CONFLICTING PUBLIC POLICIES
by Antonio C. Antonio
September 20, 2013
Public Policy is important to maintain order in our society.
Progress is synonymous to order. It is very hard to imagine how life
would be without laws, rules and regulations. Everyone will be
constrained to exercise their own set of values in their day-to-day
decision-making processes. But individual values differ because of
religion, customs, traditions, culture, social standing and other personality
elements that influence human behavior. Setting-up parameters for human
conduct in the lines of Public Policy therefore becomes critical and important.
Consistency in Public Policies is equally critical and important.
Government, which is the implementing actor of Public Policies, cannot afford
to come up with conflicting orders. For upland governance, let us take
Executive Order Nos. 23 and 79 as examples of obvious Public Policy
conflict.
The Titles of Executive Order Nos. 23 and 79:
- EO 23 – “Declaring a Moratorium on the Cutting and Harvesting of Timber in the Natural and Residual Forests and Creating the Anti-Illegal Logging Task Force”
- EO 79 – “Institutionalizing and Implementing Reforms in the Philippine Mining Sector Providing Policies and Guidelines to Ensure Environmental Protection and Responsible Mining in the Utilization of Mineral Resources”
At first glance, these Executive Orders seem to have equal concern over
the environment… but when their similarities and differences are detailed, the
picture becomes fairly different as the contrast clears and the contradictions
are established. Please consider the following table on some similarities
and differences between the logging and mining industries:
Similarities of EO 23 and EO 79:
- Logging has possible negative environmental repercussions. Mining has possible negative environmental repercussions.
- There is a local and foreign demand for timber products. There is high demand for mineral resources especially in the foreign market. The Philippines do not have efficient mineral extraction facilities and capabilities.
- There are livelihood and employment opportunities. The estimated number of people dependent on the wood industry is 20 million (to include the indigenous communities and downstream industries such as the handicraft and woodworking businesses.) There are livelihood and employment opportunities. The estimated number of people dependent on the mining industry is 3 million. However, there are no identified downstream businesses since mining is a simple extract and export operation.
- The logging industry has to deal with illegal logging issues. The mining industry has to deal with illegal mining issues.
Differences between EO 23 and EO 79:
- Logging has been relegated to a “small time” business venture compared to mining. Mining is considered a “big time” business venture compared to logging.
- Logging is renewable. Logged-over areas, when left undisturbed for a period of time, will cause the forest to re-generate by itself. Reforestation projects and programs can even hasten forest cover and biodiversity recovery. Mining is non-renewable. When mineral resources are mined and exported aboard, they can never be recovered.
- Cutting of trees from the natural and residual (or old-growth) forest is prohibited. Clear Cutting of forest areas is allowed so long as it is within a pre-determined and pre-approved area for mining.
- Government cooperators in the wood industry are governed by tenurial instruments such as the IFMA (Integrated Forest Management Agreement). Government cooperators in the mining industry are governed by tenurial instruments such as the MPSA (Mineral Production Sharing Agreement).
- Most players in the wood industry are self-financed or dependent on domestic borrowing to finance their operations. Most players in the mining industry depend on borrowed capital (domestic and foreign) or are in partnership with foreign business entities where most of their financial requirement is drawn.
- Only a few and insignificant companies involved in the wood industry are listed in the Philippine Stock Exchange. Most, if not all, business enterprises involved in the mining industry are listed in the Philippine Stock Exchange. Substantial stocks trading block in the PSE is on mining.
- The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for EO 23 have yet to be released after almost three years. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for EO 79 are in the final stage of deliberation, if not already released.
I’m sure there are more items that could be added to these similarities
and differences. Please feel free to add more items…
It is my humble submission that inconsistencies on matters of Public
Policy will only serve to send wrong signals, create confusion and render such
Public Policies inutile and ineffective. For example… Government cannot
say that cigarette smoking is bad for the health of its constituents but, at
the same time, bring down the purchase price of cigarettes (by granting
subsidies and tax shelters to cigarette manufacturers) and make cigarettes
affordable and, therefore, encourage smoking. Consistency in Public
Policies is really a must.
Since we are all devotees of environment and natural resources
management, please allow me to focus on two critical items mentioned
(differences): (a) The production methods (therefore, cutting of trees and
extraction of mineral resources); and (b) The issue of renewability.
While the other items are of socio-economic concerns, these two items are also
the cause of conflict and contradictions in our Public Policies in upland
governance specifically mining and logging. As I’ve already mentioned,
consistency in Public Policies is as important as the Public Policies
themselves. Please allow me to come up with a novel way of discussing
these items by way of posting the following relevant questions:
On PRODUCTION METHODS: Why is CUTTING and harvesting of timber in
the Natural and Residual Forests being prohibited by EO 23 while, on the other
hand, CLEAR CUTTING is allowed by EO 79? It should be noted that there is
a big difference between simple “cutting and harvesting” and total “clear
cutting”… the latter is more environmentally destructive while the former is
sustainable.
