Table of Contents
Environmental groups and city officials in Calbayog, Samar, are pushing back against a proposed ₱ 20 billion wind power project within the Calbayo Pan-as Hayiban Protected Landscape (CPHPL), warning that it could harm the forest ecosystem and nearby communities.
According to the Save Calbayog Rivers Foundation–a Concerted Effort (SACRIFICE), the plan to install 38 wind turbines in 13 barangays could inflict lasting damage on the 7,832-hectare area.
The group highlighted that the turbines would generate noise pollution, disrupt or destroy wildlife habitats, and damage the watershed that supplies water to local communities. “Clearing old growth forest and conducting construction and drilling operations will increase risks of landslides, rockslides, and flooding,” it added.
With the felling of more than 5,000 trees, environmental advocate Gina Dean cautioned that the wind farm could put Calbayog City’s primary water source at risk.
Calbayog City Mayor Raymund Uy also opposed the project, emphasizing that no activities should be permitted within the area, which was declared a protected area under Republic Act 11038 on June 18, 2018. He called for the revocation of the 2023 city council resolution that endorsed the wind farm.
Samar Governor Sharee Ann Tan and Northern Samar Representative Edwin Ongchuan had endorsed the project, emphasizing that it would strengthen local energy supply, create jobs, and boost provincial revenue.
Meanwhile, Eleen Lim, president of the Save Calbayog Rivers Foundation–Concerted Effort (SACRIFICE) Inc., said the group launched a signature campaign to highlight the lack of public information on the wind farm project. Lim stressed, “There was no real public hearing or consultation to explain the possible destruction of our protected landscape.”
In just two weeks, the group collected more than 6,000 signatures, receiving backing from priests of Vicariate I in the Diocese of Calbayog.
(Also read: Controversy Erupts over Cebu’s Waste-to-Energy Project)
Plans and points of debate
Singapore-based Vena Energy, through its local subsidiary Gemini Wind Energy Corporation (GWEC), proposed to develop a 304-megawatt (MW) wind farm. The project would involve not only the installation of wind turbines but also the construction of essential infrastructure, including drainage systems, access roads, bunkhouses, and other operational facilities.
Of the 38 wind turbines planned along the mountain ridges, 15 would stand within the multiple-use area of the CPHPL, just beyond the boundary of its strict protection zone.
In a statement, Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Sharon Garin said that while the government backs the expansion of renewable energy (RE), every project must first pass rigorous environmental evaluation. “Renewable energy projects may be developed in any location, including protected areas, so long as all regulatory requirements have been complied with, including crucially, an environmental compliance certificate from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,” she explained.
GWEC asserted that none of its turbines would be placed inside the strict protection zone. The firm said all planned facilities lie within designated multiple-use zones, in line with the Protected Area Management Board’s zoning, and that it has applied for a Special Use Agreement covering only 24 hectares, or 0.48% of the entire protected area.
However, Manila Times columnist Marit Stinus-Cabugon pointed out an inconsistency in the project’s environmental documents. The Environmental Impact Statement submitted in July 2025 lists the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) area at 777 hectares and the project footprint at 255.33 hectares, with 139.27 hectares overlapping the protected landscape.
Yet an earlier Project Description for Scoping showed far larger figures—an ECC area of 10,818 hectares, a footprint of 706 hectares, and an overlap of 2,366 hectares.
“What has been changed to account for the huge difference?” she wrote. “Was the Department of Energy contract area confused with the ECC area?”
Considering GWEC’s argument that no turbines will be built in the protected area, Cabugon raised concerns about the likely environmental impact during construction. The wind turbines are planned along mountain ridges at elevations of 350 to 639 meters. Construction will require a network of heavy-duty access roads for equipment and turbine components. Each turbine will feature 86-meter blades weighing 20 to 50 tons, while one of seven laydown areas is set near the strict protection zone in Barangay Pilar.
“The site development map shows that 15 turbines will be installed within the multiple-use zone,” she specified. “Thirteen are in a ‘chain’ or ‘wall’ running parallel with the strict protection zone, in nearly its entire length.”
Cabugon further argued that while the project footprint, defined by the rows of turbines, access roads, and transmission lines, covers only a small portion of the protected landscape, it may underestimate the true impact of the 15 turbines in the multiple-use zone. She added that although the turbines produce no pollution once operational, construction is expected to cause significant environmental disruption.
“Thousands of trees will reportedly be cut down as part of the ‘clearing of vegetation’ in order to make way for roads, wind turbine generator sites, transmission lines, laydown areas, and other facilities,” she stressed. “Heavy equipment will be transporting tons and tons of heavy equipment and wind turbine components up to the mountain ridges, deep into the protected area.”
