A new wind farm project planned in the Philippines has raised the alarm among local community representatives and conservationists for its potential environment impact, given how the renewables project will be located within a nature reserve.
In the archipelago’s eastern island of Samar, Singapore’s Vena Energy – through its subsidiary Gemini Wind Energy Corporation – is looking to build a 304-megawatt (MW) wind farm that will overlap with a portion of the Calbayog Pan-as-Hayiban Protected Landscape (CPHP). The project, which is pending approval, will be situated within a “multiple-use zone” that can be carved out of legislated protected areas, under a Philippine law.
While specific data on the number of wildlife species within the protected landscape is not readily available, the area spanning 5,067.92 hectares is known for its rich biodiversity, including old-growth forests as well as rivers, waterfalls and streams that support a variety of rare flora and fauna, such as the near threatened Philippine tarsier.
The project will consist of 38 wind turbines spread across the mountain ridges and cost about 19.04 billion pesos (US$326.5 million). According to Gemini Wind, it expects to start construction in the second quarter of the year and commence commercial operations by end-2026.
Based on a public scoping document obtained by Eco-Business, 13 of the wind turbines will be within the protected landscape’s “multiple-use zone”. This zoning category – introduced under Philippines’ Expanded National Integrated Protected Area Systems Act (E-NIPAS) in 2018 – carves out parts of protected areas to allow for “sustainable” economic activities, like eco-tourism or renewable energy projects.
Under E-NIPAS, developers are allowed to carry out commercial activities within conservation sites that have been reclassified as multiple-use zones as long as they secure a Special Use Agreement in Protected Areas (SAPA) from the body overseeing land use decisions within each protected area, known as a Protected Area Management Board (PAMB).
Eco-Business has contacted the Department of Environment and Natural Resources which oversees the zoning but did not receive a response.
In its reply to Eco-Business’ queries, Vena Energy reiterated that it has already publicly announced that its Rizal project will not go ahead and that it has advised all stakeholders on the decision, while publishing a media release to clarify its position that the project had adhered to all government regulations, mandatory testing and compliance. As of the time of publication of the story, it did not directly address questions about its proposed project in Samar but has subsequently responded to queries to clarify its position on the new wind farm plans.
Last May, a resolution was passed by the protected area’s PAMB which gave Gemini Wind clearance to apply for a SAPA, “contingent upon meeting certain specified requirements”, which sources familiar with the matter see as a “conditional approval” for the project. Two sources told Eco-Business that some of these “non-negotiable” requirements included the project’s infrastructure development plans, the exact coordinates of the 13 turbines within the protected area, as well as a map showing how the wind turbines would overlap with the surrounding villages.
Though Gemini Wind has not fulfilled all these requirements, it has already gotten endorsement letters from the city and provincial councils, the local government officials from affected barangays, or villages, and the Department of Energy (DOE). In 2023, DOE awarded Gemini Wind the project during the second round of the country’s Green Energy Auction, as part of the government’s push for renewables to make up 35 per cent of the energy mix by 2030 and 50 per cent by 2040.
The wind turbines’ coordinates will be critical for assessing the project’s potential environmental impact and to gather community feedback, such as noise from the facilities. Each turbine will be 100 to 120 metres (m) high with a blade length of 86m and require a two-hectare buffer zone, according to Gemini Wind.
Eco-Business understands that there have been counterproposals to put the turbines offshore. Sources involved in meetings say Vena Energy had cited additional logistics and costs involved in choosing an alternative location. In a later response to queries, Vena Energy stressed that offshore wind is a fundamentally different technology that requires distinct infrastructure, environmental studies, and approvals. The actual decision-making process is determined by an evaluation of technical feasibility, environmental impact, regulatory compliance, and infrastructural availability.
The site development map for the Samar wind project roughly shows where each of the 38 wind turbines will be located. But to date, no specific coordinates have been provided for any of the turbines. Source: Gemini Wind Energy Corporation’s public scoping document
Sources involved in the public scoping exercise told Eco-Business that they were concerned that the clearance for the the project developer to submit their SAPA application, in the form of the conditional approval given in May 2024, looks to be “fast-tracked”.
