutions to the flooding problem of Bacolod. Now that the Bacolod LGU has begun the collection of segregated garbage only, and since unsegregated garbage is a major cause of flooding, that mission seems to have been accomplished. Has it?

Coincidentally, too, on March 31, 2009, the day before the government launched its “No Segregation, No Collection” policy, the Banat Baha TV show of the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance ended its third season. Just as well, it would seem, as if to say that the Banat Baha had done its job and it was time to put the camera away. Is it?

A fortnight ago today, the alliance held its monthly general membership meeting. The accomplishments of the Banat Baha were recalled and applauded. This has been a project of so many individuals, but especially of Dr. Elsie Coscolluela, the Executive Producer, and Rene Hinojales, the host of the show. Michael Varca was the show’s producer/director/writer/researcher all rolled into one.

Customary in our monthly meeting is the presentation of committee reports. We have nine standing committees: Communications, Education, Finance, Legal, Membership, Monitoring, New Business, Secretariat, and Special Events. Let me share with you highlights from two of these reports as these are most significant at this point in time.

The Monitoring Committee, co-chaired by Norman Campos and Maite Elorde, reported on two issues that had been left unfinished, unattended since the time the Bacolod LGU fired us from the Bacolod Flood Mitigating Committee in November 2008. The construction of the floodway at Brgy. Banago is nowhere near completion. And that green house on top of the Banago Creek is still there, together with other illegal structures, squatter shanties in fact, all obstructing the water flow. Their stilts continue to collect garbage coming from their fellow illegal structures upstream, and for sure they continue to pooh pooh straight into the creek, fecal coliform and all! But of all, the green house stands proud. Mainit sa mata. With its bold color in a canvas of ashen grey and putrid brown, the green house seems to brag to the world: “Hey, look at me, I’m on top of a creek and no one can do anything about it! Not even the city government!” Bah, humbug.

Just before we were fired from the Mitigating Committee in November last, we were told that these illegal structures had already been identified and scheduled for demolition. We know none has been demolished. We also know that these are not new structures but the same old illegal structures that we talked about last year. How do we know that? Because of the green house. It has become a reference point, thank you.

Meanwhile, the floodway is also not done. The DPWH has rip-rapped some 270 meters worth of floodway. Not only is this not enough, the 270 meters are not contiguous. For some reason, those who constructed this created several giant bath tubs, now filled with stagnant, black, filthy, stenchy, yucky water with nowhere to empty? Another 500 meters need to be dug up and the Bacolod LGU has offered to do the job, after which the DPWH will construct the rip-rap. This has not yet been dug up, our Norman Campos reported.

Meanwhile, our Education Committee, co-chaired by Joel Jaquinta and Maggie Jalandoni, reported on the Solid Waste Management (SWM) seminar held for the Business Inn and Planta Centro Hotel. I wrote about this in a recent column, but I have more insight to add, especially valuable to private enterprises.

Coming out of that seminar, Joel observed that the simplified steps and procedures featured in the flyer distributed by the Bacolod LGU may not be summarily applicable to all enterprises. Perhaps, the simplified steps are applicable in most homes, but not in businesses where the size and type of operations greatly vary. For instance, a restaurant with a seating capacity of 25 and another with a seating capacity of 50 will generate different loads of garbage. In another case, a fine dining restaurant and a turo-turo will also generate different kinds of garbage.

Another area where adjustments may have to be made is in the schedule of garbage pick-ups. Enterprises should adjust to the schedule that the city has planned out. For instance, according to the government’s pick up schedule, residual wastes will be collected on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays only. What then should a busy restaurant do with its garbage on other days? A popular fastfood-type establishment using disposable materials (such as plastic bags, plates, utensils, cups and tumblers, styro food containers) will have to put mitigating measures in place to prevent itself from smelling and from being inundated with bugs and ants if it has to wait for 48 hours before the next pick up. For this reason, an SWM seminar especially designed to address the unique needs of an establishment is recommended. And our Joel Jaquinta is available for that. For a reasonable fee, of course. You may contact him through his cellular phone number, 0920-637-8557.

With these reports from our Monitoring and Education committees, these questions are once more begged: Has the mission of the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance been achieved with the start of the collection of segregated garbage on April 1? Has the Banat Baha TV show fulfilled its objectives, or outgrown its purpose after three seasons? If our last monthly meeting would have it, uh-uh. There’s just so much more monitoring and educating to do. So, don’t be surprised, because when you least expect it, “Smile!”, you’re on Banat Baha camera!

A Happy Easter to all!

Clueless in Bacolod

SOMETHING SMELLS

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Alan S. Gensoli

Last Friday, April 3, while I was losing 650 calories per hour at the Riverside Gym, I watched on their plasma-TV the week’s episode of “Joe Lib Live.” Riverside, by the way, is a member of the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance and has won several national awards for its Solid Waste Management (SWM) program. So, I’m proud to say I gym there. 