(Also read: Offshore Wind: A Costly Gamble the Philippines Can’t Afford?)
Policy gaps threatening protection
Aside from the Calbayog wind project, other RE initiatives in the country have faced controversy over environmental and social impacts.
At the Masungi Georeserve in Rizal, Vena Energy’s proposed turbines threaten the conservation area, with public consultation reportedly lacking. Along the coasts of Ilocos Norte, offshore wind plans have drawn protests from fisherfolk concerned about livelihoods and marine ecosystems. Near Mt. Banahaw in Quezon, a proposed project has sparked opposition over the mountain’s sacred status and ecological importance.
These controversies highlight these significant gaps in the country’s environmental policy and management:
- Weak implementation & selective application
In 2024, conservationists were alarmed after a Singapore-based company, Vena Energy, began building a wind farm within the Masungi Georeserve in Rizal. Established in 1993 as a strict nature reserve and wildlife sanctuary, the area hosts over 400 species.
The Masungi Georeserve Foundation, Inc. (MGFI) called the project a “misguided energy development” and the latest threat to Masungi, which already contends with illegal logging, land grabbing, quarrying, and attacks on forest rangers. These pressures persist despite Masungi being part of the 26,000-hectare Upper Marikina River Basin, designated a protected landscape in 2011.
Masungi management called the project a “disturbing violation” of the 1993 DENR order banning industrial use and said it reflects a “blatant disregard” for the area’s strict protection status.
However, Vena Energy said it has secured the necessary government permits, including an ECC and clearances from the Protected Area Management Board (PAMB), following environmental studies and consultations with Indigenous communities.
- Inadequate protection of Indigenous Peoples’ (IP) rights
According to the human rights organization, IWGIA, the Philippine government has overlooked the rights of Indigenous Peoples whose territories host many RE projects.
For example, in the Cordillera region, the DOE awarded some 100 RE projects affecting vast tracts of Indigenous land—including biodiversity hotspots, Indigenous Community Conservation Areas, and formally designated Protected Areas.
Among these are eight major hydropower projects along the Apayao River granted to Pan Pacific Renewable Power Philippines Corporation. In Panay Island, the controversial Jalaur Mega‑Dam near the Tumandok people is nearing completion, and multiple projects along the Chico River and its tributaries threaten some 17 sub‑tribes of the Kalinga people.
IWGIA maintained that many of these developments have been marred by violations of the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) process, militarization, and human‑rights abuses.
- Varying rules
RE companies reported inconsistencies in how permitting rules are applied, both across agencies and among regional offices of the same agency. These varying interpretations create uncertainty and delays, which can increase environmental risks if projects proceed without thorough review or oversight. Changes or rotations of directors and officers mid-process further heighten the likelihood of conflicting decisions that may overlook ecological concerns.
Guidelines also shift whenever new leadership assumes office at national, departmental, or local levels, sometimes halting applications for months and introducing new requirements. One example involves projects in ancestral domains: past rules required coordination only with barangays directly hosting the project, but new guidelines mandate consulting all barangays covered by the ancestral domain title.
This expands the consultation process in ecologically sensitive areas, but inconsistent enforcement raises the risk that environmental and cultural impacts may not be fully addressed.
Protecting communities & ecosystems
To better manage renewable energy projects and protect the environment, the Philippines needs to clarify and tighten zoning rules for protected areas. Loopholes that allow “multiple-use” approvals without full environmental scrutiny should be closed, ensuring that projects cannot bypass ecological safeguards.
Enforcement of FPIC must also be strengthened. Indigenous Peoples and local communities should have meaningful participation before permits are finalized, addressing long-standing concerns over weak consultation and the potential disregard of local rights.
Transparency in permitting is another key area for improvement. Making permit documents and EIS baseline data publicly accessible, requiring cumulative-impact assessments, and involving independent third-party reviews can help prevent projects near sensitive ecological or cultural sites from proceeding without proper evaluation.
In response to the Calbayog wind project, Ricky Bautista, president of the Region 8 Media-Citizen Council, emphasized that while RE is vital for combating climate change, its development must not come at the expense of local ecosystems.
Cabugon said that while wind energy is generally environmentally friendly, placing a wind farm in the heart of a protected are raises serious concerns. “The site was chosen due to its ‘high potential for wind resource’ but obviously with limited consideration for the importance of the protected area to local ecology and population,” she wrote. “The project, in its current form, may be legal, but is it right? Is it just?”
Sources:
https://manilastandard.net/news/314662390/calbayog-city-opposes-wind-turbine-projects.html
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/10/02/wind-farm-on-a-sacred-philippine-mountain-sparks-controversy
https://iwgia.org/en/philippines/5372-iw-2024-philippines.html
https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1717.pdf