Delay in adopting land use law is making things worse for the environment
The Inquirer’s editorial “Urgency of Land Use Act” (9/17/23), again highlights the necessity of a framework that clearly defines the parameters of how we use land and the processes for ensuring sustainable land use, especially in the face of climate change, food security, and continued population growth. As the editorial emphatically points out, the absence of a nationwide framework, such as the National Land Use Act (NLUA), is resulting in the irrational conversion of agricultural, forest, or protected lands into urban uses that impact environmental sustainability.
Land is one of the most important aspects of life. As the main input in agriculture, land is critical to the Philippines because land is the most wealth-generating asset for farmers and is also an essential factor for economic growth. However, the limited and unrenewable nature of land supply creates fierce land use competition, often between agriculture and nonagricultural sectors. This gives rise to agricultural land conversion, which significantly reduces the availability of agricultural land and threatens food security.
Despite the laws and regulations controlling such conversion, there are inconsistencies in the system which result in questionable approvals. This is one of the major reasons why the NLUA is needed. Yet, the problem of irrational land conversion goes beyond agricultural areas; it also applies to forests and protected areas which are turned into farms or livestock-raising pastures.
An alarming trend is the proliferation of settlements in protected areas, including watersheds, which serve as the source of water for our towns and cities. This practice is exacerbated by the government policy and practice of declaring public lands as alienable and disposable, and the granting of forestry leases whose conditions are often violated or simply not enforced.
Because land serves as the platform for almost all human activities, the competition for its use will intensify as population and economic growth continue. One of the major issues that the NLUA is expected to rationalize is the unintended consequences of the conflict between different government agencies’ policies and programs.
For example, the opening of tourism roads through national forests has generated revenues from tourism but has also resulted in the uncontrolled proliferation of resorts inside protected areas, often without proper building permits. Another example is the increased cost of housing caused by the restrictions imposed by the agrarian reform program on land use conversion, thus further aggravating the already massive backlog in affordable housing.
The NLUA is expected to resolve these conflicts by rationalizing the appropriate and sustainable use of land. The severe complexity of the issue may be the reason why it is taking a long time to adopt it. The major obstacle is institutional fragmentation, with numerous agencies having their fingers in the pie.
Local governments are responsible for land use planning and zoning, based on guidelines from the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development but the Department of Agrarian Reform decides on land use conversion. Then there’s the Department of Environment and Natural Resources which ensures the conservation of forests and protected areas but also allows settlements to flourish in these areas through the issuance of forestry leases and other tenurial rights.
The delay in the adoption of the NLUA may also be that of paralysis of analysis. The House of Representatives bill on the NLUA has been approved and submitted to the Senate. However, five Senate bills on the NLUA have been pending since 2013. Can Congress not just go ahead and adopt the latest version already and craft its implementing rules and regulations in such a way that adjustments can be made as the law is implemented?
Our lawmakers need to understand that land use planning is and will always be a moving target. Not adopting the NLUA is making things worse as the recent disaster in Cebu showed.
NATHANIEL VON EINSIEDEL
Fellow
Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners
