MENSAB Environment

Global Recession and Debt Crisis: Breathing Time for the Environment

2011-07-19T07:37:00.000-07:00

While governments are scrambling to put their finances in order, the public is left wondering – what’s going on? The debt crises in some parts of Europe and in the US are taking over the budgets of the governments in these countries. Spending cuts have become the order of the year. The other question that matters most is – how deep should these cuts be?

Defaulting to financial obligations is no option. Governments must find ways to cut the budget deficits into manageable level. The current level is unsustainable. Severe cuts must be made, in lieu of traditional sources of revenues – taxes and privatization of public utilities and government’s stakes. Laying off is a welcome reprieve for the governments, and so the overhauling of pension system.

There is outrage from the public of what’s going on. The public has expressed this on the streets. From Greece to Spain, the public reacted strongly against the proposed and recently implemented austerity measures. Another round of austerity measures is on the horizon to cut even deeper than what was once thought.

The spending cuts may look all negative in economic terms. However, it is also a welcome relief for the ailing environment. Imagine the reduction in the emissions because of the moderated operations of the manufacturing industries.

I think these debt crises are bringing us back to the basic. We have exploded in our own desires to grow bigger and more. And now, we are trying to ease the impact of that explosion by grinding down our excesses. Thus, it provides the necessary breathing time for our suffocated environment.

We are close to realizing that we do not need to be bigger or to have more. What is essential has been here all along – our families, community, environment. Material things come and go, but some things stay, whether in recession or not, with or without debt crises.

I believe in the resilience of humanity. We will overcome, and so too our environment, with a little help from the debt crises.

Indigenous Rights and Claims on Waters

2011-01-20T18:37:00.000-08:00

We have done it with lands. Through international and national laws, we have recognized the ownership rights of the Indigenous Peoples over lands that they have traditionally occupied and used. Then, why not with waters?

There are pressing issues and disputed claims over waters on which the states take precedence over Indigenous Peoples. There are two international documents that deal with these issues, the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Just a historical background. After 22 years of deliberation and debate, the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples was finally adopted by the General assembly in 2007. The Declaration presents substantial rights and claims of the Indigenous Peoples who, at times, have been marginalized and excluded from the the schemes of society.

Article 26 of the Declaration states that "1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired; 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired; 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned."

Although it is not explicitly stated, "territories" would encompass waters that are traditionally used for subsistence. It is resoundingly clear in the Declaration that the Indigenous Peoples have rights and claims on waters as much as on lands and resources.

Even neighboring countries that share water territories have been unable to agree on how to manage and oversee the use, development, and conservation of the disputed territories. Examples of these cases are the Spratlys group of islands claimed by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Malaysia, and Senkaku/Diaoyutai Island claimed by Japan and China.

How much more if the dispute is between indigenous peoples and a state?

This is the case of the Rotenese of southeastern Indonesia when they contend with Australia their fishing rights on and historical connection with Ashmore Reef and Cartier Islands. To highlight this issue, an International Conference on Indigenous Claims on Waters: What Do the Indigenous Convention and International Law Documents Say about this? will be held in The Hague, Netherlands on 18 March 2011. There will also be case presentations of other similar issues in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

If you or your organization is interested to sponsor this event, please contact Yetty Haning at yetty.haning@timorworldwide.org.

For registration, kindly email info@timorworldwide.org.

Gold, At What Cost?

2011-01-15T17:18:00.000-08:00

“We should live here on earth as though we were intending to stay for good.” – 2000: A Better World for All

In 2000, robberies of pawnshops in Naga City cropped up like a booming industry. The crooks might have been disinterested now in robbing banks with the depreciation of peso that is why they shifted to robbing pawnshops. Knowingly, they must have been apprised that the glittering gold never devaluates in the market. It is quite impressive to have spotted that lucrative activity at par with kidnapping, bank robbery, and drug pushing.

The gold per ounce has reached $1,400, an all-time high.

What is it in gold that people desire it so much?

Although I acknowledge its indispensability in the field of sciences, I still wonder how it has dominated our world. People simply become fond of it that they want to accumulate more and more until there is more. Even the crude oil is labeled as “black gold” for its significance in the present living is defined by its universal use and demand. Its exploitation as a resource becomes imperative as long as the host permits so. Hence people from other land come to marked places in search of that precious, special gem.

Historically myriad conflicts erupted due to the insatiable want of possession of gold. But the modern trend of globalization restrains any possibility of that since it makes legal the intrusion of foreign people to exploit the resources of the local people. On the account, our people become poor while living in the midst of abundance made available for them by the ordered creation. It is the strangers from our land that benefit from the blessings above and under us. They take the first bite of the cake while our people just watch waiting for the leftover. Commonly what they give appears like a gift out of their generosity not a settlement of their duty. And sadly our people accept gladly the leftover from the strangers without realizing that they are merely receiving what rightfully belongs to them. It is a plain poetic injustice to our people. And yet on their side are our own people who are supposed and tasked to push for our welfare and rights against these imposing strangers, but they turn their back against their own people since they share a little piece of the cake.

This is the typical picture of the mining industry in our country. With the 1995 Mining Act, the industry has been revived from its moribund state. Coupled with our government’s thrust of globalization vis-à-vis market liberation, the industry is bound to glory days again.

But not too fast, says the environmentalists and other groups who oppose mining in the Philippines. The Marcooper tragedy is the ultimate foundation of all struggles against mining in the country. Our people cannot be heedless to the cries and calls of the victims for the repeal of the Mining Act after the disastrous spillage of mine tailings to Boac down to the Calancan Bay. But it seems that the government can. Aargh!

The fight against mining is a universal struggle profiling the yawning gap between the rich and the poor. Most of the gold resources around the world are used for jewelry by the affluent and wealthy people. Therefore it caters to the demand of the few and not to the human need. How many mountains and vast of land must we reduce to barrenness just to satisfy the created fashion whims of the few? There is always, I believe, a point of time to realize our damnation, but shall we wait for a messiah to that for us?

Our people’s rise to go against mining is a politically correct decision that we have to support. And in Bicol, let us join the struggle to stop the Rapu-Rapu mining project in Albay, Philippines.

(Click here for a book on mining issues in Rapu-Rapu, Albay. It is entitled, Under-Mining the Power of Commuities: The Politics of Mining and Local Community in the Philippines)

UNDERMINING THE POWER OF COMMUNITIES: THE POLITICS OF MINING AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

2010-12-11T15:43:00.000-08:00

Oftentimes, local communities feel powerless in the decision-making on issues that matter most to them. It is time to give them back the power they truly deserve and put them at the center of decision-making of these issues.

Environmentally critical projects such as mining remain a controversial and divisive issue in mineral-rich communities all over the world. Arguably, mining projects bring jobs, revenues to local governments, cash income, and various development projects, such as electrification, paved roads, schools with free or subsidized education, chapels, water system, and other livelihood programs. In many instances, these benefits are very enticing and attractive to locals.

However, scientific studies and objective data on mining operations in various communities have found out that mining also brings adverse effects and negative impacts on locals and the environment, such as displacement from homes and traditional livelihoods, dependence on cash income and incursion into their value system leading to consumerism, health problems caused by exposure to toxic materials, siltation of waterways, deforestation, loss of productive land, and pollution of marine environments.

Environmental advocacy campaigns of both pro- and anti-mining communicate these mining benefits and costs to the locals to convince them either to accept the mining project or join the struggle against the mining project. Given these two scenarios, how do locals decide when a mining project is presented in their community? How do they participate in the decision-making that impact on their economic, political and socio-cultural standing? What influences their participation in decision-making and their decision?

The locals of Rapu-Rapu Island, Albay in the Philippines were in that situation in 2001 when a mining project was seeking social acceptability from the local communities. This study revisited their decision and explained why they decided that way. It also took into account the crucial physical, political, economic, and sociocultural contexts of the decision-making of the locals.

Background

Since the Brundtland Report of 1987 and the Rio Summit of 1992 on environment and development, “sustainable development” has become the buzzword and rhetoric of development planning and intervention. The basic principle of sustainable development is meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising those of the future generation, thus improving people’s quality of life. The environment is now given a greater role, consideration, and attention in the development paradigm.

Countries have aligned their development plans with the sustainable development framework. The Philippines is no exception. In fact, the Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21), the blueprint guide for sustainable development which resulted from the Summit, articulates this premise, "envisions a better quality of life for all Filipinos through the development of a just, moral, creative, spiritual, economically vibrant, caring, diverse yet cohesive society characterized by appropriate productivity, participatory and democratic processes, and living in harmony and within the limits of the carrying capacity of nature and the integrity of creation."

PA 21 had an eminent influence on the national and local policymaking and policy direction initiatives which deal with the conservation and preservation of the environment and country’s quest toward sustainable development. As concrete steps toward that quest, several landmark legislations were enacted into laws such as the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992, Mining Act of 1995, and Clean Air Act of 1999.

Local communities know their situation well. It is a matter of including them in the decision-making with informed and meaningful participation.

Get the book here. (http://www.grin.com/e-book/161234/under-mining-the-power-of-communities)

Stop The Runaway Trains And Trucks

2010-11-08T15:21:00.000-08:00

Photo by Stop Nuclear Power Network

Runaways are those that travel and proceed without our consent. The trains that contained the nuclear waste reached their destination after several attempts by green activists to disrupt the shipment from France to Dannenberg, Germany.

Now, the mode of shipment of those unwanted nuclear waste shifted from train to truck. From the railway depot in Dannenberg, the containers would be carried by trucks to Gorleben, the final destination and permanent storage site of nuclear waste in Germany.

After Chernobyl nuclear disaster, there has been insecurity surrounding nuclear use for energy production. What makes the anti-nuclear protest more compelling is the availability of renewable sources of energy. As most European countries, Germany has both the money and technology to shift from reliance on nuclear energy to renewable sources of energy. Instead, the German government surprised green activists and drew the ire of them by extending the use of power plants to ten more years of operations.

Somewhere we have to stand up if we need to see the change we want to see. And this is what green activists in Germany and elsewhere are doing to press and demand their governments to adopt projects that utilize natural resources such as solar, wind, tides, rain, and other renewable sources of energy.

The developing world looks up to Europe as the model for development and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Thus, let us stop the runaway trains and trucks as symbols of old ways that do not tackle climate change head-on.

Climate Change Talks shaping up: From Copenhagen, Bonn, Tianjin to Cancun and onwards

2010-10-26T16:34:00.000-07:00

The frustrations and disappointments of the previous climate change talks in Copenhagen have reverberated in the opening until the last day of the succeeding Bonn and Tianjin climate talks.

What happened in Copenhagen last year?

With much anticipation, the Copenhagen’s 15th Session of the Conference of Parties (COP15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) finally presented its conference output, the Copenhagen Accord. Supposedly, the output would be the successor of the Kyoto Protocol which is set to expire on 2012. But the Copenhagen Accord appears to have the elements of an agreement on virtual and conceptual generalities, to the dismay of the developing countries which will be most affected and vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The group of developing countries wanted a definitive and concrete goals and pledges to arrest the worsening climate change and help them cope with the impacts of it by providing technology and funding.

Two years ago, the Bali Action Plan set the 2-year roadmap and process of finalizing a binding agreement which is now the Copenhagen Accord. Back then, the expectation was high to be able to achieve such goal of reducing greenhouse gases emissions which cause global warming.

Even lowering the expectation could not calm down the dissatisfaction on the process the Accord was drafted in its current form. Delegates to the COP15 from the industrializing countries were marginalized from the basic decision-making of an accord that was deemed too important for the current and future generations.

The Bonn talks tried to set things in perspective, taking on the experiences and progress of the previous talks. It attempted to draw a framework of acceptable points by all parties. It recognized that the process and output must be owned by countries involved, not by the few which can set the roadmap of the world based on their interests, and not for the common good of all.

