Carrying capacity, anyone?

Residents affected and threatened by the ubiquitous traffic and concomitant increase in air pollution in the Banilad area in Cebu City as well as flooding due to the incessant rains, want a dialogue with the city government and state agencies.

There are also sectors in Guadalupe mulling legal options as a result of mudslides and flooding that occurred weeks back and, of course, the attendant displacements of victims.

As if frayed nerves and frustrated feelings do not matter, talks of six flyovers eyed to be constructed in the city abound.  It is unimaginable how more projects are going to be done without first looking at the traffic, pollution and flooding nightmare now haunting city dwellers.

The so-called “development” projects are taking their toll on us and the environment.  Usually done without complying with a basic legal requirement, that of genuine public participation especially by those most affected, government has instilled a policy of exclusion, where affected communities are excluded from the decision-making process.

Don’t we have rights to be consulted, speak out and be involved in issues that mean so much to us, our health and environment?

Flash floods are becoming a regular occurrence, no thanks to the change in our climate and the seemingly loose regulations and policies in place for projects that cause pollution and ecological disturbance. Floods happen simply because there are natural or man-made obstructions to the flow of the water. More cemented roads and concrete structures mean less capability for the soil to absorb rainfall. Worse, in approving these projects, drainage issues are not even being addressed.

To know how other countries ensure a flood carrying capacity for their road and waterways system, the website of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) of the US Department of Homeland Security is quite helpful:

“Alterations are often made to the channels of rivers, stream, or drainageways, usually to improve drainage, relocate the channel, or to increase its flood carrying capacity. There are two requirements for maintaining the flood carrying capacity of an altered watercourse. The altered or relocated watercourse must have the same or greater capacity as the original watercourse. Additionally, once the alteration is made, the capacity of the altered or relocated watercourse must be maintained over time.”

In addition, “If a development permit application proposes a stream alteration, the local official must notify adjacent communities… If an adverse impact is suspected, the neighboring community will be able to voice its concerns prior to any modification… It is recommended that the community require the submittal and approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for large-scale proposals…”

The massive fishkill in Taal Lake is another glaring consequence of a program and system  gone haywire. There were just too many fish pens allowed to operate by the LGU beyond the capacity of the ecosystem to support them. “Environmental carrying capacity for fish aquaculture is defined as the maximum number of fish of a given species that may be safely grown in the considered water body.” (Legovic, 2008)

A “model was developed to estimate the production carrying capacity of water bodies based on nutrient inputs from aquaculture and other sources, flushing rates, and the risk of algal blooms for three different areas of the Philippines – Bolinao (marine site), Dagupan (brackishwater site) and Taal Lake (freshwater site). The results suggest that aquaculture production in the Taal Lake was greater than the sustainable carrying  capacity.”

The study concludes that “aquacultures in the Taal Lake have overcome the carrying capacity. Aquacultures in Bolinao Bay are close to carrying capacity during average tidal exchange. This means that during low tidal exchange and no wind, carrying capacity has been overcome. Aquacultures in Dagupan section of the estuary have not overcome carrying capacity even during low flow. However during very low flow and no tidal flushing carrying, capacity has been overcome.” (https://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/sciencediliman/article/view/1452/1408)

What is lamentable is the government’s failure to listen to what the scientists had been saying as far back as 2007 or earlier. Yet, no one is held accountable.

How about our forest ecosystems? How far can ecosystems take on the relentless mining activities being done pursuant to the mining permits granted by authorities?

Our dear colleague, the brilliant Ben Cabrido, and the citizens and nongovernment organizations, request the Supreme Court to revisit the law and its implementation.  “Carrying capacity” as defined by the Mining Act “refers to the capacity of natural and human environments to accommodate and absorb change without experiencing conditions of instability and attendant degradation.”

Ben crafted the theory that the carrying capacity, as defined by R.A. 7942, Philippine Mining Act of 1995, as a standard to guide the decision makers, was overlooked by the implementing authorities. One hundred seventy tenements affecting a total land area of 808,269.09 hectares or about 51 percent of the region’s total land mass has been approved for Zamboanga Peninsula. The petition for Writ of Kalikasan seeks to  “effectuate the statutory definition of carrying capacity of our ecosystems and whether public respondents’ mindless issuances of mining tenements in biologically diverse Zamboanga peninsula have violated the principle of non regression.”

We are suffering and terribly inconvenienced by projects that are easily granted permits without taking into account nature’s carrying capacity, procedures required by the law and the sentiments of the people.

Do you agree that government should declare a moratorium  on these projects and listen, intently, if they have never done so,  to what their constituents and scientists have to say?

The carrying capacity of the people to withstand the disastrous impacts of non-participatory, unresponsive  and inefficient governance, has its limits. Let us not fail to learn from history.