Reclamation: More harm than good?

can provide additional sources of income for government in the form of taxes from enterprises and factories that choose to locate in reclaimed land.

But reclamation also has its downside. While it sounds like a good developmental idea, it may not be as sound as we might think.

They cite the reduction of fishing grounds which can threaten food security.

Once land reclamation starts, they foresee incalculable damage to mangroves, seagrass and corals. And reclamation will also lead to the displacement of people in coastal areas.

RECLAMATION offers coastal countries in various parts of the world the prospect of expanding their land area and hence create more opportunities for economic growth.

In an archipelago like the Philippines whose territory consists of more than 7,100 islands, reclamation is an attractive and convenient option for the government and the private sector to collaborate in making reclaimed land serve economic development goals.

At present, there are a number of proposed and ongoing land reclamation projects.

There were 50 reclamation projects in various stages of construction across the country as of September 2022.

Of these, 20 projects have been approved by the Philippine Reclamation Agency (PRA), while 24 are still in the application stage. The estimated total area of reclamation projects nationwide is 11,800 hectares.

The Bulacan Aerotropolis being built north of Manila by one of the country’s biggest business conglomerates is one such reclamation project.

It will reclaim land from the coast of Bulakan municipality to build a new airport, thus decongesting the old, run-down Manila International Airport.

At the same time, the modern airport can contribute immensely to over-all economic growth It is true that reclamation has huge potential to contribute to sustainable development goals.

There are reclamation projects abroad from which the Philippines can draw valuable lessons.

The reclamation project undertaken in the port of Rotterdam, Netherlands, for instance, is considered a big success as extensive studies have shown that it led to innovative practices and improved social and environmental conditions, apart from complying with strict safety standards and producing economic and social benefits. Reclamation projects, therefore, can yield additional land that can be tapped for residential, commercial and industrial uses.

Once completed, reclamation projects

Reclamation projects already approved for implementation by previous administrations appear to have proceeded without due consideration to their adverse economic, environmental and social impacts. Reclamation projects should be part of an over-all economic development program.

Last April 22, 2023, on Earth Day, groups renewed their call for the government to stop reclamation and dredging projects without the required Environmental Impact Study (EIS).

They are one in saying that reclamation, dump-and-fill, dredging and seabed quarrying would lead to habitat destruction and biodiversity loss.

What they are urging the government to do now is to review all proposed and ongoing projects to determine whether they will be beneficial or harmful to the economy and the environment.

A concrete step along this direction is the recent move by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to convene an experts’ forum to review the government’s policy on reclamation and to craft recommendations on how this can be improved so that it results in sustainable development rather than cause adverse economic, environmental and social costs.

They should also obtain the required environmental compliance certificates from the DENR. Moreover, they should undertake proper consultation with the affected communities, such as fisherfolk, since this sector faces the threat of loss of livelihood once the reclamation project gets off the ground.

NGOs opposed to reclamation projects have raised other questions.

Why are reclamation projects already being awarded to proponents when the supposed masterplan that will govern them is still non-existent? Do these projects even have feasibility studies that will justify the clearing of mangroves and coast-filling already undertaken by reclamation companies?

Kalikasan-People’s Network for the Environment (Kalikasan-PNE) and the People’s Network for the Integrity of Coastal Habitats and Ecosystems (People’s NICHE) are among the non-government organizations opposed to reclamation projects.

The forum seeks to foster dialogue among experts and stakeholders to generate insights on reclamation, identify entry points as well as gaps in policy, and obtain expert recommendations on what policies should be put in place at both the national and local levels to make reclamation serve development goals.

The expected output of the experts’ forum is a set of policy guidelines that will inform the review of existing reclamation laws and policies.

The DENR has pointed out that while the recently launched Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028 prioritizes economic growth and a conducive business environment to increase public-private partnerships (PPPs) in various sectors, it also seeks to protect the environment and strengthen community resilience from climate change hazards.

In the end, what matters is what President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., said in his first State of the Nation Address (SONA) in July last year. He emphasized: “Companies who exploit our natural resources must follow the law… there is no question that the preservation of the environment is the preservation of lives.”

(Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)

Japan to push disarmament in Hiroshima, with modest hopes

HIROSHIMA, Japan—Japan hosts G7 leaders in Hiroshima this week hoping to drive home the dangers of nuclear weapons and push for progress on disarmament.

But with North Korea and Russia making nuclear threats, and China growing its arsenal, there may be little appetite for bold action on Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s stated goal of a “world free of nuclear weapons.”

Here are some questions and answers about nuclear weapons and what Japan hopes to achieve: Which G7 states are nuclear-armed?

