Around four-fifths of the Philippines is actually water, and only one-fifth land. This is premised on the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As an archipelagic country, this fact is of utmost importance to us. But until recently when incidents in our western seas put our territorial seas and outlying islands at the center stage of national discussions, we tended to all but this much larger part of our territory.
Suddenly, ordinary Filipinos have become keenly aware of our outlying areas, particularly the Panatag Shoal (aka Scarborough Shoal) and Kalayaan Islands (Spratly Islands). That our government would face up to a Goliath like China over these disputed territories in our western waters is not just a matter of national honor. Apart from the valuable marine resources and possible petroleum and natural gas reserves they contain, also in question is control over vital sea-lanes along which much strategic international commerce passes. With other countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia also involved, one would think that the rational and civilized response would be to work toward a multilateral solution marked by joint management of the disputed areas. The countries of East Asia in general share a common and collective concern over the seas of the region for their significance as a treasure trove of biological and natural resources and a vital passageway for international commerce.
For this reason, this week’s East Asian Seas (EAS) Congress 2012 at Changwon City in Korea is of crucial importance to the nations that lie in or border the seas of East Asia. The gathering, organized by the Partnerships in Environmental Management of the Seas of East Asia (Pemsea), is the fourth such congress held since 2003, and had been previously hosted by Malaysia, China and the Philippines. Over the past 18 years, Pemsea has linked together stakeholders in 14 East Asian countries, and has successfully forged partnerships across countries, sectors and various stakeholders for the sustainable management of the rich resource base that the seas of East Asia represent.
Like the previous congresses, EAS Congress 2012 is a region-wide platform for knowledge sharing, capacity-building, strategic action, partnership building, and a forum for dialogues between policymakers, environmental and natural resource managers, business communities, academics, NGOs, local governments and grassroots organizations. Dozens of Filipinos, from island and coastal community workers to top government officials, are attending this week-long gathering in a city that has become a showcase for Korea’s advances in marine and coastal resources management.
When I wrote nine years ago on the first EAS Congress held in Malaysia, I noted that the two worst performing economies among the five original Asean members (Asean-5)—the Philippines and Indonesia—are archipelagic countries. Coincidence? Perhaps not. With our 7,100 islands and Indonesia’s 13,600, managing and unifying our respective economies have been much more of a challenge than they have been for our neighbors with more contiguous territories. Beyond the difficulty of linking physically disparate areas, the significance and potential of the maritime economy tend to be overlooked and neglected. Development initiatives may have focused unduly on land-based assets and economic (as well as social, cultural and political) activities, to the neglect of the vast potential contributions of the maritime sector. Not surprisingly, coastal communities are among the poorest areas in the country.
And yet, water-based activities in both our seas and inland waters could potentially have widespread economic impact in terms of employment, foreign exchange earnings, investments and linkages with other sectors. For instance, increased use of water-based transport along our coasts, rivers and lakes could induce investments in port construction/facilities and services associated with it, and manufacture of water transport-related products, and so on. I often wonder why we can’t do in the Pasig River what the Thais have managed to do in terms of active use of water transport along the Chao Phraya River in Bangkok. For a brief period in the 1990s, my son depended on the short-lived ferry service that ran from Los Baños along the coast of Laguna de Bay and into the Pasig River, ending near the Guadalupe Bridge. But the service lost its passenger following—including my exasperated son—when its reliability deteriorated and its time advantage disappeared due to increased stops as the operator tried to make extra bucks by picking up more passengers along the way. In Mindanao, I see great potential in harnessing more active coastal transport along the western Zamboanga coast, especially given lack of a good coastal road there. The same can be said of the island’s many river systems, which had reportedly seen active use for transport once upon a time.
Beyond water transport and its related activities, the maritime and riverine economy also encompasses fisheries and aquaculture, recreational activities and tourism, offshore energy exploration and extraction, and a large number of other related economic services. As an archipelagic country, these should be occupying a much more prominent place in our economy. That they do not, suggests that we ought to be more imaginative and proactive in making our seas and inland waters the assets they were meant to be to serve the welfare of all Filipinos. Otherwise, what are we quarreling with a major power over them for?
(E-mail: cielito.habito@gmail.com)