Back to “Joe Lib Live:” The show featured an audio recording of an interview of Brgy. Felisa Kagawad Ma. Fe Tresfuentes. The interview was in fact conducted two days earlier, on April 1, which was the start of the city’s “No Segregation, No Collection” policy. In the interview, Kagawad Tresfuentes said that the Alyansa Kontra Basura (ALKOBA) had formed a monitoring team to check if indeed the garbage trucks of the city were delivering residual and special wastes only to the open dump in Felisa, and only on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, as City Hall had directed. 

In hindsight, I think the city’s “No Segregation, No Collection” policy may have started on the wrong foot. You see, while the Bacolod LGU said that it will pick up residual and special wastes on T-Th-S, it chose April 1 to launch its policy. And April 1 is a Wednesday. You will agree that if there are mistakes to catch in implementing a policy, the best time to catch them is on the first day of implementation, when the process is undergoing test. Sure enough, Kagawad Tresfuentes later informed me that on April 1 the ALKOBA monitoring team turned back around six garbage trucks because these contained unsegregated garbage. And even if they were delivering residual and special wastes, April 1 was a Wednesday. The garbage trucks were not supposed to be there on a Wednesday! Sus, my gulay! Had the Bacolod LGU told PGMA, she would have moved April 1 to a Tuesday! Or a Thursday! Even a Saturday! Kaya nga i-move ang Araw ng Kagitingan ‘yun pa kaya ang Araw ng mga Ulol? 

I have no space to tell you about all the six trucks that were turned back, but two will fit just fine in this column. According to 

Kagawad Tresfuentes, one of the trucks was delivering unsegregated garbage from Brgy. Estefania. This is distressing because of all barangays to be caught disobeying the orders of City Hall, it had to be the barangay of the ABC President, whose election to the ABC Presidency (automatically making him city councilor), I am told, had the blessings of the Mayor! Hello?! 

The chances of Brgy. Estafania getting caught making this mistake, out of the total 61 barangays of Bacolod, is as remote as Miss Philippines winning Miss Universe! It’s not an easy mistake to commit, but you see, if you’re not careful, you can easily make a mistake when you shouldn’t be making it because you’re the leader, the shining example, the ABC President. And, if you’re really, really not careful, your mistake could end up on TV being re-run all week long. Kagawad Tresfuentes also told me that the truck driver admitted that he didn’t know about the city’s “No Segregation, No Collection” policy. Well, whose fault is that now? 

It gets hairy. Kagawad Tresfuentes also shared that a representative of the City Environment Office (CENRO), who was also at Felisa when the ALKOBA team was monitoring, turned back a garbage truck delivering hospital waste. The kagawad said, the blood on the needle connected to the dextrose bottle even looked fresh! The CENRO representative wrote down the name of the hospital, and we hope that said hospital has been informed and will not do it again. As with the first, the driver of this truck confessed he also didn’t know about the “No Segregation, No Collection” policy. 

May we know from CENRO the name of the hospital, please? Obviously, it was not Riverside. Whatever hospital it was, we should boycott that hospital. And it’s only fair that the hospital is named because it holds all hospitals suspect, when in fact other hospitals have won national awards for their SWM programs. While special waste includes household hazardous waste, hospital waste, which is hazardous, hardly qualifies as household. So please, let us not in conscience pass it off as household. That’s premeditated mortal sin. 

As late as the evening of March 30, at the monthly General Membership Meeting of the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance, so many of our members revealed that they, too, didn’t know about the “No Segregation, No Collection” policy of the city. And by then we were less than 36 hours to April 1, the launch date of the policy. Those who didn’t know instinctively blamed their barangay captains. I was one of those who almost didn’t know. 

I do not live in Brgy. Vista Alegre, but it was from the barangay captain of Vista Alegre-my cousin Tonette Gensoli-that I learned about the city government’s “No Segregation, No Collection” policy. If not for Brgy. Capt. Tonette, I wouldn’t have a clue even to this day. And it is for this reason that I keep on telling people that they should call their barangay captains because many barangay captains did not bother to inform their residents. 

I know for a fact that my cousin roamed the streets of Vista Alegre, holding “pulong-pulongs” from one subdivision to the next. I am not shy to lift my cousin’s chair, as it were, because he has done the right thing. In fact, I would be unfaithful to my love for Bacolod if I didn’t talk about it, because Vista Alegre happens to own the largest land area of all 61 barangays in Bacolod City. 

And so, if Brgy. Capt. Tonette Gensoli can hit the ground and inform residents house to house, there should be no reason why any other barangay captain cannot do the same, with less land area to cover. None of the 60 other barangay captains can now say they didn’t have enough time to go around and tell their people. You want to argue from the point of view of population density? Don’t bother, nowhere is it more dense than in Abada-Escay, the newest purok of Vista Alegre. So hush. 

