Asian Transformations in Action - Api-fellowships.org

PERSISTENT PROBLEMS, PROMISING SOLUTIONS AND BENEFICENCE39Viable alternativesLocal NGO groups stressed that the coal-fired plant isnot the most sustainable energy option for the region.They pointed out alternatives that are more economicallyand ecologically sound, such as renewable energysources and the rehabilitation of existing hydroelectricpower plants. Their proposal, however, was neitherdiscussed in the EIS nor during consultations, and wasnot incorporated into the project plan.Consultations and local people’s participation in thedecision-making processThe local NGOs and people’s organizations (POs)raised their concerns through various ways, such aspetition letters and protest actions. However, the EISdefined the affected people as those who reside in anarea within a two-kilometer radius from the stack anda distance of six kilometers along the coastline startingat the mouth of Tagoloan River. Although the localgroups pointed out that it is necessary to investigatethe effects of the coal-fired plant on the environment,agricultural products, fishery and the people in a widerrange than that considered in the EIS, they were definedas outsiders or non-affected people who had no right toparticipate in the planning process of the project. Localgroups were unsuccessful in trying to obtain a copyof the EIS from the relevant Philippine governmentagencies.It is obvious that the relocated people were notprovided with the opportunity to participate in makingthe resettlement plans. They were presented with theexisting relocation package, called the Memorandumof Agreement between Province of Misamis Orientaland PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority, in 1995. Noconsultation about their options regarding the formof compensation, for example, land or monetarycompensation, took place.There were also insufficient opportunities for affectedlocal residents and local NGOs to participate in theplanning, implementation and monitoring of the SocialDevelopment Plan of the SPI, which was only issued inEnglish, a language that is difficult for most of the localresidents to understand.Japanese proponents’ performanceSPI initiated its Social Development Plan as stated inits website: “Mindful of its social responsibility towardsits host communities as well as the areas nearby, thecompany has developed a comprehensive communitydevelopment program that is responsive to the needsof the communities’ constituents and aims towardsustainability and self-sufficiency.” Several incomegeneratinglivelihood projects have been launched, suchas a food catering project, a handcrafted cards project,a chair making project and a demo-farm agriculturalproject.None of these livelihood projects, however, hassucceeded in providing a main source of income forthe people. Many residents who think that a livelihoodprogram is not enough to restore their living standardhave not participated in these programs. For example,the relocated people in the resettlement sites qualify tobe provided with 200 square meters of land per familyin the 1.4-hectare demo-farm, which is only enough toserve as a sideline livelihood. As a result, only four out of32 qualified families are still engaging in the demo-farmprogram. Some have chosen instead to return to theiroriginal residence where they can find more agriculturalland for their livelihoods. A series of medical missionshave also been conducted in collaboration with agenciesof government units. However, many residents failed toenjoy the medical services since they were busy makingtheir living.Case Study 3: Broga Incinerator Project in MalaysiaA 1,500-ton mega-incinerator, touted as the world’slargest incinerator and costing RM1.5 billion, wasproposed in Broga as part of the government’s plan foran integrated solid waste management system. It wassupposed to process 1,200 tons of trash a day fromthe metropolitan areas of Kuala Lumpur (KL) andSelangor. At the same time, a sanitary landfill was alsoplanned in Broga, adjacent to the proposed incinerator,to bury the fly-ash produced in the burning process ofthe incinerator. The project implementor, the Ministryof Housing and Local Government, prepared a DetailedEnvironmental Impact Assessment (DEIA) on theincinerator project and the Department of Environment(DOE) approved the DEIA. Despite this green lightto go on with the project, the government officiallyannounced that the project had been “ditamatkan”(cancelled) in July 2007.Japan-based Ebara Corporation won the contract tobuild the incinerator proposed in Broga through aninternational bidding process.Main concerns of local peopleHealth and environmental hazards by toxic emissionsThe incinerator project garnered opposition from someAsian Transformations in ActionThe Work of the 2006/2007 API Fellows