Important review of reclamations
It may be a case of too little too late, but credit should still go to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) under the helm of Secretary Ma. Antonia Yulo-Loyzaga for starting an important conversation on the massive ongoing and planned reclamation projects.
As a follow-up to its initial discussion in May with experts, foreign consultants, and representatives of concerned government agencies including the Philippine Ports Authority and the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), the DENR held a multistakeholder experts dialogue on Monday to continue its “deep dive and … review of both policy and practice” on reclamation.
Reclamation—the process of creating new land from oceans, seas, riverbeds, or lake beds—may be an urgent environmental issue, but Loyzaga contends that it must also be viewed from a wider lens that considers the complex interplay of ecological concerns and socioeconomic benefits.
After all, the Marcos administration has not disavowed reclamation as a policy direction, with nine reclamation projects in the Manila Bay area alone worth a combined P330.6 billion proceeding as scheduled. The biggest of these is the 287-hectare Parañaque Reclamation project with a price tag of P76.7 billion, followed by the 260-ha Pasay City Reclamation project (P72 billion), the Navotas Coastal Bay Reclamation project (P58 billion), the Las Piñas-Parañaque Coastal Bay Reclamation and Development project (P37.8 billion), and the Manila International Container Terminal Berth 6 and Northern and Southern Extension project (P22.4 billion).
DENR Undersecretary Jonas Leones acknowledged that reclamation spurs economic activities, with the addition of land that can be developed for residential, commercial, and industrial use to generate badly needed revenue for the government. To this end, the PRA (formerly the Public Estates Authority or PEA) was established in 1977 with the mandate to convert reclaimed lands into valuable real estate properties, such as the 1,000-ha Bay City along Manila Bay that houses the Mall of Asia Complex, Entertainment City, and Asia World.
Leones stressed that reclamation “should not only be confined within economic parameters, but also [seen] in the context of environmental protection and conservation, [as well as] disaster risk and climate change mitigation that are science and evidence-based.”
That the DENR is acutely aware of the potential adverse impact of reclamation on the environment is an encouraging sign among activists who have long called attention to the direct link between reclamation activities and damage to fragile marine ecosystems and fish habitats that, in turn, would impact the livelihood of affected communities.
This has been repeatedly pointed out by the People’s Network for the Integrity of Coastal Habitats and Ecosystems, an alliance of marine and coastal protection advocates, and the Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment, which has called for the outright cancellation of reclamation projects in the Manila Bay area. The group cited the possible destruction of 27,000 ha of coastal areas because of seabed quarrying and dredging, and the added risk of climate-related changes such as more frequent and stronger typhoons that cause widespread flooding. Scientists have also warned that in Thailand and the Philippines, indiscriminate and massive reclamation could only worsen the impact of extreme sea level rise on vulnerable communities, such as those in low-lying coastal areas of Metro Manila.
Such threats should prompt the DENR to undertake a clinical impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis of ongoing and future reclamation projects, according to Alyansa Tigil Mina. To this end, the DENR has reached out to more experts so that solid data and scientific studies could back up decisions on whether or not to approve or continue the reclamation projects.
In the short term, the DENR can effect quick wins by resolving policy differences among the different government agencies involved in reclamation. The PRA, for instance, enforces a mere three-meter easement zone policy, far shorter than the DENR’s 40-meter easement zone from the edge of bodies of water.
The DENR is also reviewing just when to conduct its environmental impact and risk assessment, and conduct public consultation for proposed reclamation projects, noting that under the current system, these only come after the project proponent and the local government unit have come to an agreement. Which means that with the private proponent already advancing money even before the process of securing the needed environment clearance is started, it would be difficult to put a stop to any project deemed less than ideal.
Clearly, there are policy and implementation issues that have to be resolved, with the DENR moving in the right direction. It is a welcome, albeit long overdue, development that deserves wide support, if only to ensure that future generations won’t pay too high a price for these reclamation projects.
