FINDING ANSWERS
An enlightening and uplifting experience it was last Saturday as young Filipinos, mostly student leaders and officers of youth organizations, filled the conference room of the Manila Prince Hotel to hear insights shared by former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio and renowned environmental planner Dr. Nathaniel “Dinky” Von Einsiedel.
It was the National Conference on Safeguarding Philippine Waters with two sessions, one focusing on “Reclamation in Manila Bay: Boon or Bane?” and the other, “Moving Forward on West Philippine Sea.”
Reclamation topic discussants were Dr. Gloria Estenzo Ramos, vice president of Oceana Philippines, and Pamalakaya spokesperson Ronnel Arambulo. AFP spokesperson Col. Francel Margareth Padilla and Jonathan Malaya, assistant director general of the National Security Council, discussed WPS.
Among the youth leaders were students from University of Santo Tomas, Far Eastern University, Lyceum, Adamson University, Centro Escolar University, V. Mapa High School, C. M. Recto High School, Universidad de Manila, Cavite State University, and Philippine Normal University. Young members of organizations like the Angat Kabataan of Valenzuela, Rotaract and Rotary Clubs also attended.
In the first session, Dr. Einsiedel said that the ecological integrity of Manila Bay has been adversely affected by the proliferation of reclamation projects approved by the previous administration, numbering 38 and covering 38,272 hectares.
He revealed that the College of Fellows of the Philippine Institute of Environmental Planers (CoF-PIEP) conducted a series of webinars in 2023 among major stakeholders (proponents and opponents), and came up with a recommendation that the coastal land reclamation in Manila Bay be immediately reexamined to determine whether or not it was worth pursuing given the high risks involved.
Dr. Einsiedel said CoF-PIEP cited the following as major reasons for the recommendation:
1. While reclamation creates new land for residential, commercial, or industrial users, it comes at a high price to the natural environment, and poses serious disaster risks like storm surge and flooding.
2. Numerous scientific studies have shown that the social and environmental costs of reclamation projects in Manila Bay far outweigh benefits.
3. Land reclamation in Manila Bay has been shown to damage coastal resources which provide ecological goods and services such as food, medicines, clean water, livelihood, shoreline protection, and climate resilience.
4. The current Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system requires individual projects to be assessed and to secure an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC). However, it does not consider the cumulative effect of several reclamation projects located in the same environmental area such as Manila Bay.
5. The current policy and regulatory framework for reclamation projects have certain weaknesses and deficiencies that cause circumvention, different interpretations, and deficient safeguard mechanisms, as well as lack of valuation methodologies in the EIA system.
6. The entire process of proposal evaluation, processing, and permitting is confusing, with missing and misplaced steps, which causes questionable decisions and/or non-compliance with essential requirements.
He said there needs to be mandatory alignment of reclamation plans with the national, regional, provincial, and local government unit (LGU) development plans, specifying locations and the conditions where reclamation may be allowed. He added there should also be a social compensation program for those adversely affected by reclamation projects.
Dr. Einsiedel also called for new laws “reserving all future reclaimed land as perpetually owned by the government to be used only through long-term leases.” He said this is to prevent land speculation that jack up prices, and to ensure that reclamation projects are resorted to only when truly necessary.
As LGUs are required to formulate their comprehensive land use plans, there also ought to be a “water use plan” he pointed out.
In her response, Dr. Ramos, who is also a lawyer, said that LGUs that allow reclamation violate the constitutional provisions of the State’s duty to protect marine wealth and livelihood of the people.
For any substantial alteration of territorial boundaries, she said, two things need to happen: One is passage of a national law, thoroughly assessed by Congress before it goes to the President, allowing the alteration; and, two, people have to give approval in a plebiscite. “Nothing has been done so far,” she lamented.
For his part, Mr. Arambulo narrated how irreversible reclamation has been a bane instead of boon to the thousands of fisherfolks, around the Manila Bay area who have lost their livelihood. He lamented how mangroves that were destroyed were 10 times more helpful to the environment than forests.
He also named some politicians and ranking appointed officials in government who have vested interest or are linked to reclamation projects.
The second session focusing on the West Philippine Sea had Justice Carpio explaining thoroughly and very authoritatively how various old maps during the Spanish and American era prove the Philippines indeed has sovereign rights to its exclusive economic zone.
There was also revelation of an “unwritten understanding” on how the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Philippines and US can immensely benefit our country when under armed attack. I’ll write about the second session in my next column.