Last February 19, 2021, the Department of Energy (DOE) released Department Circular (DC) 2020-12-0026, “Adoption of the Guidelines on Energy Conserving Design of Building,” which requires new-built and existing buildings to use solar power and other renewable energy (RE) technologies. The DOE circular is part of the Philippine government’s overarching campaign to increase energy efficiency and the country’s contribution to fighting climate change. The DC pushes commercial buildings to source out a portion of their electricity source from renewables.

This set of guidelines for energy conservation in buildings is a concrete step in realizing the country’s goals to attain energy self-sufficiency and reduce carbon emissions from the building sector. It hopes to lead to the adoption of energy-efficient technologies and processes within the industry and, finally, to lay the foundations of developing the Philippines’ green building industry. 

Metro Manila is “fertile ground for the development of a strong green building industry.” Its vulnerability to natural disasters can create opportunities for developing and implementing innovative green building technologies and processes. Built infrastructure can be made not only energy efficient but also resilient against typhoons or earthquakes — events that are all too familiar given the Philippines’ location in the Pacific “Ring of Fire.”

Republic Act 11285 or the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act emphasizes “institutionalizing energy efficiency and conservation as a way of life for the citizens of the Philippines” by implementing the adoption of these energy-efficient technologies. But what does this mean for the common tao, the ordinary citizen who uses public transport to commute every day? Is technology-driven policy enough to encourage adoption or support for energy-efficient technologies for people hustling their way around Metro Manila?   

Despite a supportive and overarching national policy framework, the more immediate challenge is tying existing policies with other pressing issues. Metro Manila’s historical and physical contexts shaped the infrastructure planning of the city (or the lack of it). This includes multiple interacting factors such as urban sprawl, traffic congestion, long-distance travel by commuters who are heavily dependent on public commuting, and low fuel efficiency of mass transportation. In one study, a commuter in Metro Manila spends around an hour and six minutes or 16 days per year at least stuck in the city traffic. That translates into economic losses equivalent to P100,000, nearly 200 times the minimum wage in Metro Manila.   

In terms of governance, the political environment is highly decentralized and privatized. The local city government has taken a backseat while the less coordinated private sector takes the lead on urban planning and implementation. These challenges have resulted in fragmented governance and physical infrastructure development that can hinder a holistic approach to green building development in Metro Manila. 

There are also “hidden costs” associated with the development of the green building sector. Examples are the costs of dealing with stringent building codes and regulations or the administrative and bureaucratic hurdles needed to get permits and approvals from various agencies. A conversation with a local technology developer reveals that one would need around 50-plus signatures to start an RE project in the Philippines. This lengthy permitting process to approve an RE project usually takes approximately 1 to 3 years.

Finally, public acceptance and other cultural norms must be considered to push for adopting green building technologies in Metro Manila. Green building materials are difficult to source locally. An interview with a green building engineer with experience in both the Philippine and Singapore markets stressed that green building materials are scarce in the Philippines. As such, the prevailing mentality of the Philippines’ construction sector is quite simplistic: going green is expensive. What is preferred are “widely-used traditional construction methods”  rather than choosing “more expensive but efficient new system[s].” The drive to adopt new and innovative techniques is still missing in the Philippines.

Green building developers also need to consider the cultural norms of Filipinos, like disaster resilience. Although the trait is positive in many instances, it can also result in “puwede na iyan” complacency. For some unscrupulous developers, as long as a building remains standing and appears externally intact, there are no pressing incentives or inducements to build back better. On the other hand, destroyed infrastructure is often rebuilt to previous standards without little foresight that replicating what was damaged by a natural disaster would only lead to an endless cycle of (re)construction and destruction.

Must Read

[ANALYSIS] What the Philippines needs to do in 2021 to deliver its climate pledges

Moving forward

There is potential to further develop the green building sector in Metro Manila with the existing policies that push energy-efficient technologies and RE’s integration. However, aside from policy-technological push, there is an urgent need to situate green building policies in the context of everyday quality-of-life issues that face those who live and work in Metro Manila. The city itself faces other pressing issues like poor traffic management, flood vulnerabilities, and urban densification. Social awareness of the environmental and economic benefits and improvement in the health of green building and spaces need to be emphasized to increase public acceptance. The readiness of soft infrastructures like processes on permitting and approvals would need to be streamlined to avoid the indirect costs of developing projects. All these factors should be considered to push an inclusive and holistic approach to green building development. – Rappler.com

The views and opinions expressed in the piece do not represent the author’s institute. The analysis is an excerpt from the author’s published article with two other co-authors, entitled, “Green Building Policies in Cities: A Comparative Assessment and Analysis,” Energy & Buildings (2020). 

Mary Ann Quirapas Franco is a Research Fellow of the Energy Studies Institute, National University of Singapore. Her work focuses on the impacts of adopting sustainable energy technologies in the Southeast Asia region.