On the ISSUE OF RENEWABILITY: EO 23 is all about logging and
forest/timber products while EO 79 is all about mining and mineral resources…
the former being renewable while the latter non-renewable. Why is
Government allowing the extraction of a non-renewable resource and banning the
harvesting of a renewable resource?
Often, especially with Government functions and action, perception is
more important than the truth. A government administration, on its own,
creates public perceptions for itself. Unfortunately, failed programs and
policies likewise create bad perceptions. In the case of these two
Executive Orders, “production methods” and “renewability” remain to be the
contentious issues (and, perhaps, negative perceptions) that should be the
concern of everyone… much more on the side of Government which is vested with
the power and prerogative to craft Public Policies. Another point to
consider is the intent of the law/Public Policy… in this case, Executive
Orders. When people start frowning and asking questions, they don’t feel
good about something… perhaps, the intent or intention of government. And
when people wonder what’s going on, something has got to be wrong to create
such uneasiness. Even for reasons of economy and development, this
uneasiness should be addressed, clarified and resolved.
RELATIONSHIP WITH THREE PARADOXES:
·
Tragedy of the Commons: Our natural resources (forest and
minerals) are finite. As with any developing economy, some degree of
sacrifice of these resources should be done for a country to move
forward. Utilizing these resources has also created some degree of
competition among interested parties. Unfortunately, in our case, legal
entities not only compete among themselves but they will also contend with
competing with their respective illegal sectors in also doing mining and
logging activities. Government, as the primary Public Policy maker,
should be more discerning and more judicious in crafting upland governance
policies with the aim of natural resources preservation and sustainability.
·
Prisoner’s Dilemma: Mining and logging are still largely viewed as
environmentally degrading activities. Miners and loggers are
traditionally and still are being viewed as “bad boys.” These bad boys,
players in the mining and logging industries, could be likened to the two
prisoners. They try to make their issues known to the public in
comparison to the other and often to the detriment of the other… without
necessarily saying that the other party is the one guilty of destructive
environment practices.
·
The Logic of Collective Action: At present, miners and loggers are
both under pressure. The loggers are concerned about getting the
moratorium on logging activities (EO 23) lifted while the miners are concerned
about getting the better end of the new tax rates and revised sharing
percentages between them and the government (IRR for EO 79). Like in
Prisoner’s Dilemma, they go through the motions by comparing their situation
with the other. But imagine a situation where both industries (mining and
logging) get their wishes and wants… we can all be sure they will stop
bad-mouthing each other and treat each other as if they are long-lost friends.
HYPOTHETICAL PUBLIC POLICY RECOMMENDATION
As Garret Hardin in the Tragedy of the Commons recommend, government
must do something to avert the further depletion of natural resources.
But what can government do? My little thoughts say that there are two
possible hypothetical tracks that can be adopted: (1) Declare a total ban both
mining and logging activities in the Philippines; or, (2) Rationalize both
industries.
At this point, declaring a total ban on both might not be the way to go
on account of a good demand for Philippine natural resources both in the
domestic and foreign markets. Most especially with the mining industry
which has already engaged the assistance of foreign counterparts. Such
partnerships with foreign mining/financing companies are already established
and a ban may not look good… unless we are ready to be viewed by the
international business community as an investment “unfriendly” place. This
will also have unquantifiable negative effects on the other export-oriented and
dollar revenue-generating industries in the Philippines.
As an alternative, both wood and mines industries could be rationalized
to weed out illegal activities and further strengthen and advance
post-harvesting and post-extracting activities and capabilities. A
significant element of rationalization will be the completion of post-harvest
facilities… in the case of the mining industry, mineral extracting capability;
and in the case of the logging industry, wood processing capability. This
will maximize the utilization of our natural resources and expand considerably
the economic benefit derived from our natural resources. This will
increase employment and livelihood opportunities, support downstream
businesses, increase government revenues, hasten economic development, etc.
Government will also have to put its act together. Aside from the
strict implementation of the law, rules and regulations, streamlining the
bureaucracy to minimize (if not totally eradicate) inefficiency, graft and
corruption will also have to be done. The extent of money lost to corrupt
practices cannot be quantified at the moment but losing PhP 10 Billion through
one personality (Janet Lim Napoles) alone in the PDAF scam seems to tell us
that it really is a lot. We are all beginning to wonder how many more
Napoleses are left to be exposed. If this is just the tip of the iceberg,
how much more is actually lost? If only this funds/money (lost to
corruption) could be ploughed back into mainstream economy, it might not be
necessary for us to put pressure on our natural resources to advance our cause
for economic development.
Just my little thoughts…
REFERENCES:
No comments:
Post a Comment