Three G7 members—the United States, Britain and France—have nuclear arsenals, with Washington holding an estimated 5,244 warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

The figure, which includes stockpiled, reserve and retired warheads, dwarves the inventories of France and Britain, estimated by FAS at 290 and 225 respectively.

Several G7 members, however, either host

US nuclear weapons or are covered by the US “nuclear umbrella”—an expectation that Washington would deploy the weapons in their defense if necessary—including Japan.

What treaties cover nuclear weapons?

Perhaps the most famous treaty covering nuclear weapons remains the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT), which opened for signature in 1968.

A total of 191 states, including China, Russia, France, Britain and the United States are parties.

The core of the treaty is a pledge by nations not to acquire nuclear weapons if they do not have them, and for nuclear-armed countries to share peaceful technology while aiming to dismantle their arsenals.

However, in July 2017, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was adopted by over 100 UN states.

Campaigners view the more recent pact as filling the NPT’s “gaps” by demanding the elimination of nuclear weapons. No nuclear power has signed it and it is

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has said he chose Hiroshima for the G7 summit to help bring home the devastation that nuclear weapons cause actively opposed by some.

France and the United States last year called it “at odds with the existing non-proliferation and disarmament architecture.”

Japan is not party to the TPNW.

What about other nuclear powers?

There are nine nuclear-armed states in the world: the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel, which does not officially acknowledge its arsenal.

FAS estimates most nuclear-armed states are working to increase their arsenal, with only Washington decreasing its stockpile, and those of France and Israel seen as stable.

The spectre of nuclear weapons use has reemerged in recent months, with fresh missile tests by Pyongyang and thinly veiled threats from Moscow about using the arms if it is attacked.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has pledged to deploy the weapons in neighbour and ally Belarus, and suspended participation in a treaty under which Moscow and Washington agreed to limit stockpiles.

China is also in the midst of the largest-ever expansion of its nuclear arsenal and could go from the estimated 400 warheads it now holds to 1,500 by 2035, according to the Pentagon.

What does Japan want?

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has said he chose Hiroshima for the G7 summit to help bring home the devastation that nuclear weapons cause.

He hopes to take leaders to the city’s Peace Park and museum, according to Japanese officials, where they will confront evidence of the horrifying aftermath of the nuclear bomb.

Kishida hopes for endorsement of his “Hiroshima Action Plan”, unveiled last year.

It urges a continued pledge never to use nuclear weapons, transparency on stockpiles, further arsenal reductions, a commitment to non-proliferation and an understanding of the “realities of nuclear weapons use.”

Expectations for concrete disarmament progress are low, however, with G7 foreign ministers explicitly noting last month the “current harsh security environment” in their language on nuclear weapons.

“Instead of another empty statement, the current nuclear risk level demands real action,” the International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons said in a statement last month.

It wants a “concrete, credible plan” for talks by all nuclear-armed states on eliminating nuclear weapons. AFP

Leaders of wider Europe unite against Russia too in Reykjavik

REYKJAVIK, Iceland – A year after kicking Russia out of the Council of Europe (CoE), the leaders of the 46-nation pan-continental rights body gather Tuesday in Iceland to show a united face against Moscow.

Firming up ways to hold Russia legally responsible for the death and destruction it has wrought in Ukraine will dominate the summit in Reykjavik, only the fourth to be held in the CoE's seven-decade history.

As of late Monday, there was no official word as to whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would take part in the summit. But he has been on a tour of major European capitals, with each stop publicly announced only just before arrival.

Along the way, Berlin, Paris and London all pledged to step up arms deliveries to Kyiv, deepening a military arrangement between the West and Ukraine that has helped put Russia on the back foot.

Ukraine is expected to mount an offensive against Russian forces in the east of its territory in coming weeks.

Zelensky tweeted that he was "returning home with new defence packages".

The CoE focuses on its mission to promote human rights, democracy and rule of law in its member states, which include all 27 European Union nations plus Britain, Turkey, Western Balkan countries, Georgia and Armenia.

Russia was kicked out of the CoE in March 2022, because of its invasion of Ukraine, just ahead of its plan to withdraw from the Strasbourg-based body.

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, who is attending the summit, said on Monday the EU will "keep supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes".

She said that, "in Reykjavik we will discuss how to hold Russia accountable" and "I will support the creation of a dedicated tribunal to bring Russia’s crime of aggression to trial".

Notably, she said, the summit will look to set up a register of damage in The Hague, where a special court could be set up as "a first step, and a good step, towards Russian compensation". - Russia isolated -

The commission and EU countries are in favour of setting up a special tribunal, likely in The Hague in the Netherlands where the International Criminal Court already sits, to judge Russian leaders and commanders.

That prospect, though, is pushed off to after what looks like it will be a long war, with Russia digging in and perhaps preparing its own spring attack on Ukrainian positions. AFP