PROMOTING
AN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA
by
Antonio C. Antonio
June
2, 2014
Author’s
introductory note: Sister Maria Vida
Cordero has always been the rainbow in my bothersome environmental clouds. She has never failed to give me safe advices
and also provided me with fresh perspectives in environmental advocacy we both are
involved in. My encounters with her are
characterized as thought-provoking ones.
In an article I posted on Facebook entitled “Classifying Ecosystem
Components” last Wednesday (May 28, 2014), she made this comment: “I am thinking… wild thoughts again!... when
we are able to make environment as a political agenda… what if we make also
regional ecosystem as political system so that environmental/ecological agenda
is promoted and regional ecosystems protected by constituents.” This
morning, Sister Maria Vida again made a comment on my post entitled “Tropical
Rainforest in the Philippines”: “There is
an article in the Philippine Star which says that the Philippines is the 4th
Ecological hotspot in the world. What
can we do together?”
On
the question of promoting constituent-protected regional ecosystems:
Promoting
regional ecosystems has already been done in the Philippines… although smaller
in scale. The Department of Environment
and Natural Resources have already implemented the CBFM (Community-Based Forest
Management) Program. However, the CBFM is not a perfect program and has
flaws. The problems besetting the CBFM
program have also been discussed in detail in the following articles: (a) “Ecosystem
and Agroecosystem”, March 3, 2013; (b) “Actors in Upland Governance”, May 7,
2014; (c) “CBFM and Participatory Management”, May 10, 2014”; and, (d)
“Prestation and Market Exchange”, May 30, 2014… which have been posted on
Facebook wall and in my blogsite: http://antonantonio.blogspot.com/. These articles and reports not only talk
about the seeming dysfunctional structure of the primary “actors” (government,
upland communities and private sector) in upland governance.
All,
if not most, of public forests are public lands… and, therefore, properties of
the State. This is a peculiarity that
cannot be avoided. As it is, government
is always involved as the lead “actor” in upland governance. Unfortunately, most of the problems in the
upland are attributed to government and, oftentimes, are the cause of failure
in programmed projects. But then,
nothing could really be done and accomplished without government
intervention. It is not also workable to
say the government should get out of the upland scenario and leave the upland
dwellers and the private sector to fend for themselves. As the “actor” who plays the lead role,
government should be there in a more committed role.
As
I’ve already mentioned, “Academicians could create
this awareness in the actors and motivate them to properly set up to the
challenges ahead. (Antonio, 2013)” (“Actors in Upland Governance”, May
7, 2014 – http://antonantonio.blogspot.com/) I still am
convinced that the infusion of the academe as another “actor” in upland
governance will increase the chances of success in promoting
constituent-protected regional ecosystems.
On
the question what can we do to taking the Philippines out of the world’s list
of ecological hotspots:
I
strongly believe that ordinary citizens (like us) should not be helpless in
increasing the level of environmental awareness. An effective means to do this was mentioned
and recommended in the article “The Ripple Principle”, April 22, 2014 (http://antonantonio.blogspot.com./). Any method of propagating an environmental
agenda, however, will have to be sustainable since environmental concerns
oftentimes have long gestation periods.
If it is true that the Philippines is No. 4 in the list of the world’s
ecological hotspots, it will take so much effort from all of us to delist our
country. We could all start by
increasing our knowledge and awareness about the environment.
“By
hotspot we mean places which have the highest concentration of biodiversity
that is under the greatest human threat.” (Ibanez, Philippine Eagle Foundation,
2014) The serious biodiversity loss in
the Philippines is caused primarily by public policy on land utilization and
conversion. Our loss in forest diversity
is due to an ever-expanding need for more agricultural land which have lost so
much area from landuse conversion to commercial/industrial and residential
purposes. Even if we are one of the 17
top megadiversity countries, our deforestation rate is also one of the
highest. According to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat, the overwhelming
direct cause of deforestation is agriculture.
Subsistence farming is responsible for 48% of the deforestation;
commercial agriculture is responsible for 32% of deforestation; and logging is
responsible for 14% of deforestation and fuelwood removals make up 5% of
deforestation.
“It
(biodiversity) is generally defined at three levels, namely, generic diversity
of the variety of hereditary information in every organism; species diversity
which refers to the total number of species or kinds of organisms; and the
diversity of ecosystems formed by organism with their environment, or ecosystem
diversity.” (Ibanez, 2014) If the
Philippines is to succeed in curbing forest biodiversity loss, the above-mentioned
percentages of deforestation will have to be brought down substantially. In all these efforts, government, again, is
the main “actor.”
Just
my little thoughts…
REFERENCES:
- Ecosystem and Agroecosystem, March 3, 2014 – http://antonantonio.blodspot.com/
- Actors in Upland Governance, May 7, 2014 – http://antonantonio.blogspot.com/
- CBFM and Participatory Management, May 10, 2014 – http://antonantonio.blogspot.com/
- Prestation and Market Exchange, May 30, 2014 – http://antonantonio.blogspot.com/
- Causes of Deforestation, April 8, 2014 – http://antonantonio.blogspot.com./
- The Ripple Principle, April 22, 2014 – http://antonantonio.blogspot.com./
- Deforestation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
No comments:
Post a Comment