What happened to the directive to all government agencies and commitment by the State to “integrate disaster risk reduction into climate change programs and initiatives?”RA 9729 or the Climate Change Act of 2009 mandates “to systematically integrate the concept of climate change in various phases of policy formulation, development plans, poverty reduction strategies and other development tools and techniques by all agencies and instrumentalities of the government.”
The public policy of integrating climate change in all phases of decision-making was embedded because, as RA 9729 puts it, of “the need to ensure that national and subnational government policies, plans, programs and projects are founded upon sound environmental considerations and the principle of sustainable development.”
Sustainable development is the kind of development that considers the long-term needs of the present and future generations, and ensures the maintenance of the quality of life that they, and, for that matter, we, deserve. Choosing sustainability requires a careful evaluation of the impacts of the day-to-day choices and policies that are made and a commitment that the needs of others are never compromised for the short-term gains, advantages, or profits that are raked in.
Typhoon Yolanda’s devastating impacts did increase, a teeny-weeny bit, the awareness that climate change has made us a highly vulnerable country. There are more trainings here and there for capacity building for public servants. But, the pace of the desired response from the government in building the resiliency of the people and the ecological systems we are so dependent on is agonizingly slow. The sense of urgency is wanting. We know that Nature can never wait until everyone is capacitated to act in ways that minimize destruction to lives, properties and ecosystems that are already over-stressed or have exceeded the carrying capacity.
Policies and programs are still made based on the thinking that environment and social equity should take a backseat for economic development.
Never mind if the requirement for incorporating and mainstreaming climate change in every decision and projects is made mandatory by the law. As defined by RA 9729, “mainstreaming” climate change “refers to the integration of policies and measures that address climate change into development planning and sectoral decision-making.”
If burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, contribute to the deadly over-concentration of carbon in the atmosphere that causes climate change, why would the Philippines, as the second most vulnerable country to the impacts of climate change in the world, remain stuck in its obsession on fossil fuels and not move fast towards mainstreaming renewable energy, as contemplated by RA 9503, the Renewable Energy Act of 2008? Yes, we have all the environmental laws we need but these are simply taken for granted, as if they do not exist.
The tree-cutting spree recently uncovered through the privilege speech of Cebu City Councilor Nida Cabrera is another illustration of actions that do not integrate the impacts of climate change and environmental degradation.
We need trees because we are nothing without them. Trees absorb the climate-change causing carbon dioxide gas, filter the polluted air, hosts biodiversity, prevent soil erosion and bring in water, a scarcity that will become a national security issue at the rate the demands of the growing population and increasing number of industries operate and perhaps might just collide in the near future.
We have conveniently overlooked that we need to grow more trees. Our forest cover is still alarmingly low. How can we even afford to cut one? No saplings can ever replace the ecosystem services readily given by adult and century-old trees.
Aside from the Climate Change Act, someone who gave the go-signal for the condemnable massacre of the vanishing trees overlooked another law, RA No. 3571. It prohibits the cutting, destroying or injuring of planted or growing trees, flowering plants and shrubs or plants of scenic value along public roads, in plazas, parks, school premises or in any other public ground.” It is an old law, but still effective.
Section 3 provides that “No cutting, destroying, or injuring of planted or growing trees, flowering plants and shrubs or plants of scenic value along public roads, in plazas, parks, school premises or in any other public ground shall be permitted save when the cutting, destroying, or injuring of same is necessary for public safety, or such pruning of same is necessary to enhance its beauty and only upon the recommendation of the committee mentioned in the preceding section, and upon the approval of the Director of Parks and Wildlife (now known as Biodiversity Management Bureau, or BMB). The cutting, destroying, or pruning shall be under the supervision of the committee.
Under section 2 of said law, the committee shall be established by the BMB in each and every municipality (and city under the Local Government Code) in the Philippines with “any civic conscious and well-travelled citizen as chairman, and the municipal mayor, the municipal treasurer, the supervising school teacher and the municipal health officer, as ex-officio members thereof.”
Are there such committees existing in the LGUs? They should be immediately organized to ward off alarming tree-cutting sprees and to ensure protection and nurturing of our trees and plants.
Let it be said that the law’s non-implementation is and should never be a reason for complacency and disrespect.
Don’t you think it is high time to hold accountable persons and agencies disregarding our much-violated environmental laws?