Call it the pains of “success.” Or at least, the people’s pains for MRT’s success. It seems that these days, Metro Rail Transit is always congested. If one doesn’t start riding at either end of the line (either in Baclaran in the South or North Edsa in the opposite end), one would always have to suffer being packed and squeezed like sardines inside the coaches.
It’s not for love of the trains; it’s because a commuter could save lots of time. What takes one hour or two in the bus just takes about 25 minutes in MRT.
But there’s another reason. It’s so cheap: the 25 kilometer stretch just costs P14 pesos (0.32 US cents), probably about a hundred percent cheaper than the bus. And it’s cheap because its subsidized, meaning that people who live in the rural areas are also paying the maintenance and bank amortization of an infra that is being used solely by the dwellers of Metro Manila, a case of the rural folks subsidizing the “richer” urban dwellers.
Also, part of the value added tax that each one pays to the government whenever one eats in restaurants or pays for the grocery goes to the upkeep of the MRT. Isn’t that unfair? Of course, it is! And it’s not really improving the quality of life of the urban commuters because artificial cheapness suggests that it would be congested most of the time, thus lowering each weary commuter’s “ridership quality.”
Solution? Why not charge the true cost of the facility? That way, we free the rural dwellers, especially residents of Mindanao and Visayas, the burden of paying for such a facility that they don’t use. Those who use it should be the ones to pay for it. And of course, when ticket prices are a little bit expensive, more people would think about riding the buses again thus lessening the congestion inside the trains.
Or maybe, government should think about charging variable prices: charges are higher during the peak hours and lower during the non-peak hours so that people would have the incentive to schedule their travel time accordingly.
People do respond to economic incentives.
Showing posts with label brown environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brown environment. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Knee-jerk reaction to rising oil prices (or why bringing back OPSF is counterproductive)
Here we go again! Every time crude prices in the world market moves up, some wise guys out there would call for the return of dreaded Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF), or the institutionalization of its monster cousin, the so-called Oil Exchange. On Monday, it was Party List Representative (Bayan Muna) Teodoro Casiño’s turn to do so. Not only that, he wants the government to “nationalize” the country’s oil industry. He has bills filed in Congress to achieve his desires. The country has tried all these Marcosian measures in the past and it made us all miserable but it seems people simply don’t learn.
We share Casiño’s concern about the price of oil and its impact on the economy and Filipino people. For global crude prices to hover at a hundred dollars per barrel or higher would surely hurt the Philippine economy. But we don’t share his enthusiasm for “nationalization,” the return of the OPSF or its variant, and the Oil Exchange. These proposals are among the most misguided policies any policymaker could ever think of when dealing with prices of oil and oil products. There are better ways; we should avoid knee-jerk reaction that would do more harm than good.
Consider the OPSF established during the years of the Marcos dictatorship. We used to have a free and relatively competitive oil sector prior to the OPSF with wits 6 oil refining companies Shell, Caltex, Esso, Mobil, and Getty competing in the local market. Marcos set the OPSF as reaction to the rapid rise of global oil prices as a result of oil crisis in the 70s triggered by the Yom Kippur war. It worked this way: when prices are low, the government collects money from the industry for the fund (which is necessarily passed on the consumers as higher prices); when crude prices were rising oil companies drew money from the fund supposedly to prevent a surge in oil prices. The Central Bank also allocates dollars to oil companies at an exchange rate on the day the contracts for the shipment of oil were signed.
The government then set the prices and allows firms certain mark-ups based on landed costs, in effect guaranteeing their profits. There was also cross subsidies supposedly to help the poor. It looked fine on paper then but in reality the OPSF ended up draining the Treasury. As prices abruptly rose, the Fund easily got depleted, and the government was always forced to get money from the country’s coffers—from people’s taxes—to replenish it, thus causing massive fiscal deficits. These are not loose change: when the OPSF was depleted in 1990, the government infused P5 billion, and the cycle went on and on. So in reality, OPSF ended up as a massive state subsidy to oil companies, while domestic oil prices remained high despite lower international crude prices and remained even higher when global crude prices were rising. Do we want to get back to this messy policy environment?
The Oil Exchange seems to be an attractive option. The idea is for the government to determine the country’s monthly requirements and ask potential suppliers to bid for the right to supply the requirement. What Casiño has failed to see is that the he is trying to create a monopoly, a monster, this time however, to be controlled by government bureaucrats paid by people’s taxes. Doesn’t he realized that we suffered so much when Marcos had all those monopolies in various commodities (e.g. remember the sugar monopoly) around?
And we know monopolies, much worse a government one. It will surely be managed inefficiently by Malacañang cronies and its humongous cost passed on to consumers via higher prices. They are going to corrupt the bidding process and allocation of oil products. If the Oilex will try to earn money, as it may have to just to finance its operations and the huge layer of bureaucracy its going to create, it will have to charge prices on top of its inefficiency and corruption, thus making us all worse off. And there’s no guarantee that the Oilex officials will not collude with the bidders to rig the allocation of oil products.
An oil exchange either mean that the government will either have to commandeer the storage facilities of the private sector (especially for LPG) so it could bring oil products to every town without delay or it will have to borrow billions of money for the construction of its own depots and related facilities. It’s a prescription for deeper indebtedness.
Why oil prices are rising? It’s because China, India, and the rest of the Asia-Pacific region are growing fast. They need more oil and are buying more oil. Oil experts say the demand and supply of oil are fairly balanced but recently, speculators came into the picture with hedge funds, investment funds, traders, and ordinary investors going after oil futures and oil derivatives. Many of these characters are apparently using oil futures as a hedge against the weak dollar. All these dynamics suggests an OPSF, Oilex and nationalization of the downstream oil industry would simply create more disruptions and uncertainty that are going to manifest in high and unstable retail oil prices.
The solution lies neither in the dismantling the oil deregulation law nor returning to the dark days of Marcos. The solution lies in strengthening oil industry deregulation. These days, the big three oil companies (Shell, Petron and Caltex) still lord it over the industry especially in gasoline and diesel. But certainly some competitors have started to make inroads into their markets, with the new players getting about 15 percent of the market, based on 2005 data. In terms LPG, new players—based on government data—now account for 45 percent of the market. Overall, the downstream oil industry has more than 600 players engaged in different downstream activities from liquid bulk marketing, LPG bulk marketing, bunkering, to terminaling.
In effect, oil deregulation is imperfect but is working. The worry about the continuing dominance of the Big Three is valid but the solution is not another government monopoly but a different set of policy measures like an anti-trust law or a competition policy to promote efficiency and greater competition and discourage the formation of oligopolies and cartels. And we have to do that policy not only for the oil industry but for all other sectors like banking, shipping and port operations, aviation, insurance, among others.
We share Casiño’s concern about the price of oil and its impact on the economy and Filipino people. For global crude prices to hover at a hundred dollars per barrel or higher would surely hurt the Philippine economy. But we don’t share his enthusiasm for “nationalization,” the return of the OPSF or its variant, and the Oil Exchange. These proposals are among the most misguided policies any policymaker could ever think of when dealing with prices of oil and oil products. There are better ways; we should avoid knee-jerk reaction that would do more harm than good.
Consider the OPSF established during the years of the Marcos dictatorship. We used to have a free and relatively competitive oil sector prior to the OPSF with wits 6 oil refining companies Shell, Caltex, Esso, Mobil, and Getty competing in the local market. Marcos set the OPSF as reaction to the rapid rise of global oil prices as a result of oil crisis in the 70s triggered by the Yom Kippur war. It worked this way: when prices are low, the government collects money from the industry for the fund (which is necessarily passed on the consumers as higher prices); when crude prices were rising oil companies drew money from the fund supposedly to prevent a surge in oil prices. The Central Bank also allocates dollars to oil companies at an exchange rate on the day the contracts for the shipment of oil were signed.
The government then set the prices and allows firms certain mark-ups based on landed costs, in effect guaranteeing their profits. There was also cross subsidies supposedly to help the poor. It looked fine on paper then but in reality the OPSF ended up draining the Treasury. As prices abruptly rose, the Fund easily got depleted, and the government was always forced to get money from the country’s coffers—from people’s taxes—to replenish it, thus causing massive fiscal deficits. These are not loose change: when the OPSF was depleted in 1990, the government infused P5 billion, and the cycle went on and on. So in reality, OPSF ended up as a massive state subsidy to oil companies, while domestic oil prices remained high despite lower international crude prices and remained even higher when global crude prices were rising. Do we want to get back to this messy policy environment?
The Oil Exchange seems to be an attractive option. The idea is for the government to determine the country’s monthly requirements and ask potential suppliers to bid for the right to supply the requirement. What Casiño has failed to see is that the he is trying to create a monopoly, a monster, this time however, to be controlled by government bureaucrats paid by people’s taxes. Doesn’t he realized that we suffered so much when Marcos had all those monopolies in various commodities (e.g. remember the sugar monopoly) around?
And we know monopolies, much worse a government one. It will surely be managed inefficiently by Malacañang cronies and its humongous cost passed on to consumers via higher prices. They are going to corrupt the bidding process and allocation of oil products. If the Oilex will try to earn money, as it may have to just to finance its operations and the huge layer of bureaucracy its going to create, it will have to charge prices on top of its inefficiency and corruption, thus making us all worse off. And there’s no guarantee that the Oilex officials will not collude with the bidders to rig the allocation of oil products.
An oil exchange either mean that the government will either have to commandeer the storage facilities of the private sector (especially for LPG) so it could bring oil products to every town without delay or it will have to borrow billions of money for the construction of its own depots and related facilities. It’s a prescription for deeper indebtedness.
Why oil prices are rising? It’s because China, India, and the rest of the Asia-Pacific region are growing fast. They need more oil and are buying more oil. Oil experts say the demand and supply of oil are fairly balanced but recently, speculators came into the picture with hedge funds, investment funds, traders, and ordinary investors going after oil futures and oil derivatives. Many of these characters are apparently using oil futures as a hedge against the weak dollar. All these dynamics suggests an OPSF, Oilex and nationalization of the downstream oil industry would simply create more disruptions and uncertainty that are going to manifest in high and unstable retail oil prices.
The solution lies neither in the dismantling the oil deregulation law nor returning to the dark days of Marcos. The solution lies in strengthening oil industry deregulation. These days, the big three oil companies (Shell, Petron and Caltex) still lord it over the industry especially in gasoline and diesel. But certainly some competitors have started to make inroads into their markets, with the new players getting about 15 percent of the market, based on 2005 data. In terms LPG, new players—based on government data—now account for 45 percent of the market. Overall, the downstream oil industry has more than 600 players engaged in different downstream activities from liquid bulk marketing, LPG bulk marketing, bunkering, to terminaling.
