The reaction on the ground against advocates of the environment and heritage who successfully stopped the cutting of a handful of century-old Acacia trees in Naga last week is understandable from the point of view of pragmatic heritage advocates.
When it comes to public safety versus heritage and pride of place, it is public safety that is paramount.
It is only for reasons of public security and safety that a heritage monument, place or object, in this case those Acacia trees, may be allowed to lose their cultural and historical significance.
This is clearly stated in Article 10 of the Burra Charter, which has been adopted by heritage groups all over the world.
It states: “Contents, fixtures and objects which contribute to the cultural significance of a place should be retained at that place. Their removal is unacceptable unless it is: the sole means of ensuring their security and preservation; on a temporary basis for treatment or exhibition; for cultural reasons; for health and safety; or to protect the place.”
But wait, who should determine this? The answer to this question is the reason a third party, an independent expert, is being asked to determine the state of these Acacia trees that are marked for destruction.
That expert is Dr. Roger de Guzman, a tree pathologist based at the University of the Philippines in Los Baños, who has arrived to finally provide an objective analysis on the state of these trees and to find solutions to help save those that can still be saved.
An independent tree pathologist is also needed in order to put an end to lingering questions as to why these trees have suddenly turned sick and have fallen down. These trees are as old as those at the Diliman campus of the University of the Philippines but none of the Acacia trees there have fallen down.
This includes the proposal made two years back to at least save the arboreal tunnel produced by the line of Acacia trees on both sides of the highway passing through barangay Perrelos in Carcar City. That section would be the most missed and most difficult to forget lamenting should we eventually see the grandiloquent Acacia trees give way to a four-lane highway.
As I stated in last week’s column, I do not subscribe to planting 100 mangrove trees in exchange for a single tree cut. What is wrong with replacing these diseased trees with the same species right where they once stood or at least beside the additional lane near where they stood?
Why plant 100 mangroves per felled tree only to have a fight in the future when Naga City, San Fernando, and Carcar City will surely burgeon and will need (heaven forbid!) to reclaim their coastal areas? Are these local governments prepared for another generation of tree huggers climbing those planted mangroves to prevent the construction of an international port, say, 20-30 years from now?
* * *
More than ever the need for forward planning and actually building a mass transport system for the entire island of Cebu has been made urgent by this struggle to save these trees. The time may in fact be ripe to explore the possibility of finding investors to bring back the trains to Cebu – one that will finally traverse the northern and southern tips of the island (unlike its pre-war equivalent that ended only in Danao up north and Argao down south).
A railway system will surely reduce the pressure to widen highways with more and more people using trains to travel instead of buses and private vehicles. Just one look at Luzon and its terribly undeveloped rail system explains the reason year in, year out, Metro Manila continues to be a work in progress for road construction and widening.
I can only wonder why no one there has followed the European model of relying on trains to move goods and people all over the continent.
In ten years, these widened roads in southern Cebu that will cause the death of those Acacia trees will be severely outpaced by more and more vehicles using that highway (some parking on the recently added lane, as we are wont to see. Trust me). And what shall the Department of Public Works and Highways do then? Add two more lanes? When will this lane-adding palliative ever end?