The Tianjin talks placed China, said to be the largest greenhouse-gas emitter, in the global stage to showcase its efforts to cut emissions. It was reported that much of the blame on the collapse of talks in Copenhagen was of China's doing due to its disagreement on having mechanism to verify emission cuts. Its hosting of the talks was seen as taking on the challenge of being a global important player by leading the world in the investments on renewable energy projects, and of cutting emissions by closing thousands of polluting old factories.

And the Cancun talks at the end of this year will make the progress more pronounced by having a draft of a general framework of acceptable points where negotiation of details can start. Yes, there are already common and accepted points of the draft, such as that emissions have to be cut, developed countries will help technologically and financially developing countries to mitigate and adapt to impacts of climate change, and the urgency of the need to have a binding agreement to succeed Kyoto Protocol. The devilish details which again can hold the talks hostage are on what year levels should be the benchmark of emission cuts, what acceptable mechanisms can verify these cuts, and the sustainability of technological and financial assistance to developing countries.

Let us not forget that we are doing this more for the future generations and poor who will carry the brunt of our decisions and actions today. Let us not fail them. They are looking up on us. This is our opportunity to show our sincerity and responsibility to care and compassion for one Earth we have and will pass on to the next generations.

Debt-for-Nature Swap: Costa Rica leading the way

2010-10-24T19:47:00.000-07:00

"Money does not grow on trees," as a popular saying goes. However, we know that there is money in trees. I am not talking about logging. Now the value of trees is not only measured when they are cut and felled; trees are now valued by maintaining and conserving them through the debt-for-nature swap.

There are two kinds of debt-for-nature swaps. One is bilateral swap wherein one country forgives a fraction of the debt of another country in favor of forest conservation or reduction of deforestation. Another kind is mediated and facilitated by a third party like non-government organizations to help broker the transaction between two countries.

One of the leading and active debt-for-nature swap policy is the 1998 Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) of the US. It is giving values to the trees when they are kept standing through the debt-for-nature debt swap between the US government and low and middle income countries. It would be noted that most tropical forests are found in low and middle income countries such as Costa Rica, Guatemala, Belize, the Philippines, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Panama, Indonesia, Botswana, Brazil, etc.. These countries have availed of the debt-for-nature swaps with the support and help of non-government organizations such as Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and Conservation International.

One country is leading the way on the debt-for-nature swaps. Costa Rica is becoming a model and favorite recipient of this innovative method of helping financially developing countries and conserving biodiversity. Recently, Costa Rica received nearly $56 million in debt write-offs from TFCA and donations from Linden Trust for Conservation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation. Costa Rica will use the money for expanding its forest and marine protection and conservation projects. Right now, the country has 25% of its national territory as protected areas. Costa Rica is on its way to meeting the Millennium Development Goals on biodiversity conservation in 2015. This achievement is another first for the army-less country of more than 4 million people and first in the developing countries to be on target of the MDG on environmental sustainability. (Click here to see how Costa Rica is leading the campaign to meet the MDGs by cutting military budgets and putting those savings on social services)

If Costa Rica could do it, then other countries with remaining forest cover yet threatened by deforestation can consider the debt-for-nature swaps. Let us urge our governments to try this.

Now, money is growing on trees. Let us keep our trees standing for us and the next generations.

An Action Plan for Harmonization of Reporting to Biodiversity-related Conventions in the ASEAN Region

2010-10-18T06:18:00.000-07:00

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) encourages members of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to harmonize the gathering and management of data for the biodiversity-related conventions (Paragraph 15 of decision VIII/14 of the CBD). The COP encouraged the Liaison Group of the Biodiversity-related Conventions to give further consideration to issues of harmonization of reporting among the biodiversity-related conventions, and to develop proposals thereon (Paragraph 14 of decision VIII/14 of the CBD). In response, the Liaison Group discussed about relevant issues related to harmonization in February 2008.

The COP requested for collaboration with other biodiversity-related secretariats to develop proposals for streamlining reporting and reducing reporting burdens on Parties, and encouraged the Executive Secretary of the CBD to participate in the ongoing efforts in this regard. In the decisions relating to forest, dry land and inland waters biodiversity, the COPencouraged harmonization or synergies of reporting with other related conventions and forums. The CBD and Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar), with the support of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre
(WCMC), are collaborating on the development of a joint reporting framework. Under the Committee for Review of Implementation of United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), a coordination team involving various related multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) has started to look at options for harmonizing reporting related to dry land. For many years, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) has been addressing forest-related reporting under various conventions and mechanisms
through its task force on streamlining forest-related reporting.

The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has requested its Secretariat to continue its collaboration with the secretariats of other biodiversity-related conventions, UNEP and other bodies, in order to facilitate the harmonization of national reporting.The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) has invited its Executive Secretary, in collaboration with the Biodiversity Liaison Group and UNEP, to advance the harmonization of reporting both within the UNEP-CMS ‘family’ of Agreements and between relevant
conventions.

The Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention, through Resolution IX.5, requested its Secretary General to continue working with the UNEP Division of Environmental Law and Conventions and the secretariats of other biodiversity-related conventions and agreements concerning more effective convention implementation, with topics including, inter alia, harmonization of national reporting. In Resolution X.11, the COP of the Ramsar Convention requested its Secretariat and the Scientific and Technical Review
Panel (STRP) to continue to cooperate with the CBD Secretariat, UNEP, and UNEP-WCMC in the development of a framework for harmonized reporting on implementation on inland waters for the CBD and the Ramsar Convention.

ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity’s Initiatives
The ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) is a regional centre that facilitates cooperation and coordination among ASEAN Member States (AMS). It also provides technical assistance to AMS in the preparation of national reports in compliance to their obligations to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). To provide a venue to develop a framework to harmonize reporting to biodiversity-related conventions from national, regional to global levels, ACB conducted the ASEAN Workshop on Harmonization of Reporting to Biodiversity-related Conventions in Hanoi, Vietnam on 15-17 April 2009. The workshop brought about
discussions and exchanges of national experiences, efforts and plans on harmonization of reporting. It also produced recommendations to various biodiversity-related secretariats and national agencies tasked to prepare, consolidate and harmonize reports.

OBJECTIVES OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document presents the outputs of the workshop in the form of observations and recommendations that call for actions from the AMS and convention secretariats. Specifically, this document aims to:
• Summarize discussions and recommendations arising from the workshop into two levels, national and global
• Outline key messages that will stimulate interest among convention secretariats, AMS, organizations, and donors enthused in harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions
• Demonstrate an action plan that will provide support to countries in their efforts to implement activities relevant to the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON HARMONIZATION OF REPORTING
TO BIODIVERSITY-RELATED CONVENTIONS
The following observations and recommendations regarding the national level are mainly the areas of concern of countries in the ASEAN region. Since the task of reporting lies heavily on the individual country, the contents under this section are directed to the country level.

General Observations
There is a consensus among AMS that there is no single model for improved information management, collaboration, and harmonization as national circumstances vary between countries. Although AMS shared their own national efforts and experiences perceived to be valuable for other AMS to draw lessons from, they were not inclined to put forward a model for harmonization of reporting. For example, Thailand and the Philippines have one umbrella agency/bureau handling the national reporting tasks to biodiversity-related conventions. This kind of set up centralizes the preparations leading to reporting to conventions. This system,
however, does not exist for the entire region. In the majority of AMS, reporting is decentralized into two or more agencies, which at times do not have coordinated efforts for reporting to the convention secretariats.

Among the purposes of national reporting to conventions are: (1) to demonstrate compliance to and implementation of provisions of the conventions and (2) to assess the effectiveness of the compliance and implementation processes. Thus, underlying any improvements for harmonization of reporting is the understanding that reporting is an output of information management of national implementation of the conventions. The national reporting aims to enable the decision-making of Parties to take stock of what they have done, what they are doing, and what they plan to do in accordance with the provisions of conventions. At the national level, convention secretariats encourage agencies involved in the reporting process to be cognizant of the importance of the need to obtain, gather, assemble, and report information.

Information Management for National Reporting
National reports contain information on the status and trends of the environment and natural resources in general and biodiversity in particular. Because of the value of this information in setting the tone for the national reports, it is important to establish a mechanism to ensure the accuracy and smooth flow of information to the national agency/bureau organizing the national reports. A well-organized information management system plays a key role in ensuring that reports contain updated and accurate information.

Depending on national circumstances, a fully operational (meta) data warehouse such as the Clearing House Mechanism (CHM) or National Biodiversity Information Network (NBIN) covering all biodiversity-related conventions could be established to facilitate national collaboration and sharing of information among and between national stakeholders. Another function of this (meta) data warehouse would be to develop information modules on a regular basis, independent from the national reporting process, in order to provide
information that national focal points of each convention can call upon at any time for producing the national reports. This is the national modular approach to harmonization, as reviewed by a UNEP pilot project on harmonization of reporting in Indonesia.

It should be noted that vital information necessary for national reporting can come from credible sources outside of the government agencies in charge of organizing and submitting the national reports. Thus, there is a need to involve stakeholders (e.g. non-governmental organizations, universities, private think tanks) that hold such information. In some cases, Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) will be helpful to clarify issues of data ownership and use for purposes of national reporting. AMS agree that the inclusionary and extensive method of information-gathering from relevant stakeholders is essential to the output of national reporting.

In this information age, online tools can help shape national reports. These tools are useful to inform and guide users in the preparation of national reports. In a huge way, these online tools lessen the reporting burden of Parties. They also facilitate standardization of outputs and information sharing if these outputs become available online. However, these tools are yet to be popularized and maximized. Besides, the capacity to use these online tools remains to be developed in many countries as member states in the region are at different
levels of technological advancement. Some countries are well-advanced and at par with far developed Western states, whereas some countries are still at their infancy stages in terms of internet and communication technology.

Collaboration between National Focal Points and Agencies
Institutional and Administrative Framework
Each AMS has its own structure and system related to implementing and reporting. In view of this, AMS should keep under review the institutional and administrative arrangements for implementing and reporting to the biodiversity-related conventions to check the effectiveness of such arrangements. Well-structured and coordinated institutional and administrative frameworks provide solid ground for individuals and organizations involved in the reporting process.

At times, national focal points of different conventions work independently of each other in organizing their national reports. Some of these national focal points hardly know each other. For those in close contact with one another, they seldom meet to talk about what they are doing relative to national reporting. In recognition of this concern, it is important for national focal points to share information between and among themselves on a regular basis.

Information-sharing can be in the form of informal and formal meetings, and enhanced online communication (e.g. e-mails, blog, forum, or an intranet). By knowing each other personally, these national focal points can help immensely in establishing formal and informal interactions between and among themselves.

Legal Framework
Dependent on national circumstances, a national (biodiversity) policy or relevant legal framework can help in establishing a national reporting system which will define the roles and responsibilities of concerned agencies/organizations and other stakeholders. This system can be useful for evaluation and accountability of those agencies/organizations and other stakeholders. By having this legal framework, the national reporting process would have a uniform basis which stakeholders can use as they collect, organize, analyze, and report information.

Collaborative Mechanism
Another useful option to facilitate reporting is setting up of formal collaborative mechanisms such as a steering committee for all relevant conventions. Such collaborative mechanisms require agreement on a lead ministry, agency, or institution to centrally coordinate collaboration of work. Such a lead ministry/agency/institution might also be identified for specific aspects of implementation and reporting themes (e.g. wetlands, forests, agriculture, sustainable use, etc). A complementary option is to identify overlapping issues between different conventions (e.g. inland waters/wetlands for Ramsar and CBD and CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation targets and CITES) and strengthen cooperation between the relevant focal points on these specific issues.