In effect, oil deregulation is imperfect but is working. The worry about the continuing dominance of the Big Three is valid but the solution is not another government monopoly but a different set of policy measures like an anti-trust law or a competition policy to promote efficiency and greater competition and discourage the formation of oligopolies and cartels. And we have to do that policy not only for the oil industry but for all other sectors like banking, shipping and port operations, aviation, insurance, among others.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Globalization makes cities feel familiar (or ogling at a priestess inside Cafe Havana)
She was dancing close to a pillar at the corner of Café Havana unmindful of the world around her. A few feet away, couples dressed in their Friday tryst best where thumping furiously to a Caribbean beat. The room was full of souls searching for thrills but she was practically alone in the crowd, her slim hands raised over her head swaying gracefully in tiny controlled motions, eyes closed like a praying supplicant, her broad hips shaking spasmodically as if she was responding to an inner, passionate rhythm that she alone could sense or hear.
She was wearing high stilettos, tight acid-washed jeans that accentuated her shapely bottom, her plunging necklines agonizing against the strain of her ample breasts. We could see clearly her through the glass that separated her world and ours. The denizens of the night getting in and out the transparent door occasionally threw furtive and curious glances at her, but they always go around gently so as not to disrupt her trance-like supplications. Let the worldly priestess have her dutiful worship, they must have thought, whatever or whoever her god was.
Vic S and I were not supposed to be there. We were on the way to the underground car park headed for home when we came upon a multitude in front of the joint after an eyeball with Loida (a Multiply friend from Davao City) at Figaro, third floor, Greenbelt 3. It was past eleven pm when we were approaching Café Havana. Strings of tiny electric lights coiled up the trunks of giant palm trees highlighted the adjacent greeneries and the beautiful fountains. The full moon, the cool temperature brought about by Siberian winds, and the clear skies provided an exhilarating ambience for intoxication, bonhomie, and flirtatious laughter.
“Wow, look what we got here!” I exclaimed as we were approaching the crowd.
“Maybe we should have one for the road and see what’s in here,” Vic said.
“Nice idea!”
So we found ourselves treading through the perfumed throng to get closer to the bar. And there we saw her inside the room through the transparent glass dancing against the pillar. I certainly could do better than that stupid post, I told myself as I trained my eyes on her bewitching silhouette, but I was not in the mood for mischief. We stayed in front of the bar for several minutes observing her until a bar tender, a girl dressed in a white Caribbean hat, dainty yellow blouse, and tight floral skirt with a slit racing up her thigh, showed up with two cans of ice-cold San Mig Lite.
“To health and prosperity,” I heard Vic—or so I thought—exclaiming as he raised his drink for a toast. “For that girl dancing against the pillar,” I responded. Vic laughed.
We commandeered a table at the nearby Starbucks as we surveyed the crowd while exchanging notes and laughing about ourselves for our past manly misadventures. We saw young Pinoy men with well—nay minimally—dressed girls, middle-aged Caucasian guys with pretty exotic things half their age, blondes and brunettes mixing up with boys and men. Americans, Europeans, Arabs, blacks, South Asians, East Asians—it seemed like everybody was there. The crowd reminded me of Shanghai’s Xintiandi sans the debauchery. Globalization somehow tends to make all cities around the globe look or feel similar.
“This is the why the expats just love it here,” Vic said, showing me the bill.
Each can costs a hundred pesos, almost a third of a plumber’s basic daily wage, but the amount translates to just over two American dollars, loose change for people who reckon incomes in dollars. I was in Silicon Valley early this year; a mug of beer in bars in downtown San Jose was almost seven dollars.
“At The Fort, a bottle of beer only costs just about 35 pesos at a place that is as chic as this one,” he noted. “Man, that’s just about a dollar and twenty cents!”
It was close to two AM when I reached home. I slept after a quick shower and dreamed that we were in a remote island, enjoying the hospitality of the local village. At the background was a multinational force of men wearing war paints and menacing masks, holding spears and wooden shields, chanting songs as they violently thumped their feet against the soft, silvery sand, creating ripples along the shorelines.
At the center were girls in grass skirts dancing, singing, and running around a huge totem pole, a phallic symbol as tall as the coconut trees, their faces and topless bodies illuminated by the fury of burning driftwood and the moon in full bloom hanging up the cloudless sky. They were led by the priestess I saw dancing against the pillar in Café Havana, her supple hands raised over her head swaying gracefully in controlled motions, eyes closed like a praying devotee, her broad hips shaking spasmodically as she responded to the explosive rhythm of the tribal drums.
She was wearing high stilettos, tight acid-washed jeans that accentuated her shapely bottom, her plunging necklines agonizing against the strain of her ample breasts. We could see clearly her through the glass that separated her world and ours. The denizens of the night getting in and out the transparent door occasionally threw furtive and curious glances at her, but they always go around gently so as not to disrupt her trance-like supplications. Let the worldly priestess have her dutiful worship, they must have thought, whatever or whoever her god was.
Vic S and I were not supposed to be there. We were on the way to the underground car park headed for home when we came upon a multitude in front of the joint after an eyeball with Loida (a Multiply friend from Davao City) at Figaro, third floor, Greenbelt 3. It was past eleven pm when we were approaching Café Havana. Strings of tiny electric lights coiled up the trunks of giant palm trees highlighted the adjacent greeneries and the beautiful fountains. The full moon, the cool temperature brought about by Siberian winds, and the clear skies provided an exhilarating ambience for intoxication, bonhomie, and flirtatious laughter.
“Wow, look what we got here!” I exclaimed as we were approaching the crowd.
“Maybe we should have one for the road and see what’s in here,” Vic said.
“Nice idea!”
So we found ourselves treading through the perfumed throng to get closer to the bar. And there we saw her inside the room through the transparent glass dancing against the pillar. I certainly could do better than that stupid post, I told myself as I trained my eyes on her bewitching silhouette, but I was not in the mood for mischief. We stayed in front of the bar for several minutes observing her until a bar tender, a girl dressed in a white Caribbean hat, dainty yellow blouse, and tight floral skirt with a slit racing up her thigh, showed up with two cans of ice-cold San Mig Lite.
“To health and prosperity,” I heard Vic—or so I thought—exclaiming as he raised his drink for a toast. “For that girl dancing against the pillar,” I responded. Vic laughed.
We commandeered a table at the nearby Starbucks as we surveyed the crowd while exchanging notes and laughing about ourselves for our past manly misadventures. We saw young Pinoy men with well—nay minimally—dressed girls, middle-aged Caucasian guys with pretty exotic things half their age, blondes and brunettes mixing up with boys and men. Americans, Europeans, Arabs, blacks, South Asians, East Asians—it seemed like everybody was there. The crowd reminded me of Shanghai’s Xintiandi sans the debauchery. Globalization somehow tends to make all cities around the globe look or feel similar.
“This is the why the expats just love it here,” Vic said, showing me the bill.
Each can costs a hundred pesos, almost a third of a plumber’s basic daily wage, but the amount translates to just over two American dollars, loose change for people who reckon incomes in dollars. I was in Silicon Valley early this year; a mug of beer in bars in downtown San Jose was almost seven dollars.
“At The Fort, a bottle of beer only costs just about 35 pesos at a place that is as chic as this one,” he noted. “Man, that’s just about a dollar and twenty cents!”
It was close to two AM when I reached home. I slept after a quick shower and dreamed that we were in a remote island, enjoying the hospitality of the local village. At the background was a multinational force of men wearing war paints and menacing masks, holding spears and wooden shields, chanting songs as they violently thumped their feet against the soft, silvery sand, creating ripples along the shorelines.
At the center were girls in grass skirts dancing, singing, and running around a huge totem pole, a phallic symbol as tall as the coconut trees, their faces and topless bodies illuminated by the fury of burning driftwood and the moon in full bloom hanging up the cloudless sky. They were led by the priestess I saw dancing against the pillar in Café Havana, her supple hands raised over her head swaying gracefully in controlled motions, eyes closed like a praying devotee, her broad hips shaking spasmodically as she responded to the explosive rhythm of the tribal drums.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Promises and pitfalls of biofuels
Like any innovation, increased production of energy crops has the potential to exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities by concentrating benefits on the well-off. It can lead to deforestation, a loss of biodiversity, and excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides, thereby degrading the land and water that poor people depend on. Policymakers must take care to ensure that biofuel production is managed and regulated in a way that avoids these pitfalls.—Joachim von Braun, director general, International Food Policy Research Institute, International Conference on Biofuels, July 5 and 6, 2007, Brussels
THE other day former agriculture secretary and now director general of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (Icrisat) William Dar advised the government to consider the interest of the rural poor in the drafting of plans for the local biofuels industry.
It’ s a timely reminder, obviously based on a valid concern. With the rising prices of fossil fuels, biofuels might just emerge as a huge industry here, and it might be tempting for huge agribusiness giants and industrial processors to push aside the rural poor in the production of feedstocks, such as corn, sugar cane and sweet sorghum, through large-scale and mechanized plantation agriculture.
“It”s simple to do it that way, but it ignores the social and environmental consequences, which could be devastating,” warned Dar, himself a distinguished agricultural scientist. “Markets run on profits, not on social consequences.”
We couldn’t agree more.
The
The only problem is that most of these economic activities are done mainly by large agribusiness firms, rich local entrepreneurs and relatively well-off farmers, thus exacerbating rural inequality. That explains why poverty, especially rural poverty, continues to be a serious problem in this country.
Certainly, producing biofuel feed- stocks is economically and socially promising. These are labor-intensive activities that could help address rural joblessness. It seems to be a picture-perfect business activity that could provide extensive linkages between the farms and industry, thereby benefiting a broader segment of society.
It’s almost like a super sniper’s bullet scoring several hits with just one well-aimed shot: more jobs for farm and upland dwellers, higher incomes for farmers, more jobs for workers in processing plants, reduced reliance on imported fossil fuels, thus contributing to the improvement in our balance of payments, and a cleaner environment. But experts say there are pitfalls that we need to address before we could even think about bringing down those plans to the ground. And the first of them is stakeholder participation.
Are we going to do this like we did with other agribusiness endeavors? If we go business-as-usual, if we don’t factor in social-equity considerations, it’s likely that Dar’s fears about the benefits of biofuels feedstock production accruing largely to the well-off are going to be repeated again.
This is because this new business is going to require extensive access to innovative technologies and markets for producers to be successful. These are factors that are always not available to upland dwellers and marginal farmers, making them miss out on so many potential economic benefits.
And yes, we mentioned access to innovative and proven technologies because our farmers might just end up planting all sorts of feedstocks, only to find out the ones they have invested their sweat and blood in are not needed by the processors.
The government has lately been trumpeting glorious hallelujahs about the virtues of jatropha without even conducting serious research and development efforts about this crop. No less than officials of the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development and Dar himself have lately been warning the government about it, but it seems their wise voices are not getting across.
What sorts of feedstock provide the highest energy yield? What areas in the
Failing to study these questions, the government might just end up creating confusion and even more economic problems.
For instance, there’s a danger that in the rush to produce feedstock, we might end up encouraging farmers to shift away from food production. We might end up having plantation-style agribusiness systems for feedstock that would require massive doses of fertilizer and pesticide, thus defeating the biofuel’s supposed earth-friendly purposes.