Frankly, I do not expect barangay captains to perform miracles, as much as I might expect Mayor Bing Leonardia and Councilor Greg Gasataya to perform miracles, because they have the wherewithal to produce them. But if I don’t know that my barangay captain doesn’t have the funds to implement environmental policies, I will end up blaming him anyway, when in fact I should blame City Hall for two reasons. First, R.A. 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act) says City Hall must help the barangay financially if the barangay cannot afford to implement our environmental laws, policies, and programs. And second, R.A. 7160 (New Government Code) says that the city government is primarily responsible for implementing laws, including R.A. 9003. 

We the people cannot be held clueless about the “No Segregation, No Collection” policy, especially since our non-compliance is subject to penalty, with fines and imprisonment. Unless barangay captains talk to us and convince us how their barangays’ non-compliance to the policy is not their fault, we will instinctively blame them for any problem, any hindrance to the successful implementation of the policy-and that includes our ignorance of it because they didn’t tell us about it. Believe me, Caps, if we can blame you for our laziness to segregate our garbage at home, I’m sure we will do that, too. Pity our barangay captains, but in the pecking order of things, they are found naturally standing at the crossfire, and so they could get picked on and pecked at with abandon. We need them to speak up and speak out-speak out about what support they need from City Hall, speak up about what support they need from the people. Then, I’ll be more than happy to take up their cause every Monday.*

MISSION - VISION OF BAHA

BAHA
Bacolod Anti-BAHA Alliance


MISSION

Urged by the increasing threat to our lives, health and property brought about by the worsening flooding in the City of Bacolod, we, a non-political citizen’s group have come together to establish BAHA, the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance, to impel our city government officials and national government agencies to once and for all utilize all the resources and laws at their disposal to solve the flooding problem in Bacolod City.


CORE VALUES AND PHILOSOPHY

As an apolitical citizen’s movement, we shall pursue our mission in the spirit of:

solidarity
openness and dialogue
commitment and perseverance
seriousness of purpose
respectfulness of our differences

OBJECTIVE

To undertake any and all necessary and appropriate action to move the Bacolod City Officials and National Agencies to STOP THE FLOODING IN BACOLOD CITY NOW.

The New Age - Biofuels

SOMETHING SMELLS!

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Lourdes Ledesma

When the prices of crude oil skyrocketed several years ago and stayed relatively high, the industrialized countries scrambled to find alternative sources of energy. So did the Philippines. In an earlier article, I gave a bird’s eye view of alternative sources of energy, among them, biofuels, water and wind energy, all green, as far as environment is concerned. In this article, allow me to focus on biofuels. 

Alternative fuels are not based on petroleum and are desirable because they provide energy security and environmental benefits. Biofuels are produced from feedstock and other organic sources that are renewable like animal wastes, biodegradable organic wastes, such as leaves, crops, plant fibers, and animal and vegetable oils. The originator of the use of biofuels was Mr. Rudolf Diesel, when he built the first diesel engine fueled by vegetable oil. The two major types of biofuels are : 1) bio-ethanol, derived from starch or sugar from sugarcane, corn, sweet sorghum, cassava and nipa; 2) biodiesel, sourced from plant oils, such as palm, jatropha, soy, coconut and rapeseed, waste vegetable oil, and animal fats, which include, tallow, lard, and yellow grease from fish oil. 

Republic Act 9367, known also as the Biofuels Act of 2006, was authored by Cong. Juan Miguel Zubiri, and was signed into law in January, 2007. This piece of legislation, considered a landmark and a model for other countries to emulate, opened the door to business opportunities as well as research and development of alternative energy sources, bringing relief to an otherwise poverty-stricken country, held captive to high fuel prices. In this legislation is a clear mandate for the government and the private sector to cooperate in developing biofuels, while setting standards for its production and use, and creating the National Biofuels Board. It mandates that all liquid fuels for motors and engines sold in the Philippines shall contain locally-sourced biofuel components as follows: 

1) Within three months from the signing of this Act, a minimum of 1 percent biodiesel by volume shall be blended into all diesel engine fuels sold in the country, provided the blend conforms to standards. And within two years, the blend may be increased to 2 percent as may be determined by the NBB. 

2) Within two years from the effectivity of this Act, 5% bioethanol shall comprise the annual total volume of gasoline fuel sold and distributed by each and every oil company in the country; provided that the ethanol blend conforms to standards set by the NBB. 

3) Within 4 years from the effectivity of this Act, the NBB is empowered to determine the feasibility and thereafter recommend to the Department of Energy to increase the minimum percent of bioethanol to 10 percent blend by volume of all gasoline fuel distributed and sold by each and every oil company in the country. In the event of supply shortage of locally-produced bioethanol, oil companies shall be allowed to import bioethanol, but only to the extent of the shortage, as determined by the NBB. 

