Download - IMPACT Magazine Online!

Equity, economy and environment
© gva-environment.blogspot.com
are the most affected by these threats. The people
should not only be informed about what the government
is doing about these threats but should also,
and more importantly, be involved in the crafting of
appropriate responses. It is ironic, for instance, that
the houses of many urban poor victims of Ondoy and
Pepeng are now being demolished without notice,
without consultation and without any clear accompanying
program of relocation-cum-employment.
Such a program of demolition, justified in the name
of environmental protection, is a non-solution to the
environmental stress and will only aggravate the
environmental and social tensions in the country.
Two, the twin environmental threats are inextricably
linked to the larger issue of what development
model must be pursued by the country.
Since its acquisition of Independence in 1946, the
Philippines has been sacrificing the environment
and extracting natural resources in an irresponsible
manner to finance development. From the 1950s
to the mid-1970s, it used its timber and mineral
exports (copper, gold, iron, silver, etc.) to finance its importation
of oil, machinery, industrial raw materials and
non-essential goods. From the mid-1970s to the present,
the failure of an export-oriented program dependent on
a few exports (garments, electronics) to take off means
continuing deforestation, destructive mining, decimation
of the country’s mangroves and coral reefs, poisoning of
the air, river, land and water systems (through chemical
agriculture, industrial effluents and unchecked proliferation
of smoke-spewing vehicles), and the conversion of
the watershed areas, hillsides, beach fronts, parks and even
irrigated lands into exclusive private resorts, golf courses
and housing/real estate/infra projects for the moneyed elite
and foreign investors.
This unjust and environmentally-destructive development
model must stop and must be overhauled. Instead, the
government must put in place, with the participation of all
sectors of society, a program of sustainable development in all
areas of the economy. For example, the Philippines, through
its organic farming advocates, has already accumulated so
much experiences (despite some bureaucratic reluctance and
even opposition in the beginning) in sustainable agriculture
that helps renew the soil, creates more jobs, lessens dependence
on food imports and rebuilds the forests. Why not a
no-nonsense national program of sustainable agriculture? This
program, of course, will require completion of the agrarian
reform program, the transformation of small farmers into
modern eco-agribusiness producers and the abandonment
of the policy of agricultural import liberalization.
In services, there are examples of the unlimited potentials
of a green economy model, e.g., eco-tourism in Palawan
and Bohol. The challenge is how to integrate environment
in the business planning of every service industry and make
environment as its selling point.
In industry, a green economy model means more investments
on environmentally-friendly but value-adding and
job-creating projects such as green transport facilities, green
buildings, mass transport, recyling and renewable industries
and so on. A happy outcome of such effort should be the
abandonment of the low-technology-cheap-labor policy in
favor of higher-technology-higher-labor-productivity arrangement,
which is only possible through a mutual recognition
by both labor and management of their responsibility
to each other and to the larger society. In short, a shift to a
green economy is a formula for industrial peace and
higher level of industrial development.
Clearly, addressing the twin threats of climate
change and environmental degradation can also
be an opportunity to unite the people in renewing
the environment and the economy. Is Philippine
society prepared for such a renewal? The CCCP’s
answer: Oras Na, or as the young generation puts
it, Now Na. I
ENDNOTE:
[1] In the December 2009 Summit on Climate Change, the
big developed and developing countries, which are the big
global emitters of carbon dioxide, failed to make concrete
commitments on emission reduction. Hence, the frustration of
reduction advocates, who were hoping Copenhagen to become
Hopenhagen and who now call the city Brokenhagen. The
Philippines is a low carbon emitter because its industrialization
failure means it has no major industry emitters, while its denuded
forests means it has no large forests to burn, as what seems to
be happening in Brazil and Indonesia.
© ricelander.wordpress.com
10
IMPACT • February 2010