Cooperation and collaboration between and among stakeholders play a key role in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. AMS agree that there is a need to enhance cooperation, be it bilateral, sub-regional and regional, between and among focal points. The presence of an existing regional cooperation through regional organizations such as ACB and ASEAN Secretariat and international cooperation through the convention secretariats can encourage and guide collaboration in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. Giving a high-level authority on these organizations can be
explored to assist and persuade countries to collaborate.

Supplementary Strokes of Action from Donor Agencies and Institutions
Despite the technological development that each AMS is going through, the importance of human interaction in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions is irreplaceable. Thus, regular consultations/dialogues with counterparts and stakeholders (e.g. vertical-horizontal consultations) are essential in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. Integrating information and awareness campaigns into regular activities of stakeholders will build up the effectiveness of national reporting and efforts for the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions.

Donor agencies and institutions with special interest in the harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions should be informed about the efforts in the AMS. The contents of this output document will be useful to communicate to these agencies and institutions the need by the AMS to enhance its collaborative mechanisms and the engagement of technical assistance as well as the establishment and long-term maintenance of the national data warehouse (e.g. the CHM). The usefulness of existing tools for reporting and harmonization cannot and should not be understated. However, there is an underutilization of these implementation support tools such as the Tematea (http://www.tematea.org/). Opportunities for training in the use of these tools should be explored and promoted.

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON HARMONIZATION: BEYOND THE AMS BORDERS
Harmonization at the global level, to a large extent, is the concern of convention bodies. Although countries set and implement supporting policies for the different conventions, the direction for reporting to conventions and its harmonization is shaped by COPs, Standing Committees, Secretariats and other convention bodies, as appropriate. Hence, it is important to recognize that concerted efforts at the national and international levels should be established.

Drawing from the rich experiences and constructive efforts of countries, convention secretariats can strive to simulate models for harmonization of national reporting between the biodiversity-related conventions. The simulation of models can be further explored, including the following approaches:
• Standardization of reporting formats including standardization of definition such as those for species taxonomy and common terminologies
• Complementarity between reporting formats (e.g. Ramsar report covers aspects of the CBD programmes of work, with CBD not requesting that information through their report)
• Modular reporting which entails a set of themes/categories in which information and data will be collected in line with those themes/categories from relevant agencies and focal points that provide the information and data as required in the reporting
• Core reporting which requires identification of common themes in biodiversity-related conventions to comprise the template of the common core document

AMS also agree that there is a need for clear and practical guidance from the convention secretariats to the Parties for the preparation of national reporting and harmonization of reporting to conventions. It should be pointed out that the harmonization of reporting processes helps minimize time and resources because of streamlining of reporting and avoidance of duplication of data gathering. Furthermore, harmonization of reporting fosters teambuilding and teamwork among focal points and agencies.

Online reporting systems for global biodiversity-related conventions appears to be very helpful but the lack of reliable technological access and capacity to use online tools in many countries currently do not allow for full utilization of online reporting. Tools such as Tematea are encouraged to include clear linkages between implementation activities and national report commitments.

GENERAL PLAN OF ACTION
This section identifies and summarizes the steps the AMS intend to take over the next one to five years to assist governments, convention secretariats, and interested institutions in establishing national priorities on the area of harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions. The plan of action for harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions with national and global perspectives proceeds with calls for immediate and short-term actions directed to AMS, convention secretariats, regional organizations such as
ACB, the ASEAN Secretariat, and other relevant institutions.

Short-Term Action
For immediate actions, recognizing the usefulness of this document, it is imperative for those who took part in the discussion resulting to and drafting of this document to:

National Level
• Disseminate the workshop results as widely as possible to governments/institutions/ agencies/donors/individuals involved and interested in the work of harmonization of reporting to biodiversity-related conventions.
• Assess usefulness of readily available online tools such as Tematea to the national needs and pilot implementation of the online tools for countries with adequate technological capacity and facilities.
• Discuss between and among national focal points and agencies the establishment of collaborative mechanisms including operational data warehouse.
• Review the effectiveness of current institutional and administrative arrangements of agencies tasked for national reporting.

Secretariat Level
• Provide clear and practical guidance to countries with backlogs of reporting obligations.

Long-Term Action
For long-term actions, considering the challenges of harmonization of reporting, the following can be undertaken:

National Level
• Review existing enabling policies that will expedite institutionalization of the harmonization process i.e. institutionalization of national policy that defines national reporting system and roles and accountabilities of agencies/organizations and other stakeholders in the reporting obligations.
• Inform and invite organizations and institutions with regional or international mandates to take an active part of the endeavor to harmonize reporting.
• Place a petition to the relevant governmental bodies such as the ASEAN Working Group on MEA to have special interest in the biodiversity cluster of MEAs.

Secretariat Level
• Pursue the standardization of reporting formats.
• Assist in developing national capacity including technological facilities and skills to demonstrate compliance to convention requirements.
• Evaluate and review on a regular basis the impact and effectiveness of actions taken on harmonization. ACB may take the lead at the regional level with support from the secretariats, countries, and donor/funding institutions

Source: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/conventions/harmonization/ActionPlan.pdf

COP10 in Nagoya, Japan: Towards an International Regime on Environmental Governance

2010-10-07T10:57:00.000-07:00

We, the more than 6.8 billion people, are so blessed to have a rich biological diversity or biodiversity which means the variety of life on earth. Biodiversity sustains the lives and well-being of these 6.8 billion people. As blessed as such, what are we doing with and for it?

Are we taking good care of biodiversity or exploiting it too much? The continuum from one extreme to another is where do we put ourselves. Are we contributing to the taking care or exploiting? We know that our activities have certain impacts on biodiversity. And our activities are informed and shaped by our values. Thus, should we take care of biodiversity or exploit it? The continuum is neither that nor this. The phenomenon of climate change is a clear indication of human activities exploiting too much the biodiversity, and not taking care of it.

The governments must rein on these human activities to reduce the negative impacts on biodiversity and promote conservation efforts for future generations. They can motivate and direct corporations, communities, groups, and individuals to help contribute in the solution of biodiversity conservation efforts, and not in the problem of biodiversity loss.

In 1993 with more than 168 signatures of States, the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) was ratified and put into force. Now, there are 193 parties to the Convention which has three main objectives: the conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of the components of biological diversity, and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

The governing body of the Convention is the Conference of Parties (COP) that will have its tenth meeting in Nagoya, Japan on 18-29 Octobe 2010. It is particularly significant because 2010 is declared as International Year of Biodiversity. It is the year that everyone is encouraged to have greater awareness and understanding of our place and role in the larger scheme of nature of which we are all part.

The COP10 or tenth meeting of COP has a theme and logo made up of truly Japanese-style origami, "Life in harmony, into the future."The meeting is aimed to assess the 2010 targets for the reduction of biodiversity loss worldwide. How do parties or governments fare in their targets? For example, are we able to reduce the threats on or halt the extinction rates of endangered species?

Another very important activity in the meeting is the adoption of the international regime on access and benefit-sharing (ABS) of genetic resources. It is high time to establish an international regime on ABS. Each party to the Convention has the power to determine the access of genetic resources within their territories. It is also bound to share the benefits derived from the access to and utilization of these resources. In other words, developing countries with rich biodiversity which is a source of raw materials will have a say on the access to their resources and will benefit from the utilization of their resources by developed/industrialized countries. Through the international regime on ABS, this arrangement will become institutionalized in the relations among parties to the Convention.

As the theme of COP10 reads "Life in harmony, into the future," heads of States, policy-makers, and decision-makers are going to agree and disagree on certain things in the meeting that will matter to us. However, our common future on one earth is at stake. Let us urge them to take the bold steps in confronting their differences and finding common grounds to push for biodiversity conservation efforts and responsible and sustainable use of resources.

Let us make them put actions on the provisions of the Convention and their decisions. Let us not allow another missed opportunity.

Not another entry on BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico

2010-07-24T19:53:00.000-07:00

Any environmental blog nowadays would have at least an entry on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not another entry on BP oil spill. This would not put blame on the BP oil company, nor the government's slow response. This would not provide excuses for our insatiable want of oil at the expense of our lifestyles, profits, and ultimately, our environment.

This would drag us into the spill. What does it have to do something with us? No matter how far we live from the gulf, no matter how unaffected we may seem, this would argue that the spill has something to do with us.

After gushing hundreds of millions of gallons of oil in the gulf, the spill exposed the unpreparedness of giant oil companies to tackle such a tremendous disaster. Worse, it even made the most powerful and technologically advanced country in the world vulnerable and hysterically inadequate to deal with such disaster.

Do we really need those hundreds of millions of gallons of oil? Apparently, not.

Then, why exploration of oil deposits and building of oil rigs continue? If we missed to use those wasted and leaked oil, would our lives be different today?

One of the major sources of our energy is oil. Undoubtedly, we need it, for now. Thus, as long as we need it, explorations and development of oil rigs will continue. The potential of having another disaster of this scale will be ever-present.

If we want to avoid similar catastrophe, then we have to cut that need.

Demand from our governments to supply our energy needs from renewable sources. Ask our governments to reduce dependence from fossil fuels (e.g. coal and oil) which contribute so much to pollution and global warming.

Now, what does it have to do with us?

As an individual, cut oil and energy consumption. Resist that temptation to have more. Be more. Turn off everything if unused. Walk that extra mile or bike. Live a simple and happy life.

As a citizen, oppose new fossil fuel projects in your area/country. Get involved in environmental activities. Go out and appreciate the natural beauty of environment.

Do it alone. Do it with someone. Do it with a group.

These activities may not stop giant oil companies and governments to explore and develop oil rigs, but they will feel our sentiments in their revenues and ballots. We will reduce our need for fossil fuels, thus reducing their new projects. We will vote for candidates with an energy plan and priority for renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass.

Yes we will. Seeing the massive effects of the oil spill in biodiversity, peoples' lives, and local economy, we have to believe that we can. No more of this man-made catastrophe, in our lifetime.

World Environment Day (WED): Many Species, One Planet, One Future

2010-06-04T04:47:00.000-07:00

While we are just one of the millions of species on earth, we have taken for granted other species that live with us. Other species do not even have names yet. So their existence is yet to be discovered, but they are out there helping our earth to be livable and wonderful.

We have claimed the earth as ours, sadly yet we do not lay claim and responsibility of its impending doom due to human activities.

While we are growing in population, other species are decreasing and, worse, disappearing on earth. We are blessed to have witnessed and seen the rich biodiversity of earth. However, each day, there are species that become extinct and never to be seen alive on earth again. And there are more becoming endangered of being wiped out on earth if we do not act on conservation and protection of these species and their environment.

Our insatiable greed for bigger things and luxuries has led to the destruction of forests and marines, thus denying species of their natural habitats. In the name of development and industrialization, we pursue our own good lives at the expense of the lives of other species.

It is time to change. Fight greed. Resist luxuries. Protect our remaining forests and conserve our marines.

Just one day, think about the richness of our earth. Be awed by its wonders and beauty. Just one day, become aware that we are not alone and there are others without names that live with us. Just one day as a starter, do not kill, harm and hurt anything surrounding you.

We live in a shared future and earth. Let us make it good for us and the next generations.

Cashing in the REDD-Plus in 2010 Oslo Conference on Deforestation

2010-05-27T07:00:00.000-07:00

The headlines on newspapers say it all: Germany and Norway to give $1.5 billion to fight deforestation. Do I miss something here?

Well, it has been found out that deforestation contributes much on the carbon dioxide emissions as much as the cars, planes, and other fuel-loaded modes of transporations combined. That's a lot of emissions from one source which can be mitigated by concerted efforts of governments, both rich and poor which have differing stakes in the issue.

