An Environmentally Critical Project

Golf courses have long been treated as symbols of prestige, leisure, and luxury—green expanses of manicured turf, private clubhouses, and a membership that few can afford. Yet legally, environmental regulators in the Philippines recognize the cost these havens impose on land, water, and ecosystems. Under the nation’s environmental laws, these golf courses are classified as Environmentally Critical Projects (ECPs). By definition, ECPs are projects with potential for serious environmental disturbance—be it through large-scale land modification, heavy water usage, chemical pollution, or habitat destruction.

Under Proclamation No. 803 (June 6, 1996), signed during the presidency of Fidel V. Ramos pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586, 

"the construction, development, and operation of golf courses may result in the disturbance of the environment and ecology, utilization of vast amounts of water and other scarce natural resources, withdrawal of lands from agricultural production, application of harmful chemicals… and disposal of waste products into the environment."

Because of these concerns they must secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) to build or maintain a golf course.

In an economy with stark inequality, water scarcity issues, and intense pressure on land for housing and food production, the existence and maintenance of golf courses raise difficult questions. Are they justified? Who benefits—and who pays the environmental and social cost?

The Facts: Golf Courses in the Philippines—Numbers & Recent Moves

According to an AI-assisted data scraping analysis, there are at least 100 operational golf courses across the Philippines, with approximately 80% of them located in Luzon, where the country’s urban and economic centers are concentrated. This clustering underscores the tight intersection between leisure-oriented land use and rapidly urbanizing environments.

In recent years, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has tightened its oversight on golf course operations due to worsening water scarcity and the recurring El Niño phenomenon. With declining water levels in Angat Dam, which supplies Metro Manila’s water, the DENR issued a directive prohibiting golf courses in the capital region from drawing piped water from Manila Water and Maynilad. Instead, these establishments were instructed to shift to recycled water systems for irrigating fairways and greens.

Further reinforced through DENR Bulletin No. 4, both public and private golf courses in the National Capital Region are now required to adopt broader water conservation measures. These include minimizing groundwater extraction, postponing swimming pool refills, inspecting facilities for internal leaks, and implementing water-saving technologies throughout their operations.

However, this directive highlights the magnitude of the water disparity created by such leisure developments. According to data cited by IBON Foundation from the United Nations, an 18-hole golf course consumes an average of 2.3 million liters of water per day—a staggering amount that could meet the basic water needs of roughly 46,000 to 115,000 people daily, given that the UN estimates each person requires between 20 to 50 liters per day for essential needs. This contrast underscores how golf courses, though private and recreational, exert an outsized impact on the country’s limited freshwater resources.

Despite these concerns, there have been positive strides toward sustainability within the industry. In September 2024, the Mimosa Plus Golf Course in Clark Freeport Zone, Pampanga—a Filinvest-led project—became the first golf course in the Philippines to earn GEO Certified® status, an international benchmark for sustainable golf operations. The course was recognized for several innovations: the use of drought-tolerant grass species, establishment of local plant nurseries, tree tagging and health monitoring, deployment of precision irrigation systems like Rainbird IC, and active community engagement programs such as reforestation and livelihood support initiatives.

This evolving picture of golf course management in the Philippines reflects a growing awareness of environmental responsibility—but also revives the debate on ethical land use in a time when access to water and open space remains deeply unequal.

Ethical and Land‐Use Considerations: More Than Turf and Trophies

Here are a number of issues to ponder—so that decisions in real estate, development, regulation, and public policy are more than just “what sells.”

1. Opportunity Cost of Land Use

Golf courses require large parcels of land—often in peri-urban or semi-rural areas that are increasingly under pressure for housing, agriculture, or mixed-use development. In Metro Manila and adjacent provinces, where housing shortages and informal settlements are serious challenges, land may be more socially beneficial if used for affordable housing, public open space, or infrastructure.

Conversions have happened: for example, portions of established golf club property (Capitol Hills in Quezon City) have been converted to residential subdivisions when land values rose, reflecting that alternative uses can yield higher economic return. (Though not all conversions are well documented in recent years.)

2. Water Use & Ecosystem Impacts

The Philippines already experiences periodic water stress. Golf courses, by design, need regular irrigation, plus maintenance of greens using fertilizers and pesticides. Use of fresh potable water for non-essentials in times of shortage is increasingly controversial. The DENR’s recent orders banning or limiting use of fresh piped water for golf courses in Metro Manila underscores this concern.

Beyond water: large contiguous green spaces under heavy maintenance may reduce habitat for native species, promote invasive grasses, and increase chemical runoff.

3. Access, Equity & Class Divide

Most golf courses are membership-based, private, or expensive to use. They tend to serve the wealthy: both in terms of membership dues and in being located in areas easier for the affluent to access. For many people, green open spaces are limited and often public, but these pale in comparison to the acres held by club courses. So there is a visible divide: land and resources devoted to recreation for a select few, vs. basic needs of many (housing, water, infrastructure).

4. Sustainability & Responsible Management

Not all golf courses are equal. The example of Mimosa Plus shows that sustainable practices are possible: choosing grass species requiring less water, precise irrigation, community involvement, supporting local ecology and even certification. Such approaches reduce environmental cost, improve social value, and may improve long-term financial sustainability.

Regulatory oversight (e.g., ECP designations, Environmental Compliance Certificates) is meant to ensure projects declare and mitigate environmental costs—but compliance varies, and enforcement can be inconsistent.

What We Should Demand

From my perspective as both a real estate professional and a citizen, the conversation around golf courses must balance development, sustainability, and social equity. Future proposals should be bound by strict regulatory standards, with thorough environmental impact assessments ensuring that water use remains sustainable and ecosystem impacts are properly mitigated. Policies must evolve alongside climate realities—especially as droughts and El Niño events intensify—by enforcing clear triggers for water restrictions and mandating the use of recycled water systems.

There should also be stronger incentives for sustainability, such as recognizing and rewarding golf courses that achieve certifications like GEO through tax breaks or regulatory advantages. Meanwhile, underused or financially unsustainable golf courses in high-value or space-constrained areas could be repurposed into mixed-use developments or community parks, expanding public benefit while retaining green space. Above all, transparency should be required—golf courses must show their value to the community through local employment, shared open spaces, and tangible environmental contributions such as watershed protection and biodiversity conservation.

Closing Thought

Golf courses in the Philippines occupy a grey zone: neither an outright evil by definition, nor an unqualified good. They are legally recognized as potentially environmentally critical projects, and recent regulatory shifts show the seriousness of the environmental costs: water use, land consumption, inequities.

In an economy marked by inequality, limited land, and resource constraints, we must evaluate: does a golf course justify not being something that benefits more people (housing, food, water, public space)? And if it continues to exist, is it managed in a way that shares value, reduces harm, and is resilient?

As a real estate professional, I believe the market will increasingly favour developments that are sustainable, equitable, and transparent. Developers, regulators, and communities should treat golf courses not as status symbols, but as land-use choices with consequences—ethical, environmental, social. It’s time our tee-offs reflect that responsibility.