[OPINION] From Boracay to Quirino Avenue: Road to ‘development’ still in gray

These days, why does it seem like the government is doing the exact opposite of what it should be doing?

Aside from whatever is going on in the Senate, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) are among the least popular agencies due to their roles in approving projects perceived to be perpetuating the not-so-good status quo in environmental governance.

One such project is the Southern Access Link Expressway (SALEX) proposed by San Miguel Corporation (SMC), which could result in the loss of 617 mature trees along Quirino Avenue, with 200 already being removed from the area.  

Acting DENR Secretary Juan Miguel Cuna justified this tree-cutting as the cost of what he perceives to be “sustainable development.” He actually said, “Wala po tayong magagawa doon (There’s nothing we can do about that),” which is eerily similar to the line that the President himself said last year about the climate crisis being the new normal.

With all due respect, Cuna is mistaken. Sustainable development is not about justifying environmental loss for short-term convenience, economic growth, and corporate profit. At its core, it is actually about meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs.

Metro Manila, including Quirino Avenue, is susceptible to flooding and extreme temperatures. As promising as planting more than 50 thousand seedlings sounds, cutting down or earth-balling more mature trees from the area’s little forest cover would likely worsen future flooding and increase local temperatures, especially without proper long-term interventions.  

Remember that the DENR has yet to repeal another controversial decision of allowing mangroves to be earth-balled and relocated for “exceptional circumstances” — including flagship infrastructure projects.

Gray over green?

Speaking of which, the planned Boracay bridge seems to still be going ahead. While the conflicting statements between the Aklan governor and SMC, who is also the proponent for this one, cause some confusion about its status, one thing seems clear: gray still prevails over green.  

We rarely hear in the news about the perspectives of the provincial and municipal governments, the communities, and the local chamber of commerce aligning with one another. Yet they say the same thing: building a bridge to a small island like Boracay is a serious cause for concern.

It seems like the DPWH forgot to account for carrying capacity in its decision-making, especially in the long term. Small islands do not have high carrying capacities, which amplifies the potential impacts of increased traffic and activity in the area, all in the name of traditional economic growth.  

DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon probably did not forget, but it must be highlighted that while he was in the Bases Conversion and Development Authority under the previous administration, the island was closed for six months due to overtourism, waste management issues, and excessive pollution levels.

In the eyes of many people, the premise of “national significance” for infrastructure projects is being used as an excuse to serve corporate interests instead of listening to the needs and concerns of those who actually live in these areas. For all the talk about local empowerment and decentralization, these recent developments indicate that local voices seem to be only secondary to the agenda of national decision-makers or conglomerates.

Due diligence

Why does the Philippine government seem to need public backlash before stopping ecologically harmful projects instead of proactively exercising its due diligence?

Should the nation be that grateful to a corporation when they volunteer to stop causing environmental harm, when the harm should not even have been allowed to happen in the first place?

This is not to say that the likes of the DPWH and DENR are incapable of making good policies and decisions. This is not to say that the Philippines does not need upgrades in its infrastructure.

The problem is that no matter who leads these agencies or which initials define the government’s infrastructure program, it looks like nothing really changes. Any good work that it does gets forgotten due to the reality that the same avoidable mistakes keep happening again and again.

Through all the consultations and forums on environmental issues over the years, the following principles have been used as part of the government’s bottom line: science-based, needs-based, localization, inclusivity, proactiveness, and alignment with sustainable development, among others. Yet it seems these are thrown out the window once infrastructure projects of “national significance” are at stake.

If only some in the government do not regard safeguards and consultations as mere box-ticking exercises and policy loopholes as opportunities to fast-track projects. If only the said principles are consistently enforced across all activities. If only environmental impact assessments consistently determined project feasibility instead of being treated many times as an administrative hurdle before getting compliance.

If there is any bright side to all of this, it is that public pressure is shown to remain an effective force in environmental governance. It translates ecological harm into political and reputational costs that force the government and even the private sector to listen. It frames these endeavors away from being seen only through the technocratic paradigm, a concept that Pope Leo XIV addresses in his newest encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas.

Ultimately, public pressure is a mechanism of accountability. During these days, when our democratic institutions fail to deliver on their mandates and, in some cases, are more focused on political games than public service, it is up to the people to defend our natural environment and communities, help keep those in power in check, and hold them accountable for their words and actions.      

Note that the SALEX and Boracay bridge projects are only two examples. There are more infrastructure projects like these — they’re not just receiving as much attention. Unlike what some policymakers would say, there is something we can do: stay vigilant and speak up. – Rappler.com

John Leo Algo is the national coordinator of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas and the deputy executive director for programs and campaigns of Living Laudato Si’ Philippines.