Home | To bottom

The essence of Philippine Agenda 21

By ARTHUR KILLIP JR.

It has been 16 years since the drafting of the Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development (PSSD), and 9 years since the signing of Memorandum Order No 399 directing the operationalization of Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21) and monitoring its implementation.

PA 21 is the country’s version on comprehensive action plan on development prescribed by the United Nation’s convened conference on environment and development (UNCED) at the earth summit held at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. The UNCED action plan should have been implemented from then until the 21st century, hence, called Global Agenda 21, or plainly Agenda 21.

The Philippine version is a document representing the many points of agreement despite the diversity of people and interests in its making. It is supposed to be holistic in its approach to development, and should have been incorporated in the medium and longterm development plan of the country

Section 1.5, page 14 of the document states: “Operationally, sustainable development is development that draws out full human potentials across ages and generations, and is at the same time ecologically-friendly, economically-sound, politically-empowering, socially-just and equitable, spiritually-liberating, gender-sensitive, based on holistic and integrative science, technology-appropriate, builds upon Filipino values, history culture, and excellence, and rests on strong institutional foundation.”

As based on PA 21 draft consultations, the priority issues and concerns for the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) could be divided into four categories, which are agricultural, economics, environmental, and social concerns.

Agricultural concerns involve loss of agricultural lands, no national land use policy, impact of agriculture on marginal lands, idle agricultural lands, and improper use of fertilizers and pesticides.

Environmental concerns involve extinction of endemic plants and animals, loss of biodiversity, massive use of paper products, uncontrolled use of forest resources, mining activities, and the mining law and its ownership provisions that disenfranchises local communities of their mineral endowments.

The social concerns are need for recognition of indigenous peoples (IP) intellectual properties and ancestral domain claims; infringement of ancestral rights; massive infrastructure projects that threaten IPs and their lands; and lack of awareness on urban development projects.

The economic concerns involve food security and lack of economic incentives.

To be fully effective, as it is the strength of the development agenda, all actions required in the document must involve all sectors of society from government to individual members of the community. Programs, projects, and legislations should embody the general sentiment and not only be focused on a particular sector.

The reality confronting the Cordileras, however, is far from the agenda’s essence. On matters of consultation, sad to say, still has much to be desired. Consensus is not prevailing. Legislations, programs, and projects are not being discussed on their merits at the grass root level before being implemented or enacted. To be socially acceptable, a project should be endorsed by almost, if not all, sectors of the community.

From the San Roque Multi-purpose Dam to a fly over project to a water source and distribution system, some sectors perceive the non-revelation of complete details by the proponents.

There is even a provision in a certain law that directly opposes the Cordillera culture on eating dog meat. Whatever the purpose, is known only to the author of that law. One thing is sure, though, non-eaters of dog meat can not prove that they are culturally superior to dog meat eaters like this writer and most Cordillerans.

On environmental preservation and equitable use of resources, indigenous practices have proven to be superior than modern concepts. The muyong system of the Ifugaos on watershed management and the lampisa system of Sagada on irrigation water management are two examples why the rice terraces in the Cordillera survived hundred of years. This is sustainable development in its purest sense.

The introduction of a title or tax declaration as proof of land ownership is slowly destroying the effective indigenous practices on resource management.

The cal of the times, therefore, is for all Cordillerans to get involved. The Cordillerans, as one, should strive to correct and reject dysfunctional legislation, programs, and projects. Everybody should contribute to the planning and implementation of anything that directly affects him or her. Retain and improve what is proven to be effective and adjust to the necessities called for by the times. These could be achieved if the people will think and actively act as one for no one could make the Cordillera great but the Cordillerans themselves. #

(The author is an Environment/sanitary engineer with the Baguio Heath Department involved in the city’s water concerns and regreening campaign.)

Home | Back to top