PAGBABAGO

By FLORANGEL ROSARIO BRAID

Just as we were in a celebratory mood after the successful clean-up of Manila, our euphoria was jarred by the announcement that the Office of the President had taken over all reclamation projects in the country. Which means that it would have direct control and supervision over the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) which has jurisdiction over the 43 reclamation projects of Manila Bay.

We do not know as yet the full implication of EO 74 delegating the power of the President to approve reclamation projects to the PRA Governing Board, except that it repealed directives that placed the PRA under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The new directive also repealed the power of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) to approve reclamation projects.

The Palace explains that the reason for this shift is that it wanted to streamline services of agencies under the executive branch and that the President wanted to be more “hands-on and facilitate efficient delivery of government services.” The new directive covers all reclamation projects, including those initiated by local governments and other entities allowed under existing laws to reclaim land.

But while most everyone hailed the earlier move to rehabilitate the Manila Bay, oppositionist groups, notably, Pamalakaya, a fisherfolk association, now expresses doubt about the true intent of the campaign of government to clean up Manila Bay. “It will displace coastal communities. The newly signed executive order will hasten not only the approval of reclamation projects and the subsequent destruction of marine environment and displacement of fishing communities,” according to Fernando Hicap, national chair of Pamalakaya, who further noted that the Las Pinas-Paranaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area, the first critical habitat to be declared in the country, would be adversely affected by the proposed projects. The group also accused the government of turning a blind eye to the chemical and toxic wastes being discharged by industrial and commercial structures on a regular basis and called for a genuine rehabilitation of Manila Bay in a form of mangroves restoration and rejecting all destructive projects such as land reclamation.

Malacanang spokesman Salvador Panelo countered these arguments, saying that the government will get 65 percent share of gains from the reclamation which would then be used in generating jobs and building new structures.

But seven party-list congressmen have filed a resolution urging government to suspend the Manila Bay rehabilitation program as this could lead to the implementation of the 43 reclamation projects covering more than 32,000 hectares under the “Build, Build, Build” program. The lawmakers who included Rep Arel Casilao, Isagani Zarate, Emmie de Jesus, Arlene Brosas, Antonio Tinio, France Castro, and Sarah Jane Ela, cited the 265-hectare Pasay Harbor City estimated to cost P62 bilion, a joint venture involving Davao-based businessman Dennis Uy as among those in the list of reclamation projects.

We are again faced with the dilemma of having to choose between two options, both of them challenging. The advocates of land reclamation present us with a vision of benefits – job opportunities, growth of tourism, creation of new roads, as well as prevention of storm surges and flooding as structures can act as barriers against sea-level rise – in short, the benefits outweigh risks.

But environmentalists and concerned citizens show a different picture – that ecologically unsound projects could further damage the country’s marine ecosystem, thus affecting food production capacity as well as endanger lives of those living in coastal areas. And losing as well views of mountains and seas, and the beautiful sunsets in Manila Bay.

The decision is whether we want to build cities and communities that are sustainable. It is not yet too late to do something about it.

My e-mail, [email protected]