The worst scenario could be the massive conversion of upland forests for the production of feedstock to the detriment of biodiversity and the watershed areas.
(Note: I wrote this piece as editorial for BusinessMirror, September 1 2007).
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Slapping the SLAPPers
Ultimately, most SLAPPs are not legally successful. Nevertheless, while most SLAPPs do not succeed in court, they “succeed” in the public arena. This is because defending a SLAPP, even when the legal defense is strong, requires a substantial investment of money, time and resources. The resulting effect “chills” public participation in and open debate on important public issues.—The California Anti-SLAPP Project
THE other day Bayan Muna Party-list Rep. Teodoro Casiño vowed to file a bill aimed at banning “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or SLAPP suits, saying such legislation is necessary to protect environmentalists, activists and journalists from frivolous legal actions aimed at stopping people from airing their concerns over legitimate issues related to public interest.
We share Casiño’s concern about SLAPP suits as they are often intended to prevent people, especially ordinary citizens, from expressing their rights under the Constitution.
Indeed, SLAPP suits have become a weapon by the powerful to silence the powerless, and it’s even practiced with reckless abandon in supposedly highly democratic societies like the United States.
According to the California Anti-SLAPP project, a SLAPP suit could take the form of a civil complaint filed against individuals or organizations arising from their communications to government or speeches on issues affecting the public interest.
The group said that SLAPP suits are often brought by corporations, real-estate developers, government officials and others against individuals and community groups who oppose them on issues of public concern. These suits usually take the form of civil claims like defamation, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, nuisance and interference with contract as a means of transforming public debate into lawsuits.
Indeed, the Philippines may need some kind of anti-SLAPP legislation to strengthen democracy here. More so because increasingly, more people are expressing themselves on public issues through web logs, online-discussion forums, letters to the editors and mass demonstrations.
But offhand we think it’s not practical to totally outlaw SLAPP suits. We believe that the judgment, whether or not a legal action is a SLAPP, rests on the courts and not someone else.
Besides, activists, environmentalists and journalists are not angels. Sometimes they do commit serious mistakes for which aggrieved parties should have the right to seek legal redress. Activists should always understand that getting legal suits is part of the hazards in the business of saving this world.
Maybe the Philippines could take a few pages from California’s anti-SLAPP statutes. California’s Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 allows the judge to decide from the very start whether or not a purported SLAPP suit has the probability of succeeding. Should the judge decide that the suit doesn’t have a chance of winning, she or he may dismiss the SLAPP suit and award the victim (the target of the lawsuit) lawyer’s fees and all other legal defense costs.
Most of the recent local environmental laws contain anti-SLAPP provisions. Section 53 of the Solid-Waste Management Law (Republic Act 9003) says: “Where a suit is brought against a person who filed an action as provided in Sec. 52 of this Act, or against any person, institution or government agency that implements this Act, it shall be the duty of the investigating prosecutor or the Court. . . to immediately make a determination not exceeding 30 days whether said legal action has been filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle such legal recourses. . . . Upon determination thereof. . . the Court shall dismiss the case and award attorney’s fees and double damages.”
This indicates that the local statute actually has a strong built-in mechanism for deterring lawsuits simply meant to discourage whistle blowers in environmental controversies.
Now the question is, as usual, whether or not this safeguard within our local law can be used actually to protect the sincere and competent environmental activist as against the “A-C, D-C” types or the “shoot-from-the-hip” types who grandstand without any iota of documentary evidence. The other key question is how this safeguard could protect whistle blowers in other matters when it covers only issues pertaining to the solid-waste management law.
Instead of outlawing SLAPP suits right away, maybe Congress should work for a broader anti-SLAPP legislation covering public participation in all issues related to public interest. This kind of legislation would provide disincentives for the powerful to slap frivolous and whimsical suits against the small guys who are exercising their rights. (Originally drafted as editorial for BusinessMirror, August 23 2007).
THE other day Bayan Muna Party-list Rep. Teodoro Casiño vowed to file a bill aimed at banning “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or SLAPP suits, saying such legislation is necessary to protect environmentalists, activists and journalists from frivolous legal actions aimed at stopping people from airing their concerns over legitimate issues related to public interest.
We share Casiño’s concern about SLAPP suits as they are often intended to prevent people, especially ordinary citizens, from expressing their rights under the Constitution.
Indeed, SLAPP suits have become a weapon by the powerful to silence the powerless, and it’s even practiced with reckless abandon in supposedly highly democratic societies like the United States.
According to the California Anti-SLAPP project, a SLAPP suit could take the form of a civil complaint filed against individuals or organizations arising from their communications to government or speeches on issues affecting the public interest.
The group said that SLAPP suits are often brought by corporations, real-estate developers, government officials and others against individuals and community groups who oppose them on issues of public concern. These suits usually take the form of civil claims like defamation, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, nuisance and interference with contract as a means of transforming public debate into lawsuits.
Indeed, the Philippines may need some kind of anti-SLAPP legislation to strengthen democracy here. More so because increasingly, more people are expressing themselves on public issues through web logs, online-discussion forums, letters to the editors and mass demonstrations.
But offhand we think it’s not practical to totally outlaw SLAPP suits. We believe that the judgment, whether or not a legal action is a SLAPP, rests on the courts and not someone else.
Besides, activists, environmentalists and journalists are not angels. Sometimes they do commit serious mistakes for which aggrieved parties should have the right to seek legal redress. Activists should always understand that getting legal suits is part of the hazards in the business of saving this world.
Maybe the Philippines could take a few pages from California’s anti-SLAPP statutes. California’s Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 allows the judge to decide from the very start whether or not a purported SLAPP suit has the probability of succeeding. Should the judge decide that the suit doesn’t have a chance of winning, she or he may dismiss the SLAPP suit and award the victim (the target of the lawsuit) lawyer’s fees and all other legal defense costs.
Most of the recent local environmental laws contain anti-SLAPP provisions. Section 53 of the Solid-Waste Management Law (Republic Act 9003) says: “Where a suit is brought against a person who filed an action as provided in Sec. 52 of this Act, or against any person, institution or government agency that implements this Act, it shall be the duty of the investigating prosecutor or the Court. . . to immediately make a determination not exceeding 30 days whether said legal action has been filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle such legal recourses. . . . Upon determination thereof. . . the Court shall dismiss the case and award attorney’s fees and double damages.”
This indicates that the local statute actually has a strong built-in mechanism for deterring lawsuits simply meant to discourage whistle blowers in environmental controversies.
Now the question is, as usual, whether or not this safeguard within our local law can be used actually to protect the sincere and competent environmental activist as against the “A-C, D-C” types or the “shoot-from-the-hip” types who grandstand without any iota of documentary evidence. The other key question is how this safeguard could protect whistle blowers in other matters when it covers only issues pertaining to the solid-waste management law.
Instead of outlawing SLAPP suits right away, maybe Congress should work for a broader anti-SLAPP legislation covering public participation in all issues related to public interest. This kind of legislation would provide disincentives for the powerful to slap frivolous and whimsical suits against the small guys who are exercising their rights. (Originally drafted as editorial for BusinessMirror, August 23 2007).
Monday, August 06, 2007
On rain dance and emergency powers (or how do we address the water crisis in Metro Manila?)
Water, taken in moderation, cannot hurt anybody.—Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Irrigation of the land with seawater desalinated by fusion power is ancient. It’s called 'rain.' —Michael McClary, as quoted by Megan Anderson, USGS
IT’S funny that the government is thinking about having “emergency powers” to address the water-supply shortage in Metro Manila. It’s as if the government could force the rains to come by fiat or presidential signature.
Government bureaucrats could probably do the rain dance, but these actions are more likely to attract lightning than the rains that we sorely need to fall over La Mesa dam.
The fact is that the availability of water is first and foremost a question of supply: the coming of the rains, infrastructure, and the ecology that supports the entire water-generation and -distribution system. Not any amount of legislation, especially shortsighted ones, or executive fiat could change that fact.
The government, however, could manage demand through economic instruments to change people’s behavior on how they use water, thereby alleviating our water-supply concern. The structure of the country’s water-supply system lends well to the use of economic instruments, say, a variable charge.
Metro Manila’s water supply is taken largely from Angat dam, where our capacity to store water depends on the weather pattern. We usually have distinct wet and dry seasons, and we take advantage of this by storing significant volumes of water during the rainy season, especially July and August until December, to make sure we have enough to cover for the low rainfall months from March to June. We are practically saving water during the rainy days for the sunny days.
Smart move, right? Yes, but it's not as simple as that. The sad fact is that while we are trying to store water in those dams, public policy allows us to freely use water from the tap to bathe our cars, fill our swimming pools, water the lawns and flush the toilet without serious consequences on our finances.
Why? It’s because water here is so cheap; we have the cheapest rates in Asia, and that’s because the pricing of water this side of the Pacific doesn’t take into account the cost of drawing raw water coming from Umiray River, and the dams in Angat, Ipo and La Mesa.
Water charges here cover only the actual consumption, currency adjustment, environmental charge, sewerage and the value-added tax. When water is so cheap, people feel it’s so abundant that they tend to waste it. No wonder many people don’t bother to fix their faucet or mend the leaks. Nor do they bother to report the leaks to Maynilad or Manila Water when they see a pipe leaking in the streets.
But generating and bringing that water to every household in Metro Manila is not cheap. In fact, we probably have among the most expensive ways of generating, storing, processing and distributing water compared with our neighbors like Thailand, Cambodia or Vietnam. In these countries, what they do is tap directly the mighty Mekong River, process the water and distribute it to city residents.
In contrast, the Philippines has to invest in a network of dams, tributaries, reservoirs, aqueducts and treatment facilities prior to bringing them to the cities through the pipes, mostly through loans from abroad. But we still have the cheapest water compared with these countries because we don’t reflect the true cost of generating and distributing potable water. And it’s such an inequitable arrangement because Filipinos at large are paying for those loans while the major beneficiary of those investments is urban Metro Manila.
Solution? Economic instruments, say, a variable charge, that reflect two considerations: first, the cost of raw water and, second, the cycle of abundance (the rainy season) and scarcity (summer months) throughout the year.
In simpler terms, instead of charging a fixed rate per cubic meter throughout the year, the government may consider a relatively low rate during the rainy season or when the dams are full or overflowing. And as the water level in the dams goes down, the rate per cubic meter should go higher, thus reflecting the true and increasing scarcity of water supply.
This way, people would start modifying their water-use behavior as they feel the increasing scarcity. To save water and cash, they are also going to make sure their faucets don’t leak. Knowing that “unaccounted water” is going to be reflected in everybody’s water bill, they are likely to be watchful about water pilferage and leaks in their communities. Many of them might even consider investing in cisterns for storing water collected from their roofs.
The government, however, may have to calibrate water charges carefully, as extremely high rates may also drive more people into digging deep wells that could wreak havoc on groundwater sources and the environment in general. Right now, environmental scientists are blaming excessive drawdown from groundwater sources, thus causing saltwater intrusion in many parts of Metro Manila.
It is important to reflect the true cost of water, for instance, to include the generation of raw water and the development of future water sources, because of the fact that the population of Metro Manila is growing. The extra money collected could be invested in new sources, infrastructure and water-resources research to meet the growing needs of the metropolis.
This is important because at the rate the services sector is growing, it’s likely that Metro Manila will continue to attract more migrants, thus the ever-rising demand for water. If policymakers won’t be creative in their policymaking, we will just keep on suffering water crises year in and year out. (Note: I originally drafted this as editorial for BusinessMirror, Aug 7 2007)
Irrigation of the land with seawater desalinated by fusion power is ancient. It’s called 'rain.' —Michael McClary, as quoted by Megan Anderson, USGS
IT’S funny that the government is thinking about having “emergency powers” to address the water-supply shortage in Metro Manila. It’s as if the government could force the rains to come by fiat or presidential signature.
Government bureaucrats could probably do the rain dance, but these actions are more likely to attract lightning than the rains that we sorely need to fall over La Mesa dam.
The fact is that the availability of water is first and foremost a question of supply: the coming of the rains, infrastructure, and the ecology that supports the entire water-generation and -distribution system. Not any amount of legislation, especially shortsighted ones, or executive fiat could change that fact.
The government, however, could manage demand through economic instruments to change people’s behavior on how they use water, thereby alleviating our water-supply concern. The structure of the country’s water-supply system lends well to the use of economic instruments, say, a variable charge.
Metro Manila’s water supply is taken largely from Angat dam, where our capacity to store water depends on the weather pattern. We usually have distinct wet and dry seasons, and we take advantage of this by storing significant volumes of water during the rainy season, especially July and August until December, to make sure we have enough to cover for the low rainfall months from March to June. We are practically saving water during the rainy days for the sunny days.
Smart move, right? Yes, but it's not as simple as that. The sad fact is that while we are trying to store water in those dams, public policy allows us to freely use water from the tap to bathe our cars, fill our swimming pools, water the lawns and flush the toilet without serious consequences on our finances.
Why? It’s because water here is so cheap; we have the cheapest rates in Asia, and that’s because the pricing of water this side of the Pacific doesn’t take into account the cost of drawing raw water coming from Umiray River, and the dams in Angat, Ipo and La Mesa.
Water charges here cover only the actual consumption, currency adjustment, environmental charge, sewerage and the value-added tax. When water is so cheap, people feel it’s so abundant that they tend to waste it. No wonder many people don’t bother to fix their faucet or mend the leaks. Nor do they bother to report the leaks to Maynilad or Manila Water when they see a pipe leaking in the streets.
But generating and bringing that water to every household in Metro Manila is not cheap. In fact, we probably have among the most expensive ways of generating, storing, processing and distributing water compared with our neighbors like Thailand, Cambodia or Vietnam. In these countries, what they do is tap directly the mighty Mekong River, process the water and distribute it to city residents.
In contrast, the Philippines has to invest in a network of dams, tributaries, reservoirs, aqueducts and treatment facilities prior to bringing them to the cities through the pipes, mostly through loans from abroad. But we still have the cheapest water compared with these countries because we don’t reflect the true cost of generating and distributing potable water. And it’s such an inequitable arrangement because Filipinos at large are paying for those loans while the major beneficiary of those investments is urban Metro Manila.
Solution? Economic instruments, say, a variable charge, that reflect two considerations: first, the cost of raw water and, second, the cycle of abundance (the rainy season) and scarcity (summer months) throughout the year.
In simpler terms, instead of charging a fixed rate per cubic meter throughout the year, the government may consider a relatively low rate during the rainy season or when the dams are full or overflowing. And as the water level in the dams goes down, the rate per cubic meter should go higher, thus reflecting the true and increasing scarcity of water supply.
This way, people would start modifying their water-use behavior as they feel the increasing scarcity. To save water and cash, they are also going to make sure their faucets don’t leak. Knowing that “unaccounted water” is going to be reflected in everybody’s water bill, they are likely to be watchful about water pilferage and leaks in their communities. Many of them might even consider investing in cisterns for storing water collected from their roofs.
The government, however, may have to calibrate water charges carefully, as extremely high rates may also drive more people into digging deep wells that could wreak havoc on groundwater sources and the environment in general. Right now, environmental scientists are blaming excessive drawdown from groundwater sources, thus causing saltwater intrusion in many parts of Metro Manila.
It is important to reflect the true cost of water, for instance, to include the generation of raw water and the development of future water sources, because of the fact that the population of Metro Manila is growing. The extra money collected could be invested in new sources, infrastructure and water-resources research to meet the growing needs of the metropolis.
This is important because at the rate the services sector is growing, it’s likely that Metro Manila will continue to attract more migrants, thus the ever-rising demand for water. If policymakers won’t be creative in their policymaking, we will just keep on suffering water crises year in and year out. (Note: I originally drafted this as editorial for BusinessMirror, Aug 7 2007)
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Why not use economic instruments to address the water crisis?
What?! The government is thinking about "emergency powers" to address the water supply problem? Crazy! Emergency powers could never force the rains to come. But economic instruments could address the problem if only we have the guts to do so. How? I wrote something about this issue in Manila Times three years ago. Among my conclusions:
That was three years ago..."On the demand side, the government should manage demand by reflecting the cost of generating and delivering raw water in pricing for both irrigation and urban water supply. Incomes generated from this service could be used to develop additional sources of raw water.
Better still, the government should consider using “economic instruments”—for instance, variable charge—on the extraction of raw water from the dams and reservoirs to reflect the true scarcity of water. This charge should be low during the times (January, February, November and December) when the water elevation in Angat is usually high or at least above 210 meters. The charge would gradually rise as the water level declines in March, April, May, June and July, depending on the actual situation.
This way, water users—both in agriculture and in urban areas—would be pressured to conserve water in times of scarcity. This measure would require strengthening the National Water Resources Board to regulate deep wells and prevent the excessive use of water.
The water shortage calls for rigorous measures; there is no other way to do it."
Monday, July 16, 2007
Waste management: legislation without understanding
UPSET by the rising prices of commodities, a president—or so the joke goes—at one time asked his socioeconomic planning secretary to explain the problem. The socioeconomic planning secretary told the president that more people are buying these commodities, thus outstripping supply. “A classic example of the operations of the law of supply and demand, Mr. President,” he said. The president answered: “Then, I should ask Congress to repeal that law.”
The provisions of the country’s Clean Air Act and the Solid Waste Management Act on waste management somehow mirror this kind of joke foisted upon us by well-meaning individuals blinded by their lack of understanding of the dynamics of the policy issue. That explains why, as pointed out in last week’s editorial, we are experiencing a waste-management crisis, manifested in the accumulation of untreated, unprocessed biomedical, toxic and hazardous waste in the environment.
This lack of understanding clearly manifested itself early in the day with the passage of the Clean Air Act in June 1999, which banned incineration but allowed pagsisiga or the “traditional” small-scale burning of waste, including agricultural waste.
Analysts then expressed fears that the new law actually encouraged open burning of garbage, including toxic and hazardous wastes, since the vague definition provided by Section 20 of the Clean Air Act suggested that burning waste is actually fine, provided it is done in an open, decentralized, small-scale manner—an activity that could easily fit as pagsisiga for “community and neighborhood sanitation.”
Open burning or pagsisiga is actually an environmental planner’s worst-case scenario as incomplete combustion in this process implies that cancer-causing substances are generated right smack in the community.
Indeed, people started burning their garbage right in their backyards after the closure of many dumps, as local government units either failed to secure funds for conversion of these dumps into engineered landfills or failed to get the land where landfills could be constructed. Well, they did it because the Clean Air Act actually allowed them to do so.
Realizing their mistake, “environmentalists” and legislators tried to “correct” the issue by completely banning all waste combustion under the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. They probably hoped that legislating away the burning of waste could banish the problem. The garbage crisis got worse, however, especially after the Metro Manila Development Authority failed to get adequate landfill spaces after the closure of the Payatas dump.
And while the brouhaha over the municipal solid-waste management is brewing, companies, hospitals and processing plants generating industrial waste, biomedical waste, and toxic and hazardous waste are either storing their refuse on-site for future disposal when a proper facility is available, or outsourcing their disposal to private contractors while hoping that such private firms have what it takes to handle them.
Looking at the actions of some “environmentalists” who lorded it over the crafting and passage of the solid-waste management law, one can’t help but suspect that many of them were not doing their advocacies in good faith.
Naturally, when thermal technologies are banned, the next viable option could be engineered landfills. But when LGUs tried to look for landfill spaces, many in the same network of “civil-society” groups dabbling in environmentalism also opposed landfills, citing certain environmental risks. The only correct option, they say, is “zero waste,” as if it’s actually possible to do so.
Well, “zero-waste management” is actually possible in small, isolated villages producing a few kilograms of organic waste. But it certainly wouldn’t work in megacities producing tons of municipal, industrial, and toxic and hazardous wastes. They missed this perspective because when legislators and “environmentalists” were crafting the laws, they didn’t bother to check the markets for recyclable materials.
In fact, they didn’t know at all the characteristics of Metro Manila’s waste stream. They didn’t know how much percentage is economically viable for recycling. They didn’t know who the buyers and sellers are and how much are being transacted in these recycling markets. They simply assumed that mandating recycling and reuse would automatically solve the problem like magic. Had they known these basic facts, they would have known the enormity of the problem and acted accordingly.
And the fatal flaw is the lack of understanding value and social use of land. The Philippines is a land-scarce country. Without resorting to land-saving waste-management options offered by thermal technologies and waste-to-energy plants, Philippine cities will have to gobble up huge tracts of land for landfills and dumps, thus posing strong competition for other uses like agriculture, forestry, industry and socialized housing.
This partly explains the pervasive Nimby (not in my backyard) syndrome. Certainly, it is hard to convince communities to host a landfill or a dump, knowing that such a “special land use” would destroy land values.
That is why other countries adopt an integrated waste-management program that allows for a hierarchy of options covering waste generation (minimize, reuse, recycle); storage; collection; processing, treatment and recovery; and disposal.
For instance, if thermal facilities (assuming adequate environmental standards) were available to handle what cannot be recycled (including biomedical, industrial and other toxic and hazardous waste), Metropolitan Manila can reduce the volume of waste by 90 percent.
The residual waste, or the ashes that could be made even safer to handle through vitrification, could be disposed of in monofills.
Compared to landfills that occupy hundreds of hectares, monofills need only a few hectares, thus saving a lot of land for other more socially beneficial uses. Equipped with liners and proper engineering design, environmental risks such as leaching could be eliminated. This way, the Nimby syndrome could be avoided.This is what land-scarce countries in Europe do. This flexibility of options is not currently available to us in the Philippines because our legislators chose to craft our policy with their eyes closed. If legislators won’t undo our mistakes, we are stuck with this garbage forever.
(Originally drafted as Editorial for BusinessMirror, July 17 2007).
The provisions of the country’s Clean Air Act and the Solid Waste Management Act on waste management somehow mirror this kind of joke foisted upon us by well-meaning individuals blinded by their lack of understanding of the dynamics of the policy issue. That explains why, as pointed out in last week’s editorial, we are experiencing a waste-management crisis, manifested in the accumulation of untreated, unprocessed biomedical, toxic and hazardous waste in the environment.
This lack of understanding clearly manifested itself early in the day with the passage of the Clean Air Act in June 1999, which banned incineration but allowed pagsisiga or the “traditional” small-scale burning of waste, including agricultural waste.
Analysts then expressed fears that the new law actually encouraged open burning of garbage, including toxic and hazardous wastes, since the vague definition provided by Section 20 of the Clean Air Act suggested that burning waste is actually fine, provided it is done in an open, decentralized, small-scale manner—an activity that could easily fit as pagsisiga for “community and neighborhood sanitation.”
Open burning or pagsisiga is actually an environmental planner’s worst-case scenario as incomplete combustion in this process implies that cancer-causing substances are generated right smack in the community.
Indeed, people started burning their garbage right in their backyards after the closure of many dumps, as local government units either failed to secure funds for conversion of these dumps into engineered landfills or failed to get the land where landfills could be constructed. Well, they did it because the Clean Air Act actually allowed them to do so.
Realizing their mistake, “environmentalists” and legislators tried to “correct” the issue by completely banning all waste combustion under the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. They probably hoped that legislating away the burning of waste could banish the problem. The garbage crisis got worse, however, especially after the Metro Manila Development Authority failed to get adequate landfill spaces after the closure of the Payatas dump.
And while the brouhaha over the municipal solid-waste management is brewing, companies, hospitals and processing plants generating industrial waste, biomedical waste, and toxic and hazardous waste are either storing their refuse on-site for future disposal when a proper facility is available, or outsourcing their disposal to private contractors while hoping that such private firms have what it takes to handle them.
Looking at the actions of some “environmentalists” who lorded it over the crafting and passage of the solid-waste management law, one can’t help but suspect that many of them were not doing their advocacies in good faith.
Naturally, when thermal technologies are banned, the next viable option could be engineered landfills. But when LGUs tried to look for landfill spaces, many in the same network of “civil-society” groups dabbling in environmentalism also opposed landfills, citing certain environmental risks. The only correct option, they say, is “zero waste,” as if it’s actually possible to do so.
Well, “zero-waste management” is actually possible in small, isolated villages producing a few kilograms of organic waste. But it certainly wouldn’t work in megacities producing tons of municipal, industrial, and toxic and hazardous wastes. They missed this perspective because when legislators and “environmentalists” were crafting the laws, they didn’t bother to check the markets for recyclable materials.
In fact, they didn’t know at all the characteristics of Metro Manila’s waste stream. They didn’t know how much percentage is economically viable for recycling. They didn’t know who the buyers and sellers are and how much are being transacted in these recycling markets. They simply assumed that mandating recycling and reuse would automatically solve the problem like magic. Had they known these basic facts, they would have known the enormity of the problem and acted accordingly.
And the fatal flaw is the lack of understanding value and social use of land. The Philippines is a land-scarce country. Without resorting to land-saving waste-management options offered by thermal technologies and waste-to-energy plants, Philippine cities will have to gobble up huge tracts of land for landfills and dumps, thus posing strong competition for other uses like agriculture, forestry, industry and socialized housing.
This partly explains the pervasive Nimby (not in my backyard) syndrome. Certainly, it is hard to convince communities to host a landfill or a dump, knowing that such a “special land use” would destroy land values.
That is why other countries adopt an integrated waste-management program that allows for a hierarchy of options covering waste generation (minimize, reuse, recycle); storage; collection; processing, treatment and recovery; and disposal.
For instance, if thermal facilities (assuming adequate environmental standards) were available to handle what cannot be recycled (including biomedical, industrial and other toxic and hazardous waste), Metropolitan Manila can reduce the volume of waste by 90 percent.
The residual waste, or the ashes that could be made even safer to handle through vitrification, could be disposed of in monofills.
Compared to landfills that occupy hundreds of hectares, monofills need only a few hectares, thus saving a lot of land for other more socially beneficial uses. Equipped with liners and proper engineering design, environmental risks such as leaching could be eliminated. This way, the Nimby syndrome could be avoided.This is what land-scarce countries in Europe do. This flexibility of options is not currently available to us in the Philippines because our legislators chose to craft our policy with their eyes closed. If legislators won’t undo our mistakes, we are stuck with this garbage forever.
(Originally drafted as Editorial for BusinessMirror, July 17 2007).
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Solid waste management: garbage in, garbage out
‘ENVIRONMENTALISTS” swore that incineration technologies are evil so the government should ban them under both the clean-air and solid-waste management legislations.
When pressed for alternatives, some environmentalists replied they will eat garbage, including hospital waste and toxic refuse, should Metro Manila become a mess after following their dictates. So the senators relented, and the “environmentalists” danced in triumph.
Now that we are swamped with garbage, now that hospital and toxic-waste dumps are spreading around like mushrooms as reported lately in the newspapers, Metro Manila residents should demand that the environmentalists who made that boast should now start swallowing their true nourishment.
But they won’t do that. These people are now gone and we are left with a crisis that is certainly causing a lot of health problems to many citizens—problems associated with the continuous open burning of waste, the dumping of hospital and toxic waste in canals and some quiet corners of the metropolis.
When Congress passes laws based on ideological predispositions instead of technical considerations, when these legislators allow themselves to be bamboozled by interest groups, and when such a body legislates without understanding, such laws would surely create a lot of problems. That’s happening to us right now under the clean-air and solid-waste management laws. Garbage in, garbage out.
These days, environmentalists are tossing the blame to local government units (LGUs) for failing to do their duties. That is partly correct. But the difficulties being experienced in handling municipal, biomedical and other waste stem also from a flawed law influenced by the so-called environmentalists.
Under the clean-air and solid-waste laws, all incineration technologies are banned, thus limiting the options available to government managers (mayors, governors, and barangay chairmen) in managing different types of waste.
That fatal flaw stems largely from the failure to understand the “universe of wastes.” Under the influence of lobbyists from scrap dealers and interest groups, those who crafted the laws were simply thinking about small volumes of municipal waste that lend well to purely reclamation techniques, including waste minimization, reuse and recycling.
What they failed to understand is that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. Effective waste-management technologies, as practiced in successful countries like Singapore and Europe, differ largely depending on the types of waste and the volumes generated.
Let’s start with the basics. In waste management, experts generally define “toxicity” as “the ability to cause harm.” Hence, technically all types of waste are toxic. In reality, some types of waste present minimal risks when properly handled while others are so virulent they need special treatment and disposal procedures.
Hence, we have hazardous waste, industrial waste (from manufacturing, mining, coal, oil and gas exploration), medical waste (generated by hospitals, laboratories, universities, morgues, funeral homes, blood banks), radioactive waste (from nuclear power facilities) and municipal solid waste (MSW)—the last one we generally call garbage generated by households, offices and commercial buildings.
All these types of waste require different types of handling, processing, treatment and disposal. Reclamation techniques (waste minimization, reuse and recycle) are generally used for MSW, especially in smaller low-volume cities.
But in cases of biomedical, industrial and other hazardous waste, like polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, the only “best practicable environmental option,” or BPEO, are treatment and incineration and other high-temperature options like plasma and pirolysis prior to disposal. This is because the only realistic way to deal with virulent and hazardous wastes is to destroy them at very high temperatures.
As practiced, most of these approaches are not used in isolation. In fact, a state-of-the-art waste-management treatment facility has three major components: a physical- and chemical treatment-plant, an incineration or thermal facility (usually waste-to-energy plants) and a dedicated landfill for the final disposal of the residues (about 10 percent of total volume of wasted handled).
However, options like incineration and landfills usually generate a negative attitude among residents, primarily due to the not-in-my-backyard (nimby) syndrome. Thus, as practiced, these waste-management approaches are expressed as a hierarchy of options that put emphasis on “greener” methods like reclamation.
In Europe and the US, this hierarchy of options includes waste reduction at source (first priority), waste recycling and reuse (second), recovery of raw materials and energy content of the waste (third), treatment (physical, chemical, biological), thermal (incineration, pyrolysis, plasma destruction and thermal oxidation) processes to convert waste to a form that permits safe disposal, and, finally, disposal through landfilling.
To ensure that thermal or incineration plants are environmentally safe, policy makers in these countries usually require these facilities to have a 99.9999-percent destruction and removal efficiency (DRE). They also require these facilities to have adequate engineering measures, including the use of bag house filters, electrostatic precipitators and scrubbers.
A hierarchy of options is necessary to give LGUs the flexibility to use various methods, depending on the characteristics and volume of waste generated. Smaller communities usually generate MSW, thus a reclamation and disposal techniques would do.
In huge megacities like Metropolitan Manila that produce huge volumes of MSW, as well as medical and hazardous waste, however, it would make sense to allow a full hierarchy of options to give flexibility to the LGUs, in tandem with the private sector, to explore effective options. More so, because we have vibrant electronics, chemical, hospital and food industries that produce large volumes of toxic and hazardous waste.
Right now, we don’t know how these toxic and hazardous waste are disposed. Most hospitals probably just outsource the handling and processing of their waste while crossing their fingers that their contractors are doing the right thing. But right now we don’t have the facilities to handle them properly. That explains the prevailing dumping of these toxic and hazardous waste in open dumps, waterways and some “quiet corners” in the dead of night.
It’s high time legislators reviewed our waste-management laws and put in place one based on science and common sense. And while they are at it, maybe those “environmentalists” who swore to eat garbage should start fulfilling their promise.
(Note: Prepared as editorial for BusinessMirror, 12 July 2007).
When pressed for alternatives, some environmentalists replied they will eat garbage, including hospital waste and toxic refuse, should Metro Manila become a mess after following their dictates. So the senators relented, and the “environmentalists” danced in triumph.
Now that we are swamped with garbage, now that hospital and toxic-waste dumps are spreading around like mushrooms as reported lately in the newspapers, Metro Manila residents should demand that the environmentalists who made that boast should now start swallowing their true nourishment.
But they won’t do that. These people are now gone and we are left with a crisis that is certainly causing a lot of health problems to many citizens—problems associated with the continuous open burning of waste, the dumping of hospital and toxic waste in canals and some quiet corners of the metropolis.
When Congress passes laws based on ideological predispositions instead of technical considerations, when these legislators allow themselves to be bamboozled by interest groups, and when such a body legislates without understanding, such laws would surely create a lot of problems. That’s happening to us right now under the clean-air and solid-waste management laws. Garbage in, garbage out.
These days, environmentalists are tossing the blame to local government units (LGUs) for failing to do their duties. That is partly correct. But the difficulties being experienced in handling municipal, biomedical and other waste stem also from a flawed law influenced by the so-called environmentalists.
Under the clean-air and solid-waste laws, all incineration technologies are banned, thus limiting the options available to government managers (mayors, governors, and barangay chairmen) in managing different types of waste.
That fatal flaw stems largely from the failure to understand the “universe of wastes.” Under the influence of lobbyists from scrap dealers and interest groups, those who crafted the laws were simply thinking about small volumes of municipal waste that lend well to purely reclamation techniques, including waste minimization, reuse and recycling.
What they failed to understand is that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions. Effective waste-management technologies, as practiced in successful countries like Singapore and Europe, differ largely depending on the types of waste and the volumes generated.
Let’s start with the basics. In waste management, experts generally define “toxicity” as “the ability to cause harm.” Hence, technically all types of waste are toxic. In reality, some types of waste present minimal risks when properly handled while others are so virulent they need special treatment and disposal procedures.
Hence, we have hazardous waste, industrial waste (from manufacturing, mining, coal, oil and gas exploration), medical waste (generated by hospitals, laboratories, universities, morgues, funeral homes, blood banks), radioactive waste (from nuclear power facilities) and municipal solid waste (MSW)—the last one we generally call garbage generated by households, offices and commercial buildings.
All these types of waste require different types of handling, processing, treatment and disposal. Reclamation techniques (waste minimization, reuse and recycle) are generally used for MSW, especially in smaller low-volume cities.
But in cases of biomedical, industrial and other hazardous waste, like polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, the only “best practicable environmental option,” or BPEO, are treatment and incineration and other high-temperature options like plasma and pirolysis prior to disposal. This is because the only realistic way to deal with virulent and hazardous wastes is to destroy them at very high temperatures.
As practiced, most of these approaches are not used in isolation. In fact, a state-of-the-art waste-management treatment facility has three major components: a physical- and chemical treatment-plant, an incineration or thermal facility (usually waste-to-energy plants) and a dedicated landfill for the final disposal of the residues (about 10 percent of total volume of wasted handled).
However, options like incineration and landfills usually generate a negative attitude among residents, primarily due to the not-in-my-backyard (nimby) syndrome. Thus, as practiced, these waste-management approaches are expressed as a hierarchy of options that put emphasis on “greener” methods like reclamation.
In Europe and the US, this hierarchy of options includes waste reduction at source (first priority), waste recycling and reuse (second), recovery of raw materials and energy content of the waste (third), treatment (physical, chemical, biological), thermal (incineration, pyrolysis, plasma destruction and thermal oxidation) processes to convert waste to a form that permits safe disposal, and, finally, disposal through landfilling.
To ensure that thermal or incineration plants are environmentally safe, policy makers in these countries usually require these facilities to have a 99.9999-percent destruction and removal efficiency (DRE). They also require these facilities to have adequate engineering measures, including the use of bag house filters, electrostatic precipitators and scrubbers.
A hierarchy of options is necessary to give LGUs the flexibility to use various methods, depending on the characteristics and volume of waste generated. Smaller communities usually generate MSW, thus a reclamation and disposal techniques would do.
In huge megacities like Metropolitan Manila that produce huge volumes of MSW, as well as medical and hazardous waste, however, it would make sense to allow a full hierarchy of options to give flexibility to the LGUs, in tandem with the private sector, to explore effective options. More so, because we have vibrant electronics, chemical, hospital and food industries that produce large volumes of toxic and hazardous waste.
Right now, we don’t know how these toxic and hazardous waste are disposed. Most hospitals probably just outsource the handling and processing of their waste while crossing their fingers that their contractors are doing the right thing. But right now we don’t have the facilities to handle them properly. That explains the prevailing dumping of these toxic and hazardous waste in open dumps, waterways and some “quiet corners” in the dead of night.
It’s high time legislators reviewed our waste-management laws and put in place one based on science and common sense. And while they are at it, maybe those “environmentalists” who swore to eat garbage should start fulfilling their promise.
(Note: Prepared as editorial for BusinessMirror, 12 July 2007).
Monday, December 18, 2006
Towards a green Christmas
GLOBAL warming is here with us, and it’s useless to debate the extent to which it’s going to change our lives in the near or distant future. The important thing is to change the ways we celebrate Christmas and the New Year.
Since “Christianity” started taking root in these Fiesta Islands, we have been celebrating Christmas and the New Year in successive orgies of bacchanalian excess that would put the Romans to shame. Millions of Filipinos ate, drank and were so merry many of them died of hypertension, cholesterol overload, and cardiac arrest from nights of stressful alcohol-laden bliss. And many got literally blown off to bits by firecrackers so huge they literally look like those improvised explosive devices used by insurgents in Iraq.
From what is supposedly a solemn affair about the Savior who came as a humble child in the manger, we have transformed Christmas into a seasonal paganistic overkill.
No, we are not concerned with morality here. Different strokes for different folks. We are concerned more with the fact that, while we are destroying our own health through frenzied overfeeding, we are destroying the planet as well by hastening global warming.
Consider this: On the 25th and the December 31st, many among us are shooting hundreds of thousands of tons of firecrackers, thus sending huge volumes of sulfur and other air pollutants high up into the atmosphere. The smog lingers in the air for days after the festivities, as if we had just burned millions of hectares of our rainforest in wildfires.
After the smog clears, we can see clearly the gigantic piles of garbage in streets coming from the gift wrappers, nonbiodegradables like discarded water bottles, styrofoam packs, plastics, spoiled food, and other stinking refuse. Much of the waste ends up getting burned in the dumps, thus causing even more pollutants and carcinogens. The rest of the garbage in the streets are scattered by feral cats and stray dogs and these clog the sewer pipes, thus causing floods and the spread of leptospirosis when the rains come. The original sin, ours, of starting all this mindless bacchanalian feasting is not exactly the act of people who are supposed to be responsible stewards of God’s creation.
If we want to celebrate Christmas in a truly “Christian” way, therefore, we must learn to celebrate it in a truly “sustainable” way. We can do this by reducing our carbon footprints and there are a thousand and one ways.
For instance, we can reduce the volume of waste by giving gifts sans the usual wrappers. Those gift wrappers are superfluous. People who receive gifts usually tear the wrappers away and throw them into the trash bin. Ultimately, they end up in the dumps or in the piles of garbage in the streets where they are burned—again, emitting noxious chemicals.
So giving gifts without the wrappers is one surefire solution. That way we can also save money. The recipients will surely understand if we just explain the principle behind it. Come to think of it, the Magi actually didn’t wrap their gifts when they went to see Jesus at the manger.
In these days of the Internet, sending “virtual” gifts, e-cards, and e-mail is a perfectly accepted way to connect with our friends and loved ones. Electronic cards are free. That way, we don’t have to burn so much cash. In reality, enjoying Christmas with people who are dear to us is not really about the material things we send and receive. It may sound mushy but it’s a timeless truth: it’s all about the idea that our loved ones are thinking of us in this season of good cheer.
Yes, we should maximize the use of the Internet to connect with friends. With the advent of broadband, we don’t need to drive to a friend’s or relative’s house. We can always do teleconference or e-chat. Or send a text message. We could leave the car at home during the Simbang Gabi. No driving means less traffic congestion, less burning of fossil fuel, less emission of ozone-depleting substances.
Christmas is when people seem to get afflicted with a certain travel madness. They travel to and fro and circle and shop as if there is no tomorrow. As a result, the streets leading to the malls, shopping centers and restaurants are always congested. Clogged streets do not only fray the nerves, they also force drivers to burn lots of fossil fuel. Lessening travel demand certainly is sustainable. Nevertheless, if we couldn’t help it, we may have to plan our trips well. Carpooling is an option. Or we could use public transport. Or better still, we shop online.
And most of all, we should avoid shooting fireworks. There are certainly other creative ways to make noise than burning sulfur and other harmful chemicals that poison the air.
A “green Christmas” may sound like taking away the fun from Christmas. It surely does sound like that but it’s only a matter of redefining our perspective. Global warming—manifested increasingly each day in unpredictable weather and destructive droughts and storms and other “inconvenient truths”— is a real issue all must confront squarely. Who knows, by pursuing a green Christmas, we may yet bring back the true spirit of the season, the original idea about the Messiah who came upon the world to save us from ourselves.
Since “Christianity” started taking root in these Fiesta Islands, we have been celebrating Christmas and the New Year in successive orgies of bacchanalian excess that would put the Romans to shame. Millions of Filipinos ate, drank and were so merry many of them died of hypertension, cholesterol overload, and cardiac arrest from nights of stressful alcohol-laden bliss. And many got literally blown off to bits by firecrackers so huge they literally look like those improvised explosive devices used by insurgents in Iraq.
From what is supposedly a solemn affair about the Savior who came as a humble child in the manger, we have transformed Christmas into a seasonal paganistic overkill.
No, we are not concerned with morality here. Different strokes for different folks. We are concerned more with the fact that, while we are destroying our own health through frenzied overfeeding, we are destroying the planet as well by hastening global warming.
Consider this: On the 25th and the December 31st, many among us are shooting hundreds of thousands of tons of firecrackers, thus sending huge volumes of sulfur and other air pollutants high up into the atmosphere. The smog lingers in the air for days after the festivities, as if we had just burned millions of hectares of our rainforest in wildfires.
After the smog clears, we can see clearly the gigantic piles of garbage in streets coming from the gift wrappers, nonbiodegradables like discarded water bottles, styrofoam packs, plastics, spoiled food, and other stinking refuse. Much of the waste ends up getting burned in the dumps, thus causing even more pollutants and carcinogens. The rest of the garbage in the streets are scattered by feral cats and stray dogs and these clog the sewer pipes, thus causing floods and the spread of leptospirosis when the rains come. The original sin, ours, of starting all this mindless bacchanalian feasting is not exactly the act of people who are supposed to be responsible stewards of God’s creation.
If we want to celebrate Christmas in a truly “Christian” way, therefore, we must learn to celebrate it in a truly “sustainable” way. We can do this by reducing our carbon footprints and there are a thousand and one ways.
For instance, we can reduce the volume of waste by giving gifts sans the usual wrappers. Those gift wrappers are superfluous. People who receive gifts usually tear the wrappers away and throw them into the trash bin. Ultimately, they end up in the dumps or in the piles of garbage in the streets where they are burned—again, emitting noxious chemicals.
So giving gifts without the wrappers is one surefire solution. That way we can also save money. The recipients will surely understand if we just explain the principle behind it. Come to think of it, the Magi actually didn’t wrap their gifts when they went to see Jesus at the manger.
In these days of the Internet, sending “virtual” gifts, e-cards, and e-mail is a perfectly accepted way to connect with our friends and loved ones. Electronic cards are free. That way, we don’t have to burn so much cash. In reality, enjoying Christmas with people who are dear to us is not really about the material things we send and receive. It may sound mushy but it’s a timeless truth: it’s all about the idea that our loved ones are thinking of us in this season of good cheer.
Yes, we should maximize the use of the Internet to connect with friends. With the advent of broadband, we don’t need to drive to a friend’s or relative’s house. We can always do teleconference or e-chat. Or send a text message. We could leave the car at home during the Simbang Gabi. No driving means less traffic congestion, less burning of fossil fuel, less emission of ozone-depleting substances.
Christmas is when people seem to get afflicted with a certain travel madness. They travel to and fro and circle and shop as if there is no tomorrow. As a result, the streets leading to the malls, shopping centers and restaurants are always congested. Clogged streets do not only fray the nerves, they also force drivers to burn lots of fossil fuel. Lessening travel demand certainly is sustainable. Nevertheless, if we couldn’t help it, we may have to plan our trips well. Carpooling is an option. Or we could use public transport. Or better still, we shop online.
And most of all, we should avoid shooting fireworks. There are certainly other creative ways to make noise than burning sulfur and other harmful chemicals that poison the air.
A “green Christmas” may sound like taking away the fun from Christmas. It surely does sound like that but it’s only a matter of redefining our perspective. Global warming—manifested increasingly each day in unpredictable weather and destructive droughts and storms and other “inconvenient truths”— is a real issue all must confront squarely. Who knows, by pursuing a green Christmas, we may yet bring back the true spirit of the season, the original idea about the Messiah who came upon the world to save us from ourselves.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Global warming creates uncertainties for the Philippine economy
ARE we prepared for the new reality fostered by global warming? That’s a big question we should ponder as we count our losses, bury our dead and try to get back on our feet after Typhoons Reming and Milenyo.
It’s a material question since it seems we haven’t seen the last of these supertyphoons that pack winds strong enough to peel off roofs and destroy much of our budding hopes for a better future. It’s a new reality that we need to confront squarely if we want to sustain the economic momentum of the last three years.
Prior to Milenyo, observers said the Philippine economy was “on the mend” and cited the upgrades in sovereign rating, the all-time highs in the stock market, the double-digit growth rates in exports, and the improving tax collection of the government. In fact, before the supertyphoons, top Neda officials were walking around with PowerPoint presentations projecting the economy as headed for a continuous climb to a 5.5-percent to 6.2-percent growth rate this year.
Neda was confident of attaining such growth targets as the economy, its top officials kept saying, has new growth drivers—electronics, outsourcing, crop production and agro-processing, livestock and poultry, aquaculture, furniture and fixtures, transport equipment, mining, hotels and restaurants, medical tourism, construction, and shipbuilding.
The PowerPoint slides were convincing: in the last few years the numbers indeed were improving. Investments were breaching the one-billion-dollar mark, tourist arrivals were growing at double-digit rates and foreign currency reserves kept posting record highs, the peso has been gaining strength, and the national government deficit has been improving significantly from more than 4 percent of GDP to about 2 percent this year.
Then came supertyphoons Milenyo, Paeng and Reming. Suddenly everything changed. Coming after Neda’s announcement the industry sector slowed down in the third quarter, Reming’s fury highlighted the possibility that the economy is probably losing steam and could no longer achieve the growth targets.
The statistics, specifically the monthly integrated survey of selected industries (Missi), had been showing these negative signs all along, yet government planners ignored them and regaled themselves with the other numbers that seemed to be doing well.
But Reming was a reality check, unmasking the vulnerability of such growth, forcing the government to accept the targets are a tall order. Sales of manufactures, said the usually optimistic Donald Dee, president of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, are tepid even as we approach Christmas. And this is likely to worsen as the farms lost much buying power to the forces of nature.
The government just released the November inflation rate confirming the continuing slide of the consumer price index. That’s nice, except that it confirms Donald Dee’s observation about weak sales in the run-up to Christmas. Besides, electricity, gas and water, the consumer price index on most items, especially food, beverages, and tobacco; clothing; services; and miscellaneous manufactures are sliding. It could mean people are not buying, either because they don’t have much money or they feel so uncertain they’d rather save for a rainy day.
We’re back to reality and we better be prepared for the worst. If talk about global warming is accurate, we could expect more crazy weather (e.g. increasing frequency of supertyphoons followed by withering dry spells) that could ruin the technocrats’ planning models. There’s probably no more Milenyo or Reming very soon, but we all know that an El Niño is already under way.
What does Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (Pagasa) say about this? “Based on the latest observations and international forecast models, intensification of the El Niño episode is expected during the next three months and will likely continue through April to June 2007.”
There you go. We are going from the supertyphoon to another dry spell. While that may not cost so much lives and limbs, it might hobble the economy further through low agricultural growth, and trigger another water crisis in Metro Manila as previous storms failed to fill the dams that store water for the metropolis. Are we prepared for this?
Global warming may have introduced a new source of uncertainty for the economy. Neda may have to revisit its plans and programs to see if it’s still attuned with the times.
The greater variability of weather suggests we may have to work harder to boost the manufacturing sector by lowering tariffs for their inputs and the cost of electricity. We may have to enhance economy-wide competitiveness by introducing more competition in shipping and port operations, telecommunications, and banking. We should strengthen outsourcing and cyberservices by restoring English as the medium of instruction and beefing up general education. We need to train more skilled workers in engineering and construction to meet rising demand for these workers here and abroad.
Neda periodically prepares the regional physical framework plan on which all programs and projects are based. The Neda staff must revise them to highlight danger zones and strengthen the framework for coordination in disaster management.
The government may have to reorient programs toward drought-resistant crops, the use of efficient irrigation systems (like drip irrigation) and the deployment of shallow tube wells in strategic agricultural zones. Over the medium and long term, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Science and Technology will have to focus research to these.
Most of all, we need to get serious with our environmental programs, including reforestation, watershed protection and the preservation of water bodies. Simple lip service and a business-as-usual attitude will not do.
For almost a decade, policy analysts have talked of the need to use economic instruments (e.g. variable levies, charges and taxes) to provide incentives for responsible behavior among consumers. For instance, the National Water Resources Board should reflect the true cost of water by detailing expenses in water-source development and charging a variable fee based on water level at the Angat and La Mesa dams. If water is cheap on rainy days and gets expensive as the dry season wears on, people will be forced not to use potable water to irrigate their lawns and wash their cars.
At bottom, adjustment requires something of each one, the government especially. But the cost of inaction will be worse. (Photo credit: http://images.epilogue.net/users/dearden/Global_Warming.jpg)
It’s a material question since it seems we haven’t seen the last of these supertyphoons that pack winds strong enough to peel off roofs and destroy much of our budding hopes for a better future. It’s a new reality that we need to confront squarely if we want to sustain the economic momentum of the last three years.
Prior to Milenyo, observers said the Philippine economy was “on the mend” and cited the upgrades in sovereign rating, the all-time highs in the stock market, the double-digit growth rates in exports, and the improving tax collection of the government. In fact, before the supertyphoons, top Neda officials were walking around with PowerPoint presentations projecting the economy as headed for a continuous climb to a 5.5-percent to 6.2-percent growth rate this year.
Neda was confident of attaining such growth targets as the economy, its top officials kept saying, has new growth drivers—electronics, outsourcing, crop production and agro-processing, livestock and poultry, aquaculture, furniture and fixtures, transport equipment, mining, hotels and restaurants, medical tourism, construction, and shipbuilding.
The PowerPoint slides were convincing: in the last few years the numbers indeed were improving. Investments were breaching the one-billion-dollar mark, tourist arrivals were growing at double-digit rates and foreign currency reserves kept posting record highs, the peso has been gaining strength, and the national government deficit has been improving significantly from more than 4 percent of GDP to about 2 percent this year.
Then came supertyphoons Milenyo, Paeng and Reming. Suddenly everything changed. Coming after Neda’s announcement the industry sector slowed down in the third quarter, Reming’s fury highlighted the possibility that the economy is probably losing steam and could no longer achieve the growth targets.
The statistics, specifically the monthly integrated survey of selected industries (Missi), had been showing these negative signs all along, yet government planners ignored them and regaled themselves with the other numbers that seemed to be doing well.
But Reming was a reality check, unmasking the vulnerability of such growth, forcing the government to accept the targets are a tall order. Sales of manufactures, said the usually optimistic Donald Dee, president of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, are tepid even as we approach Christmas. And this is likely to worsen as the farms lost much buying power to the forces of nature.
The government just released the November inflation rate confirming the continuing slide of the consumer price index. That’s nice, except that it confirms Donald Dee’s observation about weak sales in the run-up to Christmas. Besides, electricity, gas and water, the consumer price index on most items, especially food, beverages, and tobacco; clothing; services; and miscellaneous manufactures are sliding. It could mean people are not buying, either because they don’t have much money or they feel so uncertain they’d rather save for a rainy day.
We’re back to reality and we better be prepared for the worst. If talk about global warming is accurate, we could expect more crazy weather (e.g. increasing frequency of supertyphoons followed by withering dry spells) that could ruin the technocrats’ planning models. There’s probably no more Milenyo or Reming very soon, but we all know that an El Niño is already under way.
What does Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (Pagasa) say about this? “Based on the latest observations and international forecast models, intensification of the El Niño episode is expected during the next three months and will likely continue through April to June 2007.”
There you go. We are going from the supertyphoon to another dry spell. While that may not cost so much lives and limbs, it might hobble the economy further through low agricultural growth, and trigger another water crisis in Metro Manila as previous storms failed to fill the dams that store water for the metropolis. Are we prepared for this?
Global warming may have introduced a new source of uncertainty for the economy. Neda may have to revisit its plans and programs to see if it’s still attuned with the times.
The greater variability of weather suggests we may have to work harder to boost the manufacturing sector by lowering tariffs for their inputs and the cost of electricity. We may have to enhance economy-wide competitiveness by introducing more competition in shipping and port operations, telecommunications, and banking. We should strengthen outsourcing and cyberservices by restoring English as the medium of instruction and beefing up general education. We need to train more skilled workers in engineering and construction to meet rising demand for these workers here and abroad.
Neda periodically prepares the regional physical framework plan on which all programs and projects are based. The Neda staff must revise them to highlight danger zones and strengthen the framework for coordination in disaster management.
The government may have to reorient programs toward drought-resistant crops, the use of efficient irrigation systems (like drip irrigation) and the deployment of shallow tube wells in strategic agricultural zones. Over the medium and long term, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Science and Technology will have to focus research to these.
Most of all, we need to get serious with our environmental programs, including reforestation, watershed protection and the preservation of water bodies. Simple lip service and a business-as-usual attitude will not do.
For almost a decade, policy analysts have talked of the need to use economic instruments (e.g. variable levies, charges and taxes) to provide incentives for responsible behavior among consumers. For instance, the National Water Resources Board should reflect the true cost of water by detailing expenses in water-source development and charging a variable fee based on water level at the Angat and La Mesa dams. If water is cheap on rainy days and gets expensive as the dry season wears on, people will be forced not to use potable water to irrigate their lawns and wash their cars.
At bottom, adjustment requires something of each one, the government especially. But the cost of inaction will be worse. (Photo credit: http://images.epilogue.net/users/dearden/Global_Warming.jpg)
Monday, October 09, 2006
City in a cage
WHAT is Bayani Fernando trying to prove? That Filipinos are animals that need to be controlled, manipulated through cages, bullying cops and physical barriers?