I hate the idea that money can solve environmental and social issues. Sure it could help a whole lot more to address them, but please do not build and reduce the proposed solutions on financial terms.

The Copenhagen Accord made a general and broad reference to the significance of addressing the deforestation in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation. It is time to have a dedicated and focused conference on the issue.

An international regime to manage, handle and monitor the Reducing Emissions from Deforestations and Degradation (REDD)-Plus program must be established to start the challenging and important task of slowing down deforestation. This regime also takes care of the financing efforts to assist countries that have high deforestation rate such as Indonesia, Brazil, and other countries with considerable forest cover within their territories.

Beyond the financial matters, what is important is the political will of the governments to go after the destructive activities, either legal or illegal, that clear forest, cut trees, and flatten mountains and hills. These activities are driven by strong financial backing by huge transnational mining, logging and insfrastructure companies that know the way to have their projects approved even in the midst of controversies and resistance from the local communities and environmental activists. There is a need to involve these stakeholders in the decision-making processes of environmentally-critical projects.

In this way, we can hope for a participatory governance of a common natural resources.

Ecosystem and National Capacity in Myanmar's Recovery Efforts

2009-06-22T20:29:00.000-07:00

A year after the ASEAN-led coordinating Tripartite Core Group (TCG) was established to spearhead the humanitarian and recovery efforts in Myanmar, victims and survivors of Cyclone Nargis are still in crisis situation.
With more than US$300 million already given by foreign governments and international organizations in the past months after the cyclone, US$691 million is a new price tag for post-disaster restoration and recovery of the affected areas in Myanmar for the next three years. Will more financial aid be sustainable in the crisis situation such as in Myanmar after Cyclone Nargis?

Historically and globally, financial aid is tied with development programs. Amidst the criticisms and dismal results against its development targets and objectives, financial aid continues to grow exponentially in the developing world every year. And yet, the world's poor have never been more at risk of becoming hungrier, more marginalized and more prone to more environmental disasters than ever before. Sadly without financial aid though, they will ultimately be more vulnerable to all sorts of human and environmental problems.

The appeal for more financial aid, for Myanmar, includes humanitarian aid. It is not only about development cooperation, rather the financial aid aims to save and restore lives and alleviate extreme suffering brought about by the impacts of the powerful cyclone.

In Myanmar, the magnitude of destruction of the cyclone to the peoples' economic and social lives is unprecedented in the country's history. The ruling military junta has not confronted such kind of crisis situation.

Notably, the humanitarian response of the international and regional communities led by the ASEAN Secretariat and TCG has been admirable in spite of various challenges compromising the achievement of their humanitarian goals. Their post-disaster strategies have been focused on the people's basic needs such as shelter, food, livelihood, health and education. It looks like they have tremendous difficulties in meeting those basic needs. And now, they are asking for more financial aid to accelerate the recovery of people's livelihoods and address the basic needs of the victims and survivors of the cyclone.

For sure, the financial aid will help in the implementation of overall framework of post-disaster strategies. However, there may be a need to expand the focus of strategies to include the ecosystem approach which values biodiversity’s contribution to recovery efforts. There are two realities that call for attention which may persuade the expansion of focus in Myanmar for sustainability of recovery efforts – devastated natural resources base and unprepared and untested national capacity to confront such crisis situation.

Last year, I was in Bogale Township, one of the most affected areas in the delta region three months after the cyclone, to support the ASEAN Humanitarian Task Force in Myanmar. In remote villages, I saw the damage marked in people's lives and environment. There was a widespread degraded natural resources base which used to support income-generating activities.
There were also obvious uncertainties on the looks of the people and local officials on what to do. But they knew exactly what they needed and their urgencies.

The ecosystems of Irrawaddy delta region of Myanmar are primarily suited for farming and fishing. If the post-disaster strategies cover livelihood security for the people, then the restoration of ecosystems that have sustained the people's basic needs even before the cyclone hit must be
integrated in the recovery efforts. Failing to do so could mean endless calls for more financial aid.

The ecosystem approach entails integrated management of biodiversity such as land, water, and living resources that necessitates restoration to be able to be productive again and become assets of and beneficial to the people. In this way, local people could rely on what they have, rather than on what other people have.

The second expanded focus is about developing the national capacity of the country to address such crisis situation. There should be less foreign aid workers coming to Myanmar, more locals getting hired to do humanitarian work, and enhanced bureaucracy to address persisting problems after a year of the disaster. The locals and bureaucracy must have gained necessary skills and capacity to be able to attend to the recovery needs of their own people. The ownership of the post-disaster restoration and recovery of Myanmar belongs to its own people.
Furthermore, as part of one ASEAN community, Myanmar can count on its fellow members of a caring community to extend the necessary support for its recovery efforts.
In a short term, more financial aid can only do so much in Myanmar. What is critically needed is an expansion of focus to include ecosystem restoration and development of national capacity to handle crisis situations to facilitate and accelerate the recovery efforts in Myanmar in a sustained manner.

Ecosystem Adaptation to Climate Change: The ASEAN Experience

2009-03-17T23:45:00.000-07:00

In the early part of the year 2009, severe weather news in various parts of the world shocked the unsuspecting inhabitants of the areas. In Australia, during the two epic five-setter tennis matches by Rafael Nadal of Spain towards his first Australian Open title, the country had a heat wave of above 40 degrees Celsius in the southwest of the country including the cities of Adelaide and Melbourne. About 28 deaths were reported to have been caused by the searing heat (Reuters, 2008). In Europe, a strong storm with 190 kilometers per hour (kph) wind speed battered northern Spain and southwest of France killing 15 people on January 24, 2008 (Fichot, 2008). In Southeast Asia, the city of Cagayan de Oro in southern Philippines experienced a wave of flash floods that started on January 3 and killed at least nine people (Inquirer Bureaus, 2009). Described as unusual, unprecedented, worst and gravest in such areas, the three incidents are symptomatic of climate change that grips our world today. The intensity and frequency of extreme weather occurrences are said to be the dire consequences of climate change. And there will be more, more severe, if climate change is not tackled.

How is Southeast Asia adapting to climate change? Are there regional responses to climate change?

This paper seeks to explore the extent and experiences on ecosystem adaptation to climate change in Southeast Asia.

What we know about climate change

Our understanding of climate change has now improved since it became a buzzword. We owe our enlightened knowledge to the numerous scientists and experts who are instrumental to shift the buzzword from theoretical to real global threat and challenge. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which co-won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 was recognized for its scientific work on climate change.
The 2007 IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) presents a comprehensive view on climate change which is referred to as, “a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity” (IPCC, 2007).

The AR4 provides a “schematic framework of anthropogenic climate change drivers, impacts and responses” and their linkages centering on the relationship between earth and human systems (See Figure 1 below). Not only anthropogenic sources bring about climate change, natural disturbances such as wildfires and volcanic eruptions, in part, also result to a change in climate.
There is no doubt that the world is getting warmer and warmer. The AR4 indicates that since 1850, eleven of the twelve warmest years registered in the record of the global surface temperature were from 1995-2006. The increase in the average surface temperature from 1906 to 2005 is 0.74°C. This increase in temperature is caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Human activities from the sectors of energy, transport and industry are said to be the main emitters of GHG.

Notable impacts of climate change

Whether we like it or not, the way we live our lives is being altered by climate change. Our choices are being shaped by it. The impacts of climate change are already in our midst. From the familiar things and gadgets we use to places we know, they are being influenced and determined by factors that reinforce, mitigate, and adapt climate change. For example, the home appliances and other products
Figure 1. A schematic framework

Source: Climate Change 2007: A Synthesis Report. (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf)

have been made compliant to become “environmentally-friendly” and phase out the “ozone-depleting gases” such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).

Due to climate change, the global sea level has risen at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year since 1961 to 2003. Low-lying and coastal areas are at risk of constant flooding and erosion, and wetlands may be altered (Ouano, 2007).

On peatlands

Covering over 4 million km2 spread in 180 countries all over the world, “peatlands are important natural ecosystem with high value for biodiversity conservation, climate regulation and human welfare” (Parish et. al., 2007). Climate change impacts on peatlands through desertification and degradation. If not managed properly, peatlands contribute to climate change in a major way. Degradation of peatlands exhales carbon dioxide from peatland drainage and fires of “at least 3,000 million tonnes per annum or equivalent to more than 10% of the global fossil fuel emissions” (ibid, 2007).

On biodiversity

The Biodiversity Synthesis by the 2005 Millennium Assessment Reports (MAR) highlights the significance of biodiversity on various aspects of human life, from security, social relations to freedom of choices and actions. Biodiversity offers ecosystem services through its provisioning services (food, medicines), regulating services (filtering water and air, moderating weather), and cultural services (recreational spaces, tourism, heritage). The MAR notes that one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem services change is climate change. For the last 50 years, biological extinction is unprecedented and depletion of one-fourth of earth’s top soil, one-fifth of its agricultural land, and a third of its forests have occurred (Djoghlaf, 2008).

Interestingly, the MAR also mentions that one of human activities that exert pressure on biodiversity is agriculture.

On agriculture and food

Agricultural productivity, food availability and crop yields will be adversely affected by climate change. On Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: Perspective, framework and priorities of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Climate Change of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the impacts of climate change are divided into two categories; the biophysical impacts which include, among others, changes in the quality and quantity of land, soil and water resources, rise in sea temperature, and the physiological effects in the quality and quantity of crops, livestock, pasture, and forests; and the socio-economic impacts which are decline in production and yields, fluctuations in the global market prices, and among other things.
Brought about by climate change, “increased intensity and frequency of storms, drought and flooding, altered hydrological cycles and precipitation variance have implications for future food availability” (FAO, 2007).

Ecosystem resilience

There is an inherent capacity of ecosystems to resist and adapt to climate change known as ecological resilience (Prato and Fagre, 2006). Our ecosystem has this inherent capacity which makes our habitat livable in spite of the harmful changes it undergoes and confronts. “Ecological resilience concentrates on the ability of a set of mutually reinforcing structures and processes to persist” and allows “the change required to move the ecosystem from being organized around one set of mutually reinforcing structures and processes to another” (Holling et. al., 2006).

Climate change places lots of pressures on the ecosystem’s capacity. “When this capacity is exceeded, the ecosystem can change in ways that may not be socially and ecologically acceptable” (Prato and Fagre, 2006). That is why there is a need to reduce the vulnerability of ecosystem and strengthen its ecological resilience through mitigation and adaptation approaches to climate change. Without any consequential action on climate change, the impacts are going to be severe in the coming years. Mitigation approaches are intended to reduce the ecosystems’ vulnerability and GHG in the biosphere while adaptation approaches are meant to enhance ecosystems’ ecological resilience to climate change.

Ecosystem adaptation

Ecosystem adaptation aims to deal with the impacts that are already present in the ecosystem, recover from the impacts and build the resilience of the people and ecosystem.

In the position paper by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to the Fourteenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP14) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), it states that “adaptation to climate change should now be a central element of climate change policy at local, national, regional and international level.” Furthermore, it “calls States to mainstream ecosystem-based adaptation as an integral element of overall climate change adaptation in poverty reduction strategies and development planning.” (For the purpose of this paper, ecosystem adaptation and ecosystem-based adaptation would be treated as the same)

The IUCN defines ecosystem-based adaptation as “a range of local and landscape scale strategies for managing ecosystems to increase resilience and maintain essential ecosystem services and reduce the vulnerability of the people, their livelihoods and nature in the face of climate change” (IUCN, 2008). Ecosystem-based adaptation calls for a collective action among stakeholders including the governments, communities, environmental groups, development organizations “to plan and empower local action that will increase environmental and community resilience to the changing climate” (ibid, 2008).

