OVER the past several months, there has been an apparent surge in public resistance to a number of high-profile infrastructure projects that have either been proposed or, in a few cases, actually started. It is not unusual for large-scale development projects to be faced with pushback from affected communities, but the increasing number and intensity of these controversies here is cause for concern, because it indicates that there are deep flaws in the manner in which projects are assessed and approved by the government.
Some of the more prominent recent examples include:
– The now-infamous removal of hundreds of trees along Quirino Avenue in Manila to make way for construction of an elevated highway as part of the San Miguel Corp. (SMC)-led Southern Access Link Expressway project.
– Community protest against the construction of a wind power project in Tayabas, Quezon, with accusations of environmental violations, unauthorized construction work and collusion between the developer and the local government being raised.
– Local resistance to the planned development of a waste-to-energy facility at Manila’s old Smoky Mountain landfill, sparked by fears of community displacement and loss of livelihoods.
– Protests against a 650-hectare reclamation project in Navotas, another San Miguel-led project, held in observance of World Ocean Day on June 8, as well as condemnation by environmental and community activists of the Philippine Reclamation Authority’s recent lifting of the 2023 suspension of two other reclamation projects in Manila Bay.
– Community and local government resistance to the expansion of an Aboitiz Power-led solar power project near Olongapo City, which halted the project, at least for the time being.
– The controversial Boracay Bridge Project, another proposal by SMC, approved by the Department of Public Works and Highways over the objections of the concerned local governments and community organizations. While it was reported that SMC had decided to scrap the project, the company itself has said that is not the case, and that it is simply deferring work until “concerns can be properly addressed.”
There are numerous others, large and small, all around the country, and many of these controversies have gone unresolved for years, to the benefit of no one; either potentially critical and beneficial development is delayed indefinitely, or communities are left in limbo with the threat of disruption hanging over them.
Every controversial project has unique circumstances, but looking at the trend broadly reveals some common issues. Foremost among these is a woefully inadequate and inconsistent system for public consultations among potentially affected communities. Complaints that project proponents and concerned government agencies conduct consultations on a limited basis, or not at all, and fail to provide complete information are commonplace. There is also very little consistency as to what point in the overall approval process these consultations take place; often, they occur when the project in question has already advanced to a point where the affected community is simply being presented with a fait accompli.
There is also apparent inconsistency in the timing and thoroughness of the issuance of necessary environmental compliance certifications, either by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), corresponding local government agencies, or both. The Quirino Avenue tree-cutting controversy is a good example. The DENR only announced that it had cleared the project after the fact, when most of the work was already done, leading everyone to believe that its approval only came after public outcry was raised. That might not be the case, but the environmental compliance rationale (that many of the removed trees were unhealthy and potentially dangerous anyway) and the environmental mitigation plan (that SMC would plant some 50,000 tree seedlings elsewhere) was certainly not communicated before the work began.
As things now stand, development has become a zero-sum game here in the Philippines. Either development that could boost economic growth and improve the standard of living is thwarted, or communities and livelihoods are displaced, lost or degraded. This should not be the case, and we do not believe it has to be. The country needs energy, it needs good roads to move people and goods, it needs developments that provide opportunities for economic activities and safe living spaces. But at the same time, in that process, no one should lose their homes, their livelihoods, their community identities, and above all, the irreplaceable natural environment that makes the Philippines what it is.
Compromises will always have to be made, but according to a process that is clear, consistent and comprehensive, so that those compromises are a matter of informed choice by everyone on both sides of an issue. We do not have that now, and it is something that desperately needs to be corrected.
_director_Datuk_M._Kumar.jpg)