At the rate he is erecting visually intrusive iron cages in every corner of the metropolis, we will wake up one day to find our cities destroyed and freedom of movement curbed liked chicken trapped in a wire.
When President Arroyo appointed Fernando chairman of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) in 2001, many residents hoped he could replicate, albeit on limited basis, what he has achieved in Marikina. Until now, Marikina is tidy, orderly and well-managed, proving to the world that Filipinos could actually clean up their surroundings, provided they elect leaders with common sense and with the will to implement zoning ordinances, rules and regulations. It ranks among those well-governed places like Puerto Princesa and Naga, cities smart enough to elect innovative and effective leaders.
When Fernando started cleaning up sidewalks by removing physical barriers to human traffic we applauded him. Here was a guy who means business, who doesn’t care about being unpopular if only to bring comfort to pedestrians.
We supported him when he started going against those grimy, topless drunks drifting around, vexing passersby. And, even if it looked so much like a publicity stunt, companies supported him by donating deodorants in his efforts to rid the streets of sweaty, stinking sando-wearing jeepney drivers. Surely, we need cleanliness in the streets and the drivers’ armpits are the most strategic places to start if we have to bring Metro Manila into the 21st century.
In an urban setting people should respect their fellowmen by behaving accordingly. That’s the essence of urbanidad (urbanism), the catchphrase with which Fernando justifies his actions. In simpler terms, urbanism means people should be taught the sophistication needed to live in crowded urban areas. It means people should not litter, not urinate against the wall, use the traffic lights; pedestrians should cross only on pedestrian lanes, should not engage in long, loud karaoke sessions in the neighborhood, or let their dogs relieve themselves on sidewalks. Most important, drivers should follow traffic laws. In all this, public education would play a big role.
Under Fernando, we had higher expectations that—together with Manila’s mayors and barangay chairmen—he would embark on a serious campaign to promote this behavior among Metro Manilans. He had the support of well- meaning citizens and the corporate world to catalyze an Urban Revolution.
We knew he did not have the charm of a Juan Flavier when he was at the Department of Health, but at least we expected even a fraction of Flavier’s ability to get things done without bullying people. Who can argue that Filipinos are among the most hard-headed people, and our drivers are always held up as models of road barbarism? But Flavier proved that even a hard-headed populace, if educated and motivated enough, could be prodded to act for its own sake. Defying skepticism, he organized the world’s first multivaccine national immunization campaign, and achieved universal coverage for it, drawing praise from the UN no less. Flavier succeeded even with modest resources because he multiplied his charm—he got private firms and other state agencies to help; got the military and communist rebels to honor a nationwide cease-fire just to let health workers reach remote villages; and got mass media to give free services and air time.
Since Fernando was an organization man and seemed to have the right vision, people reposed hope in him as they did with Flavier. Instead, he embarked on inane projects that distracted people from their noble purpose: pink urinals, the wet blankets to force people into using the sidewalks, U-turn slots, and lately, the pink cages to herd weary commuters into buses. The pink urinals are ugly and stink, the wet blankets downright fascistic, and the cages visually intrusive and mean—all of them don’t achieve the desired results.
Citizens thought Fernando’s pink urinals were just temporary, to be replaced later by better comfort rooms, and complimented by a massive awareness program. It turned out later the pink urinals are the end-all and the be-all—institutionalizing an inappropriate behavior that should have no place in an urban context. If he wanted to eliminate pissing against the wall, all he had to do was look at Manila Mayor Lito Atienza who eliminated the pink urinals and installed clean comfort rooms in the right places in Manila.
Metro Manila is going against the trend of modern urban traffic management. Instead of computerizing the traffic system, and educating traffic enforcers and pedestrians, Fernando had a simple solution: the U-turn slot. Without consulting traffic planners, he erected them all over the metropolis, causing traffic chokepoints at strategic areas. Traffic engineers say that installing a U-turn slot creates more traffic-flow conflict and therefore prone to traffic accidents.
But the nastiest of them all are really the pink cages. You could see them quickly expanding all around Metro Manila now, especially in central places like Quezon Avenue and Edsa and Baclaran. Garish and ugly, these cages restrict a pedestrian’s movements, causing inconvenience among people at peak hours. A commuter who disembarks on Quezon Avenue—especially the MRT station—during rains will have to suffer long walks through the cages if only to get a ride. The junction at the corner of Edsa-Quezon Avenue itself, a public space, is now an ugly parking garage for taxis and jeepneys peddling their services to passengers who walk along the narrow, caged and crowded pathways.
Why do they need the cage? Because the U-turn slot at the intersection of Quezon Avenue and Edsa has become a chokepoint, so they’d rather control people if they can’t control the vehicles. So here is a case of one silly measure, a U-turn slot, being compounded by another silly one like the cage. We are not even talking here of aesthetics, which those pink cages have totally destroyed. Come to think of it, Binay’s Makati also has fences for traffic control, but they are nowhere near as repulsive as the pink chicken cages at Edsa. Beyond aesthetics and inconvenience, there’s also safety: not a few people complain that the “cages” make them easy prey for robbers, who can easily stick a knife into them in certain dark, narrow parts of the cages.
These cages signal a certain mean-spiritedness, or a complete insensitivity to those who can’t afford cars. Chairman Fernando seems to have a dim view of humanity; he looks at ordinary people as creatures who need to be controlled through physical barriers and violence at all times, when in truth there are ways by which he could get them to stop jaywalking, if that’s his purpose.
At the rate he is erecting visually intrusive iron cages in every corner of the metropolis, we will wake up one day to find our cities destroyed and freedom of movement curbed liked chicken trapped in a wire.
When President Arroyo appointed Fernando chairman of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) in 2001, many residents hoped he could replicate, albeit on limited basis, what he has achieved in Marikina. Until now, Marikina is tidy, orderly and well-managed, proving to the world that Filipinos could actually clean up their surroundings, provided they elect leaders with common sense and with the will to implement zoning ordinances, rules and regulations. It ranks among those well-governed places like Puerto Princesa and Naga, cities smart enough to elect innovative and effective leaders.
When Fernando started cleaning up sidewalks by removing physical barriers to human traffic we applauded him. Here was a guy who means business, who doesn’t care about being unpopular if only to bring comfort to pedestrians.
We supported him when he started going against those grimy, topless drunks drifting around, vexing passersby. And, even if it looked so much like a publicity stunt, companies supported him by donating deodorants in his efforts to rid the streets of sweaty, stinking sando-wearing jeepney drivers. Surely, we need cleanliness in the streets and the drivers’ armpits are the most strategic places to start if we have to bring Metro Manila into the 21st century.
In an urban setting people should respect their fellowmen by behaving accordingly. That’s the essence of urbanidad (urbanism), the catchphrase with which Fernando justifies his actions. In simpler terms, urbanism means people should be taught the sophistication needed to live in crowded urban areas. It means people should not litter, not urinate against the wall, use the traffic lights; pedestrians should cross only on pedestrian lanes, should not engage in long, loud karaoke sessions in the neighborhood, or let their dogs relieve themselves on sidewalks. Most important, drivers should follow traffic laws. In all this, public education would play a big role.
Under Fernando, we had higher expectations that—together with Manila’s mayors and barangay chairmen—he would embark on a serious campaign to promote this behavior among Metro Manilans. He had the support of well- meaning citizens and the corporate world to catalyze an Urban Revolution.
We knew he did not have the charm of a Juan Flavier when he was at the Department of Health, but at least we expected even a fraction of Flavier’s ability to get things done without bullying people. Who can argue that Filipinos are among the most hard-headed people, and our drivers are always held up as models of road barbarism? But Flavier proved that even a hard-headed populace, if educated and motivated enough, could be prodded to act for its own sake. Defying skepticism, he organized the world’s first multivaccine national immunization campaign, and achieved universal coverage for it, drawing praise from the UN no less. Flavier succeeded even with modest resources because he multiplied his charm—he got private firms and other state agencies to help; got the military and communist rebels to honor a nationwide cease-fire just to let health workers reach remote villages; and got mass media to give free services and air time.
Since Fernando was an organization man and seemed to have the right vision, people reposed hope in him as they did with Flavier. Instead, he embarked on inane projects that distracted people from their noble purpose: pink urinals, the wet blankets to force people into using the sidewalks, U-turn slots, and lately, the pink cages to herd weary commuters into buses. The pink urinals are ugly and stink, the wet blankets downright fascistic, and the cages visually intrusive and mean—all of them don’t achieve the desired results.
Citizens thought Fernando’s pink urinals were just temporary, to be replaced later by better comfort rooms, and complimented by a massive awareness program. It turned out later the pink urinals are the end-all and the be-all—institutionalizing an inappropriate behavior that should have no place in an urban context. If he wanted to eliminate pissing against the wall, all he had to do was look at Manila Mayor Lito Atienza who eliminated the pink urinals and installed clean comfort rooms in the right places in Manila.
Metro Manila is going against the trend of modern urban traffic management. Instead of computerizing the traffic system, and educating traffic enforcers and pedestrians, Fernando had a simple solution: the U-turn slot. Without consulting traffic planners, he erected them all over the metropolis, causing traffic chokepoints at strategic areas. Traffic engineers say that installing a U-turn slot creates more traffic-flow conflict and therefore prone to traffic accidents.
But the nastiest of them all are really the pink cages. You could see them quickly expanding all around Metro Manila now, especially in central places like Quezon Avenue and Edsa and Baclaran. Garish and ugly, these cages restrict a pedestrian’s movements, causing inconvenience among people at peak hours. A commuter who disembarks on Quezon Avenue—especially the MRT station—during rains will have to suffer long walks through the cages if only to get a ride. The junction at the corner of Edsa-Quezon Avenue itself, a public space, is now an ugly parking garage for taxis and jeepneys peddling their services to passengers who walk along the narrow, caged and crowded pathways.
Why do they need the cage? Because the U-turn slot at the intersection of Quezon Avenue and Edsa has become a chokepoint, so they’d rather control people if they can’t control the vehicles. So here is a case of one silly measure, a U-turn slot, being compounded by another silly one like the cage. We are not even talking here of aesthetics, which those pink cages have totally destroyed. Come to think of it, Binay’s Makati also has fences for traffic control, but they are nowhere near as repulsive as the pink chicken cages at Edsa. Beyond aesthetics and inconvenience, there’s also safety: not a few people complain that the “cages” make them easy prey for robbers, who can easily stick a knife into them in certain dark, narrow parts of the cages.
These cages signal a certain mean-spiritedness, or a complete insensitivity to those who can’t afford cars. Chairman Fernando seems to have a dim view of humanity; he looks at ordinary people as creatures who need to be controlled through physical barriers and violence at all times, when in truth there are ways by which he could get them to stop jaywalking, if that’s his purpose.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Government should get real on car pooling
WILL the country’s transport managers please get serious with car or van pooling? It’s the best way to help reduce the stress of rush-hour commuting that perennially plagues private and public sector workers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)