In a recent congressional committee meeting, a Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) representative stated that while the agency's strategy remains focused on hard-engineering, gray infrastructure projects, they are now integrating more nature-based perspectives into their planning and decision-making. However, this does not seem to apply to the rationale behind the Boracay bridge project.
Gray Matter
When there is an infrastructure project in a municipality, we usually hear in the news that local government and the communities have differing opinions. But in the case of this project, both the provincial and municipal governments are against it. The communities are obviously not in favor of this project. Even the local chamber of commerce is not too keen about this.
Yet the DPWH approved it anyway because it is a project of "national significance." While the proponent must address all concerns before proceeding with the groundwork, it is a clear statement that the needs of those that actually live in the area are less significant than the wants of bureaucrats and billionaires staying in Metro Manila. But neither entity seems to understand or recognize the reality of small islands like Boracay having small carrying capacities. Contrary to what Sec. Vince Dizon said, it is not just about the sustainability of the infrastructure; what is more important is the sustainability of the island itself.
Instead of listening to the locals that actually know their area better than the national decision-makers, his department instead cares more about pandering to those whose bank accounts already have way too much money. So much for the "bottom-up" or "needs-based" approach that the government loves to bring up during every climate or environmental forum. It does not help that the proponent has a dubious track record in addressing all concerns in other projects - airport, expressways, hydro power plants, among others.
Green Matter
And one of those projects involves another expressway within an already congested Metro Manila. Among the adverse impacts of this endeavor is the pending loss of 617 trees along Quirino Avenue, as approved by the DENR-NCR. It has justifiably received widespread backlash, yet the damage is already done. While planting more than 50 thousand seedlings within the city is a welcomed move to expand its currently-limited green spaces, removing those mature trees hinders solutions to problems in the city -- flood mitigation, shade during extremely hot days, or cleaning its polluted air. When these hazards hit the area again, that elevated road will not help in addressing them.
Only a few days after the news broke out, another DENR unit formally presented the Philippine Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2024 to 2040. It contains strategies for the likes of ecosystem and species conservation, rehabilitation of denuded areas, addressing threats to biodiversity such as pollution and climate change, and increasing green spaces.
Too bad these trees were not part of a protected area because maybe the government would seriously think about not cutting them down or treat them as objects that can easily be offset through another action. Then again, given how many of these critical biodiversity sites are lacking in proper management in conservation efforts on the ground, perhaps not.
Similar to the previous case, the government once again fails to listen to the needs of surrounding communities, many of whom will have to endure the consequences of another infrastructure project that only benefits a minority of the population in exchange for its already-small tree cover.
No Development
Among national agencies with recent good reputations, the DPWH and the DENR are closer to the bottom of the list -- the former largely due to the flood control scandals and the latter due to its tendency to approve projects that could cause even more environmental harm.
Both agencies have changed their respective leaders in recent times, with promises of reform and breaking away from bad habits. They also have made some good policies as well. Yet these decisions indicate that in many ways, it is still "business-as-usual."
Business interests are still prioritized over community needs. Despite the public clamor for nature-based solutions, gray infrastructure projects are still favored. Decision-making remains "top-down," with national policymaking that is inconsistent and fragmented among and within agencies. Development is still largely viewed via economic benefits without full accounting of social and environmental impacts.
Yes, there are policies in place that need to be either implemented or updated -- full implementation of the Philippine Ecosystem and Natural Capital Accounting System Act, amending the Local Government Code to enable local governments to override decisions pertaining to projects of national significance, stopping the current "award now, settle later" approach for such projects, and overhauling the Environmental Impact Assessment system, to name a few.
But ultimately, what matters more is if decision-makers stop seeing safeguards as mere compliance exercises. It matters that they stop looking at policy gaps as reasons to conveniently fast-track favored projects. It matters that they genuinely listen to the concerns of those who actually live in proposed project sites more than the rich proponents just because they have the capital.
When the next storm floods Manila or if that bridge is built towards the country's most famous tourist spot that had already been closed down before due to environmental damages, will these government officials that gave the go-ahead be held accountable? Or the project proponents?
In an era where accountability in Philippine governance is at its weakest in decades, why do our leaders seem to double-down on questionable decision-making, like putting even more roads within a congested metropolis? Just because something is not illegal does not always mean it is right.
Then again, the odds are the hair of today's youth will turn as gray as DPWH's favorite infrastructure type before we see any meaningful, systemic changes. Hopefully, this will not be the case.
