Circulating everywhere, online discussions, and on-site alike, is the question of the cause/s of flooding in Palawan. Each answer could probably be construed as “biased.” It depends on whose side one is on. For some, it is about drainage or the lack of it; some point to climate change or a natural phenomenon; some blame improper agricultural practices; some find deforestation culpable; some lash out at mining; some on structures that impede the natural flow of water; and so on and so forth. In Brazil, and in other countries where the Amazon is located, they find fault with cattle ranching, not deforestation as everybody would usually think, as the cause of the destruction of the world’s largest contiguous landscape.
For its part, PCSD, or the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, sees, on top of it all, poverty as the cause of environmental destruction in Palawan, a province acknowledged as the Last Ecological Frontier. The question now arises as to whether or not we should agree with this view. Naniniwala ba tayo na kahirapan nga ba ang sanhi ng pagbaha sa Palawan? Atty. Teodoro Jose Matta, its Executive Director, said poverty drives people to cut trees, resort to kaingin, and thereby denude the forests altogether. The claim quickly gained widespread attention. Online comments had gone overboard, turning nasty, which could be somewhat undeserved for Atty. Matta, whom I know as a decent person and a gentle soul. As a result, the real issue gets muddled. No thanks to name-calling or to politicking.
On the claim, courtesy of Atty. Matta as Executive Director of PCSD (Palawan Council for Sustainable Development), that poverty is the cause of environmental destruction, a question is now on the table whether to agree or not to agree with it. Naniniwala ba tayo na kahirapan nga ba ang sanhi ng pagbaha sa Palawan? It appears that such an assertion has downplayed mining as not the real culprit to whatever we have now and whatever we do not have in Palawan, known to be the Ecological Last Frontier.
It goes without saying that not too few comments went overboard to becoming nasty, which could be somewhat undeserved for Atty. Matta, whom I know as one decent person and a gentle soul. As a result, the real issue gets muddled. No thanks to name-calling or to politicking.
Is poverty really it? The answer could be “yes,” but it could also be “no.”
Needless to say, mining is a legitimate industry. In fact, it is considered pivotal in terms of economic growth, progress in infrastructures, advancement in engineering and technology, etc. In other words, mining, like other industries and enterprises, is but just part and parcel of human living. In this same vein is forestry or logging. Among others, it provides for our homes, furniture, and papers. Both mining and logging generate job opportunities that have the potential to significantly combat poverty. In such a manner, mining and logging are ways of God just the same, and the produce therefrom manifests His blessings.
Not unbeknownst to all, though, both industries carry with them a sort of stigma. Scientific studies, economic calculations, and real-life stories reveal that mining is destructive while logging is detrimental. As such, how would it solve poverty? Worse, it could be that the presumed instrument is turning out to be a weapon in making the poor even poorer. Where could the issue be found? For her part, in her recent visit to Palawan, Senator Imee Marcos had this to say, “Very, very sloppy ang ating regulatory commission at yun ang kinakatakutan natin.” She is neither a “no, nor a “yes.”. She could be biding time. In other words, “not yet.” Could “not yet” be construed here as a temporary suspension, which means to say moratorium? Pray tell, Madame Senator.
Be that as it may, poverty still remains the issue.
One could conclude from simple logic that the poor are responsible for environmental watchamacallits. If so, are their acts at the expense of nature justified since they are poor anyway? Does poverty give them the right to cut trees and mine the boondocks? But even if they do have the right and just reason, why is poverty still persistent and prevailing around them and in them? Could it be that the poor ones could also be victims and, at the same time, victimizers?
As has been acknowledged since time immemorial, the fisherfolk, the farmers, and our brethren in the indigenous tribes (the IPs) bear the brunt of the starkest poverty. I so happen to live with and among them for several years now. A big majority of my parishioners live below poverty level. And as a parish, we come down as at the record low in terms of income compared to the rest. What is rather astonishing, perhaps just yet, is that I can still see around us green forests and intact mountain ranges. That it still is could be credited to the fact that people in our barrio here would perceive nature and believe in creation. The IPs, for example, do not only see the environment as a means of living but also as life itself. Let alone a life that is divine. As such, acts against nature are tantamount to desecration.
Lest we forget, somebody said this a long time ago, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God.” (Lk. 6:20) To wit, poverty is to be seen as an opportunity. And to such a degree, it could not simply be the cause of something problematic. An effect it could be. Of itself then, poverty indeed can be an opportunity to look far and wide, as well as to look into our very selves. Mother Teresa of Calcutta would remind us thus, “The lack of love is the greatest poverty.”
