Divisiveness and unsound environmental governance

Supporters of Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary-designate Gina Lopez argue that a show of support for the crusader is by default a support for the environment. This is largely understandable, given Lopez’s public persona and the headline-grabbing sagas in which she routinely engages. But to accept this easy logic is to succumb to an unproductive and simplistic binary that misses many key issues.

The DENR’s role in environmental stewardship is inherently connected with many other facets of governance, from local governments to agencies in charge of trade and indigenous people’s affairs, among others.

For Lopez, specifically, while the objections raised against the mining closures and suspensions had to do with the hasty, arbitrary, and nontransparent conduct, what they reveal, ultimately, is incompetence and general inability to strike a balance between a personal crusade and the mandate of the office as the state’s foremost environmental manager.

The current discord in the sector exposes the debilitating consequences of her actions so far. Dramatic as they are, her engagements had been more divisive than inspiring, and betray a fundamental misunderstanding of her designation: The environment as a matter of policy enjoins the participation of many stakeholders, not just well-meaning NGOs.

One of the casualties of Lopez’s crusade, for instance, is science, a pillar of environmental stewardship. In its place, sentiment, dogma, and sound bites have inundated both mainstream and social media, to the detriment of a nuanced understanding of the key scientific issues at hand. Without the spin put forth by Lopez’s skilled communications machinery, many in the academe and science community in fact resist the relentless and blanket condemnation of large-scale mining.

This willful oversight was brought to the fore by the watershed issue. To many observers, Lopez does not understand the concept of a watershed as it relates to mining. Her next provocative move—to prohibit open-pit mining—has caused the suspension of the $1.2-billion Silangan project of Philex Mining Corp. which was poised to harvest estimated reserves of five billion pounds of copper and nine million ounces of gold. Yet another arbitrary move with disastrous economic impact. Again, what were the scientific data that prompted this order?

The consequences on the ground of such a haphazard approach to a complex issue is clear, and it is an area in which Lopez’s DENR had similarly been inutile. Amid the flexing of propaganda might, there is no viable plan for the million or so jobs that are threatened to disappear, which translates to millions upon millions of families whose very survival is dependent on the mining industry and its allied industries. The proffered alternative—the silver bullet of ecotourism—is similarly complex, unproven on a big scale, and will not put food on the table overnight.

Sadly, this only reflects a broader incapacity to look at the environment vis-à-vis development, a point of view that is crucial for whoever holds the DENR portfolio. For generations, the country had suffered from a glaring lack of a clear long-term development agenda for its rich mineral resources, which some estimates put at $1.4 trillion. Juxtaposed with the chronic underdevelopment that has plagued the Philippine countryside, this is inexcusable.

Thus, to equate a short-sighted crusade for the environment with environmental protection ignores the other indefensible facets of her leadership. While certainly valid from a certain perspective, the outlook that it represents is incomplete at best. For instance, the lack of action against destructive small-scale mining and on other pressing ecological matters exposes what industry experts see as the DENR’s chronic incapacity to implement existing environmental regulations.

Subscribing to this myopic dichotomy of environment versus science thus espouses an unsound environmental governance. In the end, this divisive attitude and lack of competence will prove to be the most damaging direction for The Filipino Nation.

Dindo Manhit is president of Stratbase ADR Institute.