ASEAN experiences on adaptation

There are ten countries that comprise ASEAN as a regional bloc, namely, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is now a chartered regional organization which aims to integrate member-countries into one rule-based and dynamic community. The region is home to biodiversity hotspots which host about 20% of the known species in the world. As in any other regions, ASEAN is facing the grave risks and threats of climate change.

As a regional intergovernmental organization, ASEAN has instituted regional agreements, initiatives and strategies to combat environmental concerns such as transboundary haze through ASEAN Agreement of Transboundary Haze Pollution, peatland management through ASEAN Peatland Management Strategy, and conservation of protected areas through the ASEAN Declaration on Heritage Parks.

Outside the ASEAN organization, there are “regional” efforts of ecosystem adaptation. The Rice Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a form of farmers’ field school that provides knowledge and understanding of ecological principles, monitoring crop cycles, destructive and friendly pests, and biodiversity. Started in Indonesia, the IPM is now benefitting the Vietnamese and Filipino farmers through increased crop production and reduction of pesticides inputs (Ooi, 2000). Another effort with “regional” scope is the Ecoregion conservation in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. Sharing similar or interrelated ecological characteristics and processes, the three countries of ASEAN, under Ecoregion conservation, are “to develop long term conservation programs that ensure the persistence of healthy ecosystems and species by mainstreaming conservation with natural resource management” (Hodgdon, 2000). Another ecoregion project that includes Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines is the Ecoregion Conservation Plan in the Sulu-Sulawesi marine ecoregion which is part of the Coral Triangle, the richest source of marine biodiversity in the world.

Conclusion

Climate change is going to cause more extreme weather events worldwide. The continued warming of the earth’s surface temperature is changing or threatening to change the landscapes and seascapes, triggering biodiversity loss and decline in crop yields, agricultural productivity and food supply, and peoples’ lifestyles. While mitigation approaches to climate change are reducing the vulnerability of ecosystem by cutting emissions of GHG, adaption approaches are necessary to adjust to the anticipated impacts of climate change. Ecosystem adaptation is a useful strategy to help communities and ecosystem become more resilient to the climate change impacts. Adaptation strategies must be cost-effective, participatory and sustainable to be able to effectively address the present and anticipated impacts.
ASEAN has recognized the need to combat the impacts collectively as a region. As a regional response to the threats and challenges of climate change, it has initiated and instituted plan of actions on various environmental concerns that are shared by and common to some if not all ASEAN member-countries. Other efforts with “regional” coverage are contributing to the task of making communities and ecosystem adaptive to climate change.

Although these efforts and initiatives may not be specifically directed to tackle climate change, they are, nevertheless, directly addressing its impacts on communities and ecosystem. If that is so, they are ecosystem adaptation with which we can suitably confront the impacts of climate change, not just in ASEAN, but in our world. What we do in ASEAN will have an impact on our task to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

References:

Djoghlaf, A. (2008, April-June). Climate and Biodiversity: The twin planetary environmental challenges of
the 21st Century. ASEAN Biodiversity, 7, 10-17.
Fichot, N. (2009, January 25). Spain pick up pieces after deadly storm. Reuters AlertNet. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LP686061.htm
Food and Agriculture Organization (2007). Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and
fisheries: Perspective, framework and priorities. Rome, Italy. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/j9271e/j9271e.pdf
Hodgdon, B. (2000). Ecoregion Conservation in Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam: Approach, Experiences
and Preliminary Outputs. In the The Ecosystem Approach under the CBD, from concept to action (eds. Smith, R. et. al.) Surrey, UK: RHIER

Holling, C., Peterson, G. and C. Allen (1998). Ecological Resilience, Biodiversity, and Scale. Ecosystems, 1,
6-18. Retrieved February 4, 2009, from http://www.geog.mcgill.ca/faculty/peterson/PDF-myfiles/BioDEcoFn.pdf
Inquirer Bureaus (2009, January 15). 9 dead in flash floods, storm surges. Philippines Daily Inquirer.
Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20090115-183446/9-dead-in-flash-floods-storm-surges
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate Change 2007: A Synthesis Report. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2008). Adaptation to Climate Change. Retrieved
February 3, 2009, from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/unfccc_cop14_adaptation_pp_19_nov_08_final.pdf
International Union for Conservation of Nature (2008). Ecosystem-based adaptation: An approach
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_submission_on_ecosystem_based_adaptation_final_6_dec_2008.pdf
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis.
World Resources Institute, Washington D.C. Retrieved February 3, 2009, from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf
Ooi, P. (2000). Rice IPM as application of the ecosystem system approach in Indonesia and elsewhere in
Asia. In the The Ecosystem Approach under the CBD, from concept to action (eds. Smith, R. et. al.) Surrey, UK: RHIER

Ouano, A. (2007, April-June). Climate Change and Initiatives. ASEAN Biodiversity, 6, 25-31.

Parish, F. Sirin, A., Charman, D. Joosten, H., Minayeva, T. and Silvius, M. (eds.) 2007. Assesment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Executive Summary. Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands International, Wageningen. Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.peat-portal.net/index.cfm?&menuid=123&parentid=113.

Prato, T. and D. Fagre (2006). Coping with Climate Change. American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Retrieved January 29, 2009, from http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GCC/ActionBioscience_PratoFagre_06.pdf

Urban Biodiversity: Improving Quality of Urban Life

2009-01-28T02:54:00.000-08:00

Today, more than half of the world’s population live in urban areas which keep on growing at an unprecedented rate. By 2030, about 2 billion more people will become new city dwellers, mostly from rural areas in search of a better life, making them part of the 60% of the total population living in urban areas (The Nature Conservancy, 2008). These sprawling urban areas with swelling population exert tremendous pressure on and great potential for destruction of the environment. Resources are heavily concentrated on the urban areas causing major challenges such as waste disposal, noise, air and water pollution, soil erosion, deforestation, etc. Consequently, biodiversity in urban areas is threatened.

The 1992 United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted and ratified by 188 member-states has laid down three objectives “aimed at the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources” (Curitiba Declaration on Cities and Biodiversity, 2007). Because of the wide acceptance of CBD and its subsequent declarations, the global community has recognized the significance of biodiversity. In 2002, the 188 parties of CBD agreed to have the 2010 Biodiversity Target which intends to primarily reduce the biodiversity loss in the planet, including in urban areas.

It is documented that cities and their suburbs host places and spots with high and distinctive biodiversity. They have become centers and hubs of evolution, adaptation, importation and immigration of various species (The Erfurt Declaration-Urbio, 2008). That is why it is important to promote and adopt nature conservation in urban areas.

Nature conservation is a “focused activity that addresses those species which are under some sort of threat or decline” (Kendle and Forbes, 1997, p.xi). It includes planning and management of that focused activity on natural, peripheral or semi-natural habitats which are hosts to this rich biodiversity.

Benefits of Nature Conservation

There are a number of benefits of nature conservation in urban setting. First, nature conservation generally improves the quality of life for urban residents. Second, it enlivens ecosystem services such as moderating weather, stabilizing the climate, providing shades from the heat of the sun, filtering water and air, facilitating pollination of plants, providing habitat for various species, etc. Third, it enriches human health conditions. Fourth, it provides recreational spaces. Fifth, it fulfills our ethical responsibility for stewardship of nature. Sixth, it preserves the cultural values and meanings associated with nature. Seventh, the “greening” of or planting on open spaces contributes to the aesthetics and economics of urban areas.

Examples of Nature Conservation in the Cities

With the benefits of nature conservation in mind, some communities in the cities have implemented nature conservation activities. One is a community in Kampung Bidara Cina in Jakarta, Indonesia. Initiated by a government agency with the support of local council, the Greening Program is able to give a face-lift to immediate environment and, at the same time, generate additional income to the residents of Bidara Cina. The program reaped publicity and award for being innovative as community-led and community-based program in partnership with the local government (Darrunduno, 1998).

Another example is a community-based environmental management project in Keht Bankok Noi, Bangkok. With the initiative of Thailand Environment Institute (TEI) and funding from Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the urban greening project is able to organize urban dwellers of Bankok Noi to plan, implement and maintain urban greening project in their area. Workshops with community members and local officials were conducted to find suitable site for the project. The project showcases a successful partnership between the community and local officials in upgrading the environment and harnessing participation from the urban dwellers (Fraser, 2002).

Lessons Learned from the Examples

From the examples cited, there are several lessons that can be gleaned. One is that urban dwellers should be seen as partners to nature conservation in the urban areas, rather than seeing them as polluters and spoilers of the environment. Community organizing and mobilizing is essential to foster participation from the urban dwellers. Another lesson is the showcasing of myriad of opportunities that lie in urban areas that are usually taken for granted. Public and private lands owned by cooperative community members that sit idly can be converted to urban greening projects. One more lesson is that involvement of local officials in the project should be sought and cultivated to ensure government’s support.

Role of National and Local Governments

As parties to CBD and other pertinent declarations related to urban biodiversity, state’s governments are committed to follow through the goals and targets of CBD and other declarations. Although there are initiatives such as Mega-Cities Project by United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and Local Action for Biodiversity (LAB) done by national and local governments in defining and appropriating these commitments to their respective jurisdiction, the threats to urban biodiversity remain daunting. There exists a need for coordinated and concerted efforts to halt biodiversity loss in urban areas through urban greening and nature conservation projects. Sharing of experiences and expertise through conferences, networks and exposure trips to sites demonstrating best practices on urban nature conservation must be instituted to build and maintain partnerships among governments, environmental groups and communities.
Since urbanization is on accelerated pace, developmental urban planning to cope up with and anticipate the expansion of urban areas in terms of population and size must be part of governance agenda of national and local councils.

References:

Darrunduno (1998). Urban Greening in Bidara Cina, Jakarta, Indonesia. The Mega-Cities Project
Publication.
Faser, E. (2002). Urban Ecology in Bangkok, Thailand: Community Participation, Urban Agriculture and
Forestry. Environments, 30 (1), 38-49. Retrieved January 21, 2009, from http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/~earedgf/Personal/Publications_files/Bangkok.pdf
Kendle, T. and Forbes, S (1997). Urban Nature Conservation. London: E & FN SPON.
The Nature Conservancy (2008, June 17). Global Impact Of Urbanization Threatening World's
Biodiversity And Natural Resources. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 21, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com¬ /releases/2008/06/080610

Rethinking Development and CSR

2008-09-01T01:05:00.000-07:00

When I was a kid starting to learn how to bike, I got into a fight with my cousin over the use of bicycle. Our grandfather saw the incident and separated us. Then he promised me a bicycle in the years to come. Hence, it was enough for me to treat my cousin fairly and nicely.

Now I have outgrown biking and my grandfather has passed away, but I have yet to ride on that promised bike. I think I have to buy one to fulfill someone’s promise.

There seems to be a growing consensus on the global and local problems (poverty, environmental degradation, conflicts, etc.) and their solutions (development driven by governments, NGOs, churches, corporations, etc.) by the international community. This consensus is manifest in the number of summits and conferences held in the past decades tackling global problems and recommending development approaches.

Coming from a “developing” country, I have witnessed and known the proliferation of programs and projects with the aim of “developing” our country since the 1960s. Most of these endeavors are internationally-funded and initiated. Up to now, we remain in the category of “developing,” while those donors and bureaucrats who conceptualized and introduced these programs and projects are ironically from “developed” countries. I think they are working in the tendency and objective that the rest of the world must be like theirs – “developed.” They see the needs of the “developing” countries and believe that they are doing service and something to the problems of the world.

In the 1987 Our Common Future report by the Brundtland Commission, the concept of “needs” is elaborated with emphasis on the “essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given.” Although I see the real needs of the people, I still can not see the commonality of our future if today we live in diverse “presents.” If we are able to situate ourselves in a common present, then the possibility of talking about a common future sounds charming to those who are able to live decent and longer lives. But for the poorest people, everyday is a survival, and the future is short-sighted. They may even argue, why talk about the future when what I think about the whole time is this moment I can’t live without.