Last August, Gemini Wind submitted the project description for its environmental impact assessment (EIA) – which will be carried out by local consulting firm Brown and Green Environmental Service – as part of the process to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). This certificate will only be given upon fully complying with relevant laws, including PAMB approval. The assessment will cover 10,818 hectares, including a 2,366 hectare overlap with the CPHPL.
“[The developers] are still homing in on getting a permit, but in principle, it’s a done deal already,” said one source.
Earlier in January, heavy rains caused severe flooding in some areas of Northern Samar. The loss of forest cover in the mountains could worsen future flooding impacts, said another member of the public.
The Philippine tarsier is native to the archipelago and found on the islands of Bohol, Samar and Leyte. Image: Carmelo López Abad
Masungi 2.0?
Last February, the foundation that oversees the conservation of Masungi Georeserve uncovered multiple drilling operations by Vena Energy’s subsidiary Rizal Wind Energy Corporation (RWEC), which the foundation argues is within a strict protected zone. RWEC, on the other hand, had said that it is operating in a multiple-use zone and that it had obtained the necessary permits, including an ECC and clearances to conduct studies from the relevant PAMBs.
A week later, however, Vena Energy released a press release stating that it will no longer be building in the karst area. There has been a public uproar and various petitions to revoke the ECC permit issued for its wind farm project.
Though the project’s implementation has been suspended by DENR, Billie Dumaliang, co-founder and advocacy director of Masungi Georeserve Foundation, told Eco-Business that the foundation understands that, to date, RWEC’s ECC has not been revoked by the government and she is still worried that the project might go ahead. It has put in a request for a cease and desist order against any unauthorised activities by RWEC, alongside the cancellation of its ECC in a lawyer’s letter last August. It followed up on this request in January.
In a video recording seen by Eco-Business, a Vena Energy representative told Dumaliang that the tests required for its pre-development stage would have been completed if not for Masungi Georeserve Foundation’s efforts to block them. “You have been going to the site. You went to DENR. You have been conducting an information campaign. So it was DENR that suspended the operations, but at whose instance? At your instance,” the representative said.
Vena Energy has refuted these statements, stating that the Rizal project will not go ahead. It also clarified that it has never intended to build in the karst area.
Through a network of subsidiaries, Vena Energy currently operates six renewable energy assets which collectively generate 330.8MW of clean power in the Philippines. These include a 132.5-MW solar power plant in Negros Occidental, a 54-MW wind power facility in Rizal, a 30.4-MW solar plant in Leyte, two solar plants with capacities of 20.1 MW and 83.3 MW in Ilocos Norte, as well as a 10.5-MW solar plant in Bukidnon.
Residents who attended the public scoping exercise for the project in Samar said they had similar worries of the environmental impacts it would have on the forest reserve and were “shocked” about the development. One resident said: “We thought it was far, far away, and would not become its victims.”
Apart from the Philippines, Vena Energy has invested in projects in Australia, Japan, India, Indonesia and Thailand. Last September, it received conditional approval to export 400MW of solar power from Indonesia’s Riau Islands to Singapore, as part of the land-scarce republic’s efforts to meet its climate targets.
In 2018, Vena Energy was acquired by Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) – alongside co-investors China Investment Corporation and Canada’s Public Sector Pension Investment Board – for US$5 billion, in the largest ever renewable energy generation buyout.
Last week, Reuters reported that GIP, which is owned by the world’s largest asset manager BlackRock, has hired two banks to manage the sale of its stake in the clean power giant in a deal that potentially values the entity at up to US$10 billion. If completed, it could be one of the largest renewables transactions globally this year.
[Editor’s note, 6 March 2025]: Revisions have been made to this story, including edits to the headline, subheading as well as some paragraphs, and removals of full paragraphs, following subsequent requests for correction and clarifications sent by Vena Energy to Eco-Business since 24 February 2025. Parts of the story are edited to accurately reflect and emphasise that the wind farm project in Samar is legally compliant. The subheading previously implied that the full project was fast-tracked by the government, which is misleading. We apologise for any factual errors.