The Biofuels Act of 2006 also provides incentives to spur research and production, such as exemption from: 1) VAT, on sale of raw material used in biofuel production, 2) specific tax on local or imported biofuel materials, 3) waste water charges from effluents from biofuel production, if used as liquid fertilizer and other agricultural purposes (“re-use”), and 4) financial assistance from lending institutions for business entities that shall engage in activities involving production, storage, handling and transport of biofuel and biofuel feedstock, including the blending of biofuels with petroleum, as certified by the DOE. The role of this government agency is the preparation of the Philippine Biofuels Program and the accreditation of biofuels producers. 

Other salient features of R.A. 9367 is the phase-out of harmful gasoline additives, which when added to gasoline, increase the amount of oxygen in the gasoline blend, the prohibition and penalizing of distribution, sale and use of such fuel, also the sale and distribution of blended fuel that failed to meet set standards, false labeling of gasoline, diesel, biofuels and biofuel-blended gasoline and diesel, and diversion of biofuels, whether locally-produced or imported, to purposes other than those envisioned in this Act. 

The implications of using biofuels are many: it is cheaper than fossil fuels, it is clean, in terms of lower emissions (30-60%). Carbon dioxide is likewise reduced at the rate of 3 kilos/liter of biodiesel used. According to data from the DENR, the use of the mandated 1% coco-biodiesel blend (B1) has significantly cut down carbon emissions in Metro Manila in the third quarter of 2007. Since it is biodegradable, it is safe to handle and transport, less toxic and has a higher flashpoint than petroleum diesel fuels. It is efficient, in terms of usability, as according to the Chamber of Automotive Manufacturers of the Philippines, a 2% biodiesel and a 10% bioethanol blend will not require any engine modifications in cars, pumpboats and hand tractors. 

Furthermore, biodiesels extend the life of diesel engines because they are more lubricating than petroleum diesel fuels. As for being cost-effective, the savings that would accrue to our foreign exchange is substantial. The projected savings nationwide if 1% biodiesel blend is used, at a volume of 86 million liters, is $41 million. When the country shifts to 5% biodiesel, it would stand to save $205 million at a volume of 429.4 million liters. (Figures from PNOC Alternative Fuels Corporation). Currently in use now in the Philippines is B1 (1% coco-diesel blend), and E10 (10% bioethanol-gasoline blend). E10 is being sold in all Seaoil stations nationwide. 

The Philippines is the first country to use coconut as a source of feedstock for biodiesel. A Japanese firm is currently engaged in developing a $600-million coconut plantation project in northern Luzon. Many other major players are interested in investment opportunities in biofuel projects. A Singaporean firm, D1-BP Fuels Crops Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., has been approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission to form a corporation for a biofuel project. The state-run PNOC-AFC has engaged in a project in Mindanao with jatropha as feedstock. It is assessing probable locations for plantations in several provinces, engaging in the research and propagation of seedlings, and forming joint venture/partnerships with investors, landowners and oil companies to transform land with an aggregate area of 700,000 hectares into jatropha plantations. Then it is setting up biodiesel refineries in strategic locations, for the extraction and processing of oil from jatropha. It is allocating P50 million to undertake a pilot plantation in northern Mindanao. 

Feedstock for the production of bioethanol will come from sweet sorghum and sugarcane. Negros Occidental, where most of the sugarcane in the country is produced, will be leading the thrust of bioethanol production. San Carlos Bioenergy is in the process of setting up an ethanol distillery with an integrated generation power-plant. The project is funded by a consortium of banks led by the Development Bank of the Philippines, Land Bank of the Philippines, Banco de Oro, China Bank and Equitable PCI. The project cost is P1.78 billion. The government banks are mandated to provide loans for biofuel producers, blenders and transporters. The distillery will be producing 125,000 liters per day (35 million liters/year) of fuel grade ethanol, while the power plant will have a capacity of 8 MW. The distillery is located at the San Carlos Agro-Industrial Economic Zone. 

Petron Corporation is expected to start offering 5% ethanol-blended gasoline within the year. Basic Energy plans to plant 10,000 hectares of idle lands in Zamboanga del Norte into sugarcane, for ethanol production. In General Santos City, Eastern Petroleum Corp. is planning to construct a P1.8-billion ethanol plant with Chinese firm Guanxi State Farm. Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri was quoted to say that San Miguel Corp. plans to invest between P16 billion-20 billion in putting up 10 ethanol plants around the Philippines. According to official data, since R.A. 9367 was enacted, investors have committed at least $2 billion in investments. 

This augurs well for our country in savings, in more livelihoods for our people, and a cleaner environment, I would say. Things are looking up, don’t you think?*