Lately, governments and NGOs cannot claim monopoly of development efforts to alleviate the plight of the poor. Corporations are having a fair share of development efforts. These efforts driven by corporations are often coined as corporate social responsibility (CSR). Corporations have finally seen the light that they too have a role and power to contribute to development in their chosen communities and field. Unlike governments, corporations are doing CSR on voluntary basis and goodwill. There is no binding obligation for these corporations to continually work on certain projects in communities.

On their 1996 book, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, Wackernagel and Rees point out that “the assumption and the facts upon which each is based must be subject to logical scrutiny and repeated ‘reality checks’.” I think this is applicable in the prevailing and hegemonic narrative of development driven by corporations. To be effective, any assumptions, interpretations and facts on development, to my mind, must be “subject to logical scrutiny and repeated ‘reality checks’.” What usually happens is that major decisions are done outside of the concerned community by implementers and experts of development. This creates tensions and confusions on the communities concerned which at times feel powerless and yielding to these decisions by their corporate benefactors.

Consultations and participatory mechanisms are conducted in communities, but they appear to be token ones. Communities must be thankful enough to recognize the efforts of corporations on their communities. They may wonder, at what expense? For the sake of what? What development framework CSR is adopting? Obviously, CSR cannot claim that its framework is people-centered development. Rightly perhaps, business-centered development with people and environment at the margins.

Wackernagel and Rees differentiate development which means “getting better” from the most-oft misconceived equivalent – growth which means “getting bigger.” This is a useful distinction and shift. However, growth remains the dominant discourse in development. Even the Brundtland report still highlights economic growth; it states, “And we believe such growth to be absolutely essential to relieve the great poverty that is deepening in much of the developing world.”

For me, it sounds hypocritical to talk about the needs of the world’s poor, and yet pursuing the masked thinking of the same thing (growth) that essentially degrades the environment and widens the gap between the rich and poor people and countries. Driven by its expansionist model, corporations see economic growth as the main force towards their goals while accommodating the concerns on the environment and of the communities. They project themselves as pro-sustainable development which is charming and promising to the impoverished and needy.

Governments, NGOs, churches and corporations have been preaching development of a future that is better than what we are and have. The poor may have to wait for these to happen. Or act on their own future with or without the promises of development made by the governments, NGOs, churches and corporations.

I have waited long enough to ride a bike of my own. I need to act if I really desire a bike. But, is it what I need?

Small Things I can do for our Mother Earth

2008-06-27T00:42:00.000-07:00

After reading "Future Shock" by Alvin Toffler, I started to think of my role in the future of our world. It might sound messiahnic, but I was not thinking of saving the future for the world. I am thinking small ways on my own little world with my friends and relatives on how to avert the shocks of the future.

One of those shocks is happening now. Climate change. After years of neglecting the plight of environment, after decades of raping the environment, after centuries of sucking the life of environment, our generation is faced with the fruits of those acts. Technological advancement, rapid urbanization and industrialization, and climate change.

The documentary "The Inconvenient Truth" reminds each one of us that we have a role to play to salvage our mother earth from extinction and decay. In light of this, I list down what I could do as an individual. There is power in individuals that can make a dent and difference in the world.

1. Walk whenever I can while I can until I can. I do not want to burn more gases to be emitted in the air. I use the stairs instead of elevators. Or for others to join me in the elevator ride. I do not use it alone.

2. Conserve energy. I turn off unnecessary lights and home appliances.

3. Recycle, reuse, reduce. I do not accept more plastics to be used. I bring plastics/container everytime I go shopping. I buy in bulk as it reduces the number of garbage used for packaging.

4. Put things in a proper places including trash.

5. I do not use straw for my beverage.

6. I do not eat in a cafeteria or restaurant that uses styrofoam for their packaging, plastic cups, forks and spoons . I prefer eating in a plate, using aluminum fork and spoon, and glass.

7. I do not smoke. I also discourage others to smoke infront of me.

8. I live simply. This is one commitment that I have imposed upon myself.

I know you can also do your list. Try to do it and practice it regularly until it becomes a habit.

Goodluck!

Let us do something for our mother earth. She has been good to us; let us repay her with our goodness too. She cries for your action. Are you listening?

A Conflict Analysis of Rapu-Rapu Mining Issues

2008-05-10T01:44:00.000-07:00

I received an email from Fr. Casey Archie, SX (Xavierian Missionaries), Coordinator of the Justice, Peace, and Integrity of Creation Commission (JPICC) of the Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP) on October 29, 2007 informing me about the latest fish kill in Rapu-Rapu Island, Albay, Philippines. I got to know Fr. Archie, an active and known anti-mining advocate in the Philippines, over the internet when he read my articles online and emailed me asking for more information about my engagement in Rapu-Rapu mining issues.

It was in 2000 when I came to know the island of Rapu-Rapu. At the height of advocacy campaigns of anti-mining groups in Rapu-Rapu in 2000, I was working with the Center for Community Development (CCD) of the Ateneo de Naga University which supported the anti-mining campaign in Rapu-Rapu. I was involved in the setting of advocacy agenda and activities of Sagip-Isla, Sagip-Kapwa, a people’s organization composed of anti-mining locals of Rapu-Rapu. The advocacy campaign was designed to deny Lafayette Philippines, Inc. (LPI), an Australian mining company, of the crucial and all-important Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) which could prevent the planned mining operations of LPI. An ECC would be issued to LPI if its mining project became socially-acceptable with the locals. In 2001, LPI received an ECC for its mining project in Rapu-Rapu.

Fr. Archie was right about the incident of fish kill. On October 29, 2007, residents of barangay Poblacion in the island of Rapu-Rapu, Albay saw around 15 to 20 kilograms of dead fish scattered near the shoreline of this barangay, about 10 kilometers from the mining site of LPI.[1] It was like a replay of what had happened two years ago in the same island.

Two years ago, on October 11 and 31, 2005, mine tailings or wastewater from ore processing of LPI spilled to the creeks and into the sea, directly killing fish, shrimps and crustaceans in the immediate and surrounding fishing areas, thus affecting the livelihood of local communities in Rapu-Rapu and neighboring towns and provinces in Bicol region. It was found out that the spillages had high level of cyanide. On November 7, 2005, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), a State’s agency, suspended LPI’s operations until investigation and appropriate measures would be implemented.

Anti-mining groups composed mostly of civil society groups which included the local Catholic Church, non-government organizations (NGOs) and local people’s organizations (POs) revived and reiterated their call to revoke the mining permit of LPI. What they feared in the beginning of the mining project had come to reality, two times already. Probably, the spillage incidents were not enough bases and reasons for the State to revoke the mining permit; not enough if the State is located comfortably in the capital more than 600 kilometers away from the island and spillages.

Generally, I am going to analyze and reflect on the conflict between LPI and State, on one side, and on the other side, the anti-mining groups regarding the mining operations being conducted in Rapu-Rapu Island. In particular, I will focus on the spillage incidents and how they impacted on the dynamics of conflict. It is argued that the conflict and spillage incidents are exacerbated by the State’s resolve to revive the moribund mining industry by foreign investments. The data of the paper is informed by newspaper reports and the 7-month fieldwork conducted by the researcher in 2004 and 2005.

State’s actions on spillage incidents

The spillage incidents prompted an investigation by the DENR which showed that the discharge of cyanide did not meet the standards set by Anti-Pollution Laws and recommended improvement in the tailings pump and pond and measures to ensure effluent output or wastewater from the mine would meet the standards set by law. As a result, the DENR imposed the maximum 10.7 million pesos in fines and penalties on LPI.

The anti-mining groups were not satisfied with and did not trust the findings and recommendations of the investigation. Sharing their sentiments were some Catholic bishops who wanted to stop the mining operations in Rapu-Rapu Island.

To appease the growing confusion and question on what really happened in Rapu-Rapu Island, President Gloria Arroyo issued Administrative Order (AO) 145 which created the Rapu-Rapu fact-finding commission headed by a Catholic bishop on March 10, 2006. The commission released its comprehensive report on May 19, 2006 with its findings and recommendations. Major of which was to cancel the mining permit of LPI. However, the State did not heed the commission’s recommendation. Instead, on June 11, 2006, the DENR gave LPI a three-stage 30-day test run of its implemented measures and its soundness to operate again. After that, another 60-day test run was granted to LPI for its limited operations.

On February 8, 2007, the DENR allowed full resumption of mining operations of LPI in Rapu-Rapu Island to the dismay of the anti-mining groups.

Applying a conflict model of analysis (C.R. SIPABIO)

To have an understanding of the conflict in Rapu-Rapu Island, I make use of conflict analysis model known as Context, Relationship, Sources, Issues, Parties, Attitudes/Feelings, Behaviors, Intervention, Outcomes (C.R. SIPABIO) by Amr Abdalla, et. al. (2002).

Contextual factors (geography, economic, religion)

Endowed with rich mineral deposits in a 5,589-hectare land, Rapu-Rapu Island is located 350 kilometers southeast of Manila. The rich mineral deposits are what attracted LPI to invest heavily in the island. However, the topography of the island is dominated by rolling hills and mountains with steep slopes and dotted by plains along the shoreline for settlements. These characteristics, being a small island with fragile ecosystem, distant from the city and coverage of media, and of rolling hills and mountains, are the contentions of the anti-mining groups to disallow mining which would disturb ecosystem and pose threats to the marine life of the island.

In economic terms, the island is part of relatively poor 4th-class municipality. Its means of livelihood for the islanders is fishing and farming. Mining operations which require vast tract of land and laborers have displaced many farmers from their field and fishers to work in the mine. Regular access to cash income has attracted these farmers and fishers to abandon their previous livelihood. Many farmers and fishers though have expressed their apprehension and concern of the potential effects of mining on their land, sea and the environment as a whole from which they source their living. For these farmers and fishers, their security is tied with the state of environment on which they rely their living.

Religion plays a role in the conflict. Majority of the population of Rapu-Rapu are Catholics that make them perhaps identify with the struggle and cause of the church. This prompted the local Catholic church to actively participate in the public hearings about mining issues in behalf of the parishioners. It became a moral obligation of the local Catholic church to act in behalf of the locals when they were faced with dilemma such as this. Besides, the only organized group of people in the island is the Catholics through their church.

Relationship factors (power, patterns, bond)

With money and resources invested in the island, the mining company wanted to show that it meant business on its mining operations. It enticed the locals and local government units with jobs, infrastructure projects, revenues, and social services previously unimagined. Clearly, LPI was acting behind the power of its money and resources. However, unable to compete with the power of resources and money, a number of farmers and fishers and the local Catholic church were on the moral high ground, as it were, to oppose the mining operations since they believed that mining would bring no good to the island in the long run.

Having identified the two sides of the conflict, it became apparent their patterns of behavior to further their opposing stands. LPI always invoked the mining permit that the government had issued to them. It reminded the anti-mining groups that it underwent rigorous processes and social acceptability required by law before it was granted the permit. It also boasted some of the completed and improved social services delivery, infrastructure and utility projects which the anti-mining groups could not possibly give to the islanders. On the other hand, the anti-mining groups never ceased to call for the cancellation of the mining permit of LPI through mass protests, press releases, fora and symposia in various schools and universities around the country. The spillages aided and bolstered the cause of the anti-mining groups and these incidents were presented as telling proofs and logical reasons to stop the mining operations in the island.

