Do we really need a law to protect the country’s tourist spots in light of what happened to Boracay Island?
If only to remind us of our responsibility to care for our tourist attractions, then it is a no-brainer yes. But then isn’t this awareness of our responsibility raised only when President Rodrigo Duterte ordered Boracay’s closure effective this week?
Suddenly every local government within earshot of Boracay launched cleanup campaigns, nagged by the fear that they may be targeted for closure by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
To be honest wouldn’t it be business as usual especially in Boracay’s case with every tourist dumping garbage and local officials not caring one whit where the garbage goes so long as they earn a share of the handsome tourism revenue?
It is also doubtful whether this sudden awareness and appreciation of the environment would be sustained long term even if the Philippine Sustainable Tourism Bill filed by the House tourism committee is signed into law.
No, right now only a closure order issued by the President can rouse local officials out of their lethargy and act on the pollution caused by tourists, the big business and local government that profits from them and the affected communities.
It’s not as if we don’t have existing laws against pollution. Republic Act 9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act could have been sufficient in itself or it could have been expanded to include dealing with pollution in tourist spots or heritage sites.
Under the proposed Philippine Sustainable Tourism bill, a multi-sectoral council will be formed to monitor and ensure compliance of local governments in keeping their tourist destinations pollution-free and sustainable.
As it is, what we need is a grassroots based conscientization program that would instill in every individual Filipino the sense of responsibility and accountability in keeping both their surroundings and their immediate communities pollution-free.
That sense of responsibility goes double and even triple for businesses that operate in the communities and service tourists. Busines owners should also be reminded repeatedly to be compliant with the laws and rules on keeping their surroundings clean.
It’s not just about the ugly prospect of losing a tourist destination to pollution that should concern communities but the costs of not acting on it and the consequences it brings to our safety that should matter.
Ailments, flooding and other discomforts to both locals and their visitors could ensue and worsen if the host communities don’t get their act together and clean their surroundings.
It is unfortunate that people only do so when faced with a closure order.
But the President need not resort to this only if these problems are addressed and then resolved at the local level by the local government and their constituents.