The bond that ties the two sides (LPI and anti-mining groups) is the island and their goal and view of it. LPI wanted to exploit the mineral resources of the island while the local church and its parishioners wanted to protect and save the island from the exploitation of LPI. Many of the anti-mining group members particularly the elders have established a strong attachment to the island, and they see the mining operations as threat to this attachment. LPI has hired some locals to work for the mine. These locals, in turn, become supporters of the mining operations. Many of the anti-mining group members benefit from the projects of LPI and they even have relatives and friends working in the mine. In an island like Rapu-Rapu, things become small and everyone is almost connected to everyone by either affinity or consanguinity.

Sources

The strong attachment to the island of the local church and its parishioners, anti-mining groups’ persistent calls for the stoppage of mining operations to save the island, insecurity of the locals on their livelihood and resources, LPI’s decisiveness to continue the mining operations by continued “buying” of locals’ support with its vast and deep financial resources, and government’s stubbornness to attract and retain foreign investments in the country have contributed to the conflict as sources of it.

Issues

As mentioned earlier, the main issue stems from the divergent goal and view of LPI and anti-mining groups on the island. Again, LPI is bent on exploiting and extracting the mineral deposits of the island while the anti-mining groups are determined to protect the island from extractive and destructive activities such as mining. Another issue is how LPI lured other locals to support mining by the use of charming promises and immediate benefits of the mining project such as, jobs, social services, infrastructures, and access to cash income.

Parties

The primary parties that have direct interests in the conflict would be LPI and the anti-mining groups. Those that have indirect interests would be the mining workers and their families, the State and its DENR, local government units, and other locals of the island. The tertiary parties that have distant interests would be the environmentalist groups and business groups represented by Chamber of Mines of the Philippines.

Attitudes/Feelings

Both sides (LPI and anti-mining groups) exhibited distrust, bitterness and disdain towards each other especially from the anti-mining groups. This probably had something to do with frustration-aggression theory which basically proposes that “the greater the frustration, the greater the quantity of aggression against the source of frustration” (Gurr, 1970, 9). Being goal-oriented, the two sides have continued to frustrate and block each other from achieving their goals. Although the situation did not erupt into violence, but when LPI started to operate, it hired security guards not coming from the locals but from outside the island. LPI must have figured out that to depend its security on the locals posed a greater risk than having no guards at all. This situation was interpreted by the anti-mining groups as distrust of LPI on the locals’ ability to perform their assignment. However, when LPI implemented various projects for the communities, the anti-mining groups treated these projects as bribes and insincere gestures. When the unfortunate spillage incidents occurred, there was a growing disdain and bitterness among locals particularly the anti-mining groups towards the culprit, LPI. For a time, the incident deprived them of income from the sea and made them insecure of their basic human need of food.

Behavior

There was a sort of conflict spiral model right after the spillages. The anti-mining groups sent press releases to the media to inform the public of what really happened. LPI tried to downplay the extent and reach of the anti-mining press releases by issuing counter-press releases emphasizing that things were under control and the incident was limited and contained to certain small areas only. LPI even accused the anti-mining groups of sabotaging their desire for truth by releasing to the public and media “unscientific” investigations of the incidents. The anti-mining groups however pressed for an independent investigation of the incident to pin LPI of its culpability and negligence and project LPI and its mining operations as environmental disaster to Rapu-Rapu.

Intervention

The DENR as the state’s line agency tasked to oversee and regulate mining activities in the Philippines did commission an investigation by a third party to get to the bottom of the incidents. However, the anti-mining groups and some sectors of society doubted the credibility and objectivity of the investigation. This caused the President to issue an administrative order creating a presidential fact-finding commission chaired by a Catholic bishop to look into the incidents. Both sides (LPI and anti-mining groups) were amenable to the presidential fact-finding commission as they cooperated on its proceedings.

Outcome

The findings and recommendations of the third party investigation and presidential fact-finding commission were given little regard by the State that created it. The DENR slapped LPI 10.7 million pesos in penalties and fines due to obvious violations of environmental laws. Even though the presidential commission recommended the permanent closure of the mining operations, the State through the DENR granted instead LPI to proceed with its full resumption of mining operations after 16 months of the spillage incidents.

Despite the two spillage incidents in Rapu-Rapu and growing anti-mining sentiments, the State does not simply back down on its resolve of encouraging more mining investments in the country, much less revoking an existing mining investment like the Rapu-Rapu mining project. The order of full resumption of mining operations reverts back the anti-mining advocacy pushed by various civil society groups to start anew. For these civil society groups, had the State listened to their arguments and protests, the spillages would have been avoided. Because the State allows the mining operations again, these groups will press their advocacy more. Thus, the conflict continues.

My reflection on the conflict

A number of reflections could be gleaned from the conflict particularly in the context of state-civil society dynamics. First, mining issues are divisive. I saw how a once-sleepy island could be awakened by the disquieting conflict between the pro-mining groups led by local government’s leaders and anti-mining groups which tried to influence the minds and hearts of the locals. Clans, friends and communities took differing positions on the mining issues.

Second, national and local governments favor mining companies to invest in their areas of jurisdiction to further their revenues and economic activities. Government’s leaders want to keep the status quo with mining operations which employ many locals. They are not really pro-mining. They only favor mining because of what it can bring to their areas of jurisdiction. These are the consequential benefits of mining such as infrastructures, social services, economic gains, which will be difficult to reject by a sleepy town or barangay. I experienced how difficult it was to deal with a local government’s leader that had endorsed a mining project to do research on his jurisdiction. On the first day of my fieldwork, I was explicitly told not to stay in a mining area by a barangay chief during the courtesy call. The barangay chief thought that I was an organizer of labor unions or anti-mining groups, and so he feared my presence or any member of civil society groups in the area.

Third, the clash on mining issues between LPI and the State, on one side, and civil society groups, on the opposing side, is characterized by the clash of development models that each side advocates. LPI and the State follow the economic development model which treats investments, revenues, infrastructures, and other economic factors as premium indicators of development. Conversely, civil society groups adopt the sustainable development model which puts the environment in the mainstream development discourse.

Fourth, the State remains stubborn on its decision to open the mining industry to foreign investments and keep those investments in the country. The two spillage incidents in Rapu-Rapu would not deter the State to continue defending the interest of mining companies with which it considers its own. The investigation of a commission created, initiated and called by the State is only a show of accommodation of the demand of the civil society groups to have the spillage incidents investigated. In the end, the recommendations of the investigating commission which included the revocation of the mining permit of LPI were ignored by the State.

Conclusion

The conflict on Rapu-Rapu mining issues between LPI and the State, on one side, and the anti-mining groups composed of civil society groups remains unsettled, especially with a new report of spillage incident. The two spillage incidents have unearthed a greater threat to environment – State’s ineptness to use of power and resources. Despite the clear violations of environmental laws, LPI’s apparent disregard of the island’s fragile ecosystem, and the persistent calls for the cancellation of mining permit from the commission, various NGOs, POs, and civil society groups, the State simply slapped LPI with fines and penalties and ordered it to resume its full operations as if little and very minor things had happened. The continued disregard of the State to the appeal and demand of civil society groups to scrap the mining permit of LPI in Rapu-Rapu may mean more emails from Fr. Archie and other anti-mining advocates, stronger advocacy campaigns, and hopefully not, more spillage incidents.

If the State remains to be the most powerful entity that can enforce environmental laws and monopoly of official decision-making, how to engage and influence this kind of State on environmental and participatory governance will be a major challenge for development and peace workers like us.

References

Abdalla, Amr. et. al. 2002. Say Peace: Conflict Resolution Training Manual for Muslim
Communities. Virginia, USA: The Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences.

Gurr, Ted. (1970). Why Men Rebel. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

http://external.adnu.edu.ph/Centers/CCD/rapu-rapu/rapu-rapu01.html. Date accessed 21
December 2007.

http://www.mgb5.net/3RD-party.htm. Date accessed 22 December 2007.

http://www.mgb.gov.ph/miningissues/rapurapu/issue_rapurapu.htm. Date accessed 27
December 2007.

[1] See http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/oct/30/yehey/prov/20071030pro10.html for the news report on the fishkill.

Learning from Porto Alegre's Environmental Management Plan

2008-01-07T08:16:00.000-08:00

With more than 1.6 million people, the city of Porto Alegre is the largest and most important political, economic, and cultural center in Southern Brazil. It also has the highest living standards among Brazilian cities. So how does the city manage its environment? The city works on six guiding principles for public environmental management in line with sustainable development. Major of which are “local government must endeavour to integrate sectoral policies,” “informed citizen participation” and “integrated environmental education and dissemination of knowledge about the city’s natural and built-in environments” (Menegat 2002, p.197) which all have an impact on participatory mechanism and environment in the city, particularly solid waste management.

Since 1989, basic urban services have been getting the highest priority in the budget (Menegat 2002, p.194). Included in these urban services is the solid waste management. It is the Municipal Environment Secretariat that is tasked to implement and coordinate environmental management policies. Unlike other cities in Brazil, these services are managed by state utilities or private companies (Ibid 2002, p.198).

To have an idea of what kind of wastes Porto Alegre produces, Ballestrim and Dutra (cited in Menegat 2002, p. 201) presents a table on what kinds of wastes the city produces daily.

TABLE 1. Kinds of waste materials produced in the city daily (1998)
Materials Quantity (tonnes) %

Paper: cardboard, newspaper, 10.5 26.3
mixed paper, clean paper

Glass: bottles, jars 6 15

Iron: tins, other iron objects 6.4 16

Other metals: aluminium, copper .06 1.5

Plastics: PET, mixed plastics 12.2 30.6

Non-recyclable materials 4.2 10.6

TOTAL 39.36 100

Almost a third (30.6%) or 12.2 tons of all wastes collected in the city daily are plastics. Different kind of papers account for 26.3% of all wastes or 10.5 tons per day. The irons and glasses come at very close third and fourth respectively in terms of volumes of wastes. Notably, these top four kinds of waste materials (plastics, papers, irons and glasses) are all recyclables.

Integrated Solid Waste Management

The Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) was implemented in 1990 by the Department of Urban Cleansing to deal with the growing waste production and “fight poverty with income generation” (Bortoleto and Hanaki 2007, p. 277).

An integrated solid waste management (ISWM) system combines waste streams, waste collection, and treatment and disposal methods, with the objective of achieving environmental benefits, economic optimization and societal acceptability (White et al. 2002), with the flexibility to channel waste via different treatments if some condition changes. Nevertheless, for an ISWM system to operate effectively individuals must understand their role in the SWM scenario and cooperate with local authorities (Ibid 2007, pp. 276-277).

Through participatory budgeting, the citizens put top priority on public services including SWM. Sustainability, social acceptance and public participation become key concerns for the city in designing the ISWM. The ISWM of Porto Alegre features sustainability aspects, public participation through the former scavengers association and participatory budgeting and program on environmental education. The association was able to ink an agreement with the local government which collects and delivers the wastes from the source to sorting units managed by the association.

Before the ISWM, scavengers or informal wastes collectors simply dug their earnings for a living in the mountains of wastes in a landfill. There was no segregation of wastes. With ISWM which “aims to reduce the generation of solid waste, promote recycling and re-use, and undertake some services itself” (Menegat 2002, p. 201), there is a separation of wastes from the domestic, hospital, and industrial sources. The separation has significantly reduced the volume of wastes and the separate collection of different wastes in designated days has generated income from the informal wastes collectors. Recyclable materials are delivered to sorting units managed by the association of former wastes collectors and sold them in a higher price directly to recycling factories without the middlemen. Organic wastes collected from restaurants and households are used as pig feeds after undergoing a process. Non-recyclable materials go to landfill sites which are environmentally-sound (Ibid 2002, para. 202).

TABLE 2. 2005 data of integrated solid waste management of Porto Alegre
Total solid waste collected per year 317,183 tons
Proportion of employees and inhabitants 2.5 per 1,000
Household solid waste production 0.6 kg. per inhabitant per day
SWM cost per inhabitant US$ 27.06
SWM cost per employee US$ 10,888
SWM cost per year US$ 3,575,320
SWM economic self-sufficiency 51.3%
Total recyclable wastes collected 21,600 tons

Source: Bortoleto and Hanaki (2007). “Report: Citizen participation as a part of integrated solid waste management: Porto Alegre case.” Waste Management and Research, Sage Publications, pp. 276-282.

Comparing the 1998 and 2005 data on waste production, there is a huge discrepancy between the two data. In 1998, the total waste production daily was 39.36 tons while in 2005, with 0.6 kg. waste production per inhabitant daily multiplied to 1.5 million people and divided by 1000 kg. to convert it to ton; the total waste production daily in 2005 was 900 tons. In a span of seven years, there is an increase of 860.64 tons in daily waste production. Interestingly, out of 317,183 tons collected annually, only 21,600 tons were the total recyclable wastes collected or merely 6.8% of the total wastes. Nonetheless, it is still a reduction to the total waste production.
Bortoleto and Hanaki (2007, p. 280) recognizes that “recycling trade has not been well-developed in Porto Alegre, which has only a small trade in potential recyclable wastes.” Plastics remain the top recyclable materials and significant volume of papers is believed to have been brought to recycling centers at the source of separation by independent informal waste collectors.

Impact of environmental education and public participation

The survey of Bartoleto and Hanaki (2007)[1] showed that there is a high knowledge on selective collection service with 83% of the respondents saying they are aware of it. Sixty-four percent or (64.5%) of the respondents indicated that they always practice source separation of wastes and 17.1% said that they usually do it. When asked about their reasons why they do what they do, 30.1% of the respondents credited the media campaigns; 20.2% said that it was due to the information given by the local government; 18.4% accounted it for the environmental education conducted by the local government; 9.2% said that it was from neighborhood meetings. Bartoleto and Hanaki (2007) explained that in the last few years there was a decrease in the campaigns of local government. However, the respondents might have not realized that the city’s campaigns influenced other campaigns.

The publication of the Environmental Atlas of Porto Alegre in 1998 helped in the environmental education and in making the public participation meaningful in the effort towards sustainable development. The Atlas “provides the knowledge that citizens need in order to participate in an informed way” (Menegat 2002, p. 203).

The effectiveness of any environmental management plan is hinged on the participation of the citizens. “A commitment to sustainable development entails adopting participatory mechanisms that reach and involve a wide range of social groups” (ibid, 2000, p. 205).

References

Bortoleto, Ana Paula and Hanaki, Keisuke. (2007). “Report: Citizen participation as a
part of integrated solid waste management: Porto Alegre case.” Waste Management and Research, Sage Publications, vol. 25, pp. 276-282.

Menegat, Rualdo. (2002). “Participatory democracy and sustainable development:
integrated urban environmental management in Porto Alegre, Brazil.” Environment & Urbanization, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 181-206.

[1] For the result of the survey, see Bortoleto and Hanaki (2007). “Report: Citizen participation as a part of integrated solid waste management: Porto Alegre case.” Waste Management and Research, Sage Publications, pp. 276-282.

A Critical Reflection on Sustainable Development

2007-12-29T19:10:00.000-08:00

When I was a kid starting to learn how to bike, I got into a fight with my cousin over the use of bicycle. Our grandfather saw the incident and separated us. Then he promised me a bicycle. Hence, it was enough for me to treat my cousin fairly and nicely. Now I have outgrown biking and my grandfather has passed away, but I have yet to ride on that promised bike. In my life, I have never owned a bike and perhaps never will.

There seems to be a growing consensus on the problems (poverty, environmental degradation, conflicts, etc.) and their solutions (development, or lately sustainable development) by the international community. This consensus is manifest in the number of summits and conferences held in the past decades.

Coming from a “developing” country, I have witnessed and known the proliferation of programs and projects with the aim of “developing” our country since the 1960s. Most of these endeavors are internationally-funded and initiated. Up to now, we remain in the category of “developing,” while those donors and bureaucrats who conceptualized and introduced these programs and projects are from “developed” countries. I think they are working in the tendency and objective that the rest of the world must be like theirs – developed. They see the needs of the “developing” countries and believe that they are doing service to the poor. In the 1987 Our Common Future report by the Brundtland Commission, the concept of “needs” is elaborated with emphasis on the “essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given” (43). Although I see the real needs of the people, I still can not see the commonality of our future if today we live in diverse “presents.” If we are able to situate ourselves in a common present, then the possibility of talking about a common future sounds charming to those discerning ears and those who are able to live decent and longer lives. But for the poorest people, everyday is a survival, and the future is short-sighted. They may even argue, why talk about the future when what I think about the whole time is this moment I can’t live without.

On their book, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, Wackernagel and Rees (1996, 36) point out that “the assumption and the facts upon which each is based must be subject to logical scrutiny and repeated ‘reality checks’.” I think this is applicable in the prevailing and hegemonic narrative of development. To be effective, any assumptions, interpretations and facts on development, to my mind, must be “subject to logical scrutiny and repeated ‘reality checks’.” What happens is that major decisions are done outside of the concerned country by foreign bureaucrats and transnational entities. This creates tensions and confusions on the countries concerned which at times feel powerless and yielding to these decisions.
Wackernagel and Rees (1996, 33) differentiate development which means “getting better” from the most-oft misconceived equivalent – growth which means “getting bigger.” This is a useful distinction and shift. However, growth remains the dominant discourse in development. Even the Brundtland report still highlights economic growth; it states, “And we believe such growth to be absolutely essential to relieve the great poverty that is deepening in much of the developing world” (1). For me, it sounds hypocritical to talk about the needs of the world’s poor, and yet pursuing the masked thinking of the same thing (growth) that essentially degrades the environment and widens the gap between the rich and poor people and countries. Driven by its expansionist model, economic growth simply accommodates the concerns about the environment and disguises itself as sustainable development which is charming and promising to the “messiah-searching” people.

Many times over, leaders and bureaucrats who often preach to have seen the future have always promised a better one than what we are and have. My grandfather made a charming promise too. It was disarming and believable. Like the imagination of traveling on a bike which would take me to places, I doubt the certainty of our common future. I am afraid, really afraid that development is like my bike which never came. I hope against hope that my fear is unfounded. Make me not believe otherwise.

Environmental Advocacy Campaigns on Mining

2007-12-28T14:52:00.000-08:00

After the Brundtland Report of 1987 and the Earth Summit of 1992, the rhetoric of development planning and intervention has been sustainable development. Its basic principle is meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising those of the future generation, and in the process improving the quality of life.

In the Philippines, this premise was articulated in the Philippines Agenda 21 (PA 21) which “envisions a better quality of life for all Filipinos through the development of a just, moral, creative, spiritual, economically vibrant, caring, diverse yet cohesive society characterized by appropriate productivity, participatory and democratic processes, and living in harmony and within the limits of the carrying capacity of nature and the integrity of creation.” PA 21 had extensive influence and tenor on the policymaking and policy direction initiatives which deal toward the quest for sustainable development.

Rapu-Rapu case

In July 2001, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) granted an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) with 29 conditionalities to Lafayette Philippines, Inc. (LPI), an Australian mining company, on its Rapu-Rapu Polymetallic Project. Lauded as the first mining project to undergo the rigorous process of acquiring the necessary requirements set by RA 7942 leading to the issuance of ECC, LPI intended to mine gold, silver, copper, and zinc in Rapu-Rapu Island, Albay, Philippines for six years. In granting the ECC to Lafayette, the DENR was convinced that the project was able to muster necessary and sufficient support from and was socially acceptable to the locals. This view was disputed by Sagip-Isla Sagip- Kapwa, Inc. (SSI), a people’s organization established through the initiative of the Rapu-Rapu parish to campaign against mining the island. SSI was supported by various religious congregations headed by Bishop Jose Sorra of the Diocese of Legazpi, cause-oriented groups, and the three major universities in Bicol, namely, Ateneo de Naga University, Bicol University, and Aquinas University. Despite the support of these institutions and groups for the anti-mining campaign, the DENR saw that majority of the locals were in favor of the conduct of the mining project in their island.

Lessons from Rapu-Rapu

Several lessons could be learned from the advocacy campaigns launched by both pro-mining and anti-mining groups as they tried to influence the decision of the locals whether to resist or accept the Rapu-Rapu mining project. First, advocacy campaigns must be grounded on, sensitive and responsive to the realities of the locals. The pro-mining advocacy campaign was able to highlight the locals' basic need – a regular source of income. Many locals were not earning sufficiently from fishing and farming. They were looking for alternative source of income which the mining project could provide them. Aside from that, another factor that could have tipped the scale in favor of the mining project was the timing of the project. In October 1998, super typhoon Loleng raged the province of Albay which brought devastating damage to properties especially houses of the locals. Understandably, the decreasing fish catch and unreliable crop production in the area did not help much in providing cash income for the repair and construction of the houses. Many locals who wanted to have access to cash saw the mining project as an opportunity to have their houses repaired and rebuilt and to gain a regular source of cash income.

Second, leadership is key to a successful campaign. The pro-mining group found influential and effective leaders in the politicians and public officials in Rapu-Rapu, while the anti-mining group was unable to find leaders in important areas such as the direct impact barangays of Malobago and Pagcolbon. In barangay Binosawan however, the anti-mining group found good leaders that's why Binosawan remains a stronghold of the anti-mining group in Rapu-Rapu.

Third, the organizational structure of a group and its capacity to strategize the advocacy campaign are effective when they involve the local leaders and capitalize on the present needs and vulnerabilities of the locals. The pro-mining campaign was backed by a clear-cut organization (LPI) with substantial funding and full-time staff focused on convincing the locals of the benefits and advantages of the mining project unto their lives, while the anti-mining group was driven by a loose organization composed of volunteers. Although these volunteers who were mostly teachers, students, professionals, fishers, and farmers seemed passionate of the cause, they still needed to attend to their primary jobs outside of struggle against mining. Also, the structure of SSI was concentrated and attached to the parish structure that when the priest transferred to another assignment, the whole campaign got affected and took a backseat.

Fourth, strategies that encourage and entail local participation in campaign activities create a sense of belongingness and ownership of the struggle. The wider the reach or contact of the activities among the locals, the greater the chance the locals will participate. Advocacy campaigns should have a constituency. It should be clear who the target constituents of the campaign are. The pro-mining group was bent to get the approval of the public officials first, then it worked from there going to the level of the locals with the local leaders’ blessing and sometimes with the local leaders’ presence in the campaign. As in other rural area, the patron-client relations still dominate the political, economic and social landscape of Rapu-Rapu.

Fifth, simplicity and clarity of the message and content of advocacy campaigns generate understanding, response and ultimately acceptance. Clearly, the message of pro-mining group was employment and various development projects, such as electrification, school building, livelihood projects, among others, while SSI conveyed the goal of avoiding the impending destruction of the island’s ecosystem once mining operations commence. Unfortunately, this was not quite intelligible to the locals, especially if expressed through figurative and metaphoric forms in the homilies or sermons of a priest.

Sixth, the role of media cannot be undermined in advocacy campaigns. Both pro-mining and anti-mining groups had relative successes in disseminating and raising their points and counter points for and against mining through the use of media. The anti-mining group was able to call the attention of the Senate through its Committee on Environment to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation regarding the mining issues in Rapu-Rapu. The pro-mining group, on the other hand, took a time slot in a local radio station in Legazpi City, Albay exhorting the public of the benefits of the mining project.

These lessons challenge the way the locals are treated in advocacy campaigns. In various contexts, the locals are situated in a particular environment. To influence their decision, these contexts that enfold their behaviors must be taken into account in the formulation of advocacy agenda. The complexities of the situation on its context present the realities of the locals where an advocacy campaign may start.