Michael Glantz, a social scientist of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, says there is a critical distinction between climate and weather. Put simply, it is this: “Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get.” These days, however, we don’t know what to expect anymore even as we puzzle over what we are getting.
Last year, when typhoons Ondoy, Pepeng, Santi, and Urduja hit in quick succession, a vast swath of Northern Luzon was soaked in flash floods for weeks. There was so much water that the floodgates of the San Roque Dam had to be opened because it could no longer hold more rainfall. Yet in the following months, a severe dry spell practically parched the Angat Dam, putting thousands of Metro Manila households on a six-hour-a-day water ration.
Around the world, unusual conditions are also being observed: snowfall in Guadalajara, Mexico for the first time in 1998 since 1881, accelerated melting of glaciers in Greenland, eight successive cyclones in the Central Pacific in 1997 compared to two the year before, enormously devastating hurricanes in the United States, and a deadly tsunami in Indian Ocean in 2004.
What is happening? Why these sharp, sudden, stark reversals in weather patterns?
Climate change. Meteorologists, oceanographers, and climatologists are still trying to figure out what exactly this environmental aberration is, what causes it, and where it will lead us in the future. What we know thus far is that over the past century, we have been experiencing a temperamental cycle of extremely dry conditions and excessively wet seasons. We also know these climate mood swings by the names El Niño and La Niña.
Research has established a close link between climate change and human activities. It seems we are releasing too much carbon which causes greenhouse gases to build up in the atmosphere, making it warm, too warm, in fact, that it brings about large-scale changes in our climate system. When we destroy forests, for example, we unleash a vicious cycle. Transparency International explains that “First, [cutting trees] sets free stored carbon dioxide, estimated at twice the amount currently floating in the world’s atmosphere. Second, new studies show that climatic shifts caused by deforestation affect the ability of trees to function as the world’s ‘carbon sink’”(Corruption and Renewable Resources, 2007). It should be no surprise, then, that tropical deforestation accounts for between one fifth and one quarter of the total human contribution to greenhouse gases (Nelson and Chomitz, 2009). Meanwhile, according to the 2008 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agricultural activities contribute 12 percent to greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, Greenpeace International says emission rates are higher—anywhere from 16 percent to 30 percent—if we factor in land use, transportation, packaging, and processing.
In a communiqué, widely recognized as the definitive progressive statement from the international business and political community, the Copenhagen participants called for a bold, ambitious, optimistic, and equitable global deal: “The problem of climate change is solvable. Many of the technologies required are available today, while others can be developed if the right incentives are in place. The policies needed are relatively clear, and the costs of transition are manageable, even in the current economic climate. The one thing we do not have is time. Delay is not an option.” The idea is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere by investing in low-carbon products, services, technologies, and infrastructure.
There are three strategic responses to climate change: prevention, mitigation, and adaptation. Prevention focuses on reductions in emissions, mitigation on lessening the effect of global warming, and adaptation on adjusting to climatic changes.
While prevention is the ideal way out, La Viña et al. suggest that the most effective strategy in the context of Philippine development is the integration of mitigation with adaptation. “Adaptation is as much a development concern as mitigation,” they say. “Within the context of global-scale shifts in the climate system, development can only succeed with adaptation into the process.”
They identified four factors for the successful implementation of the Adaptation-Mitigation Framework, which calls for individual and collective participation. The first involves the development of science-based climate policies. To come up with these policies, local government units are in the best position to identify the impact of climate change on their respective areas of responsibility. They can adopt localized strategies appropriate and unique to their situations.
The second has to do with the use of market-based mechanisms to attract the use of cost-effective technologies and options to address climate change. Corporations and business organizations are identified as some of the main culprits for increasing greenhouse gas concentrations through their operations. They should therefore invest in technologies and projects that provide sustainable development benefits. Similarly, they should engage in using the carbon market to identify ways to reduce emissions in their manufacturing and operation processes.
Third, it is vital to invest in research and development in order to come up with better strategies to combat the impacts of climate change. Academe and research institutions can provide the technical and scientific research outputs for policymakers. One issue they can explore is the systematic observation of climate systems and their impact on the most vulnerable sectors of society, such as the poor who have no effective means to cope with flash floods or water crisis.
And the fourth factor revolves around the importance of effective capacity development and information awareness campaigns. With the right information, local government units, the media, civil society, and individual citizens can be effective agents of a low-carbon lifestyle.
Under the Rules, a court is empowered to issue an environmental protection order directing or enjoining any person or government agency to perform or desist from performing an act in order to protect, preserve, or rehabilitate the environment. It integrates both prohibitive and mandatory relief to address appropriately the factual circumstances surrounding the case. This remedial measure can also be sought in the writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus.
The writ of kalikasan, which contains a specific set of remedies which may be availed of individually or cumulatively, is available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or a private individual or entity. The violation should involve environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or such provinces. The petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan may be filed with the Supreme Court or with any branch of the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, the summary process leading to the issuance of the writ dispenses with extensive litigation, which means prompt disposition of the matters brought before the court.
As its name indicates, the writ of continuing mandamus permits the court to retain jurisdiction even after judgment in order to ensure the successful implementation of the relief mandated under the court’s decision. For this purpose, the court may compel the submission of compliance reports from the respondent government agencies as well as avail of other means to monitor compliance with its decision.
Both the writs of kalikasan and continuing mandamus exempt the petitioner from the payment of docket fees.
The petitioners seek to compel the Office of the President, the Department of Public Works and Highways, the Department of Interior and Local Government, and various local government units as class defendants to implement a 21-year-old law on rainwater collectors. Republic Act No. 6716, enacted in March 1989, mandates the DPWH to construct rainwater collectors and develop springs in every barangay in the country. With the passage of RA 7160, or the Local Government Code of 1991, the construction of rainwater collectors became a shared burden of the LGUs.
In a statement, the petitioners noted that “rainwater collectors have become increasingly important in light of the extremely wet and dry seasons climate change has brought upon the Philippines. During rainy seasons, rainwater collectors serve as catchment areas to prevent flooding; during dry seasons, they serve as sources of freshwater.” They also serve a myriad other purposes—from recharging aquifers, improving micro-climatic conditions, and providing recreation and spiritual soothing, to being home to food sources such as fish and vegetables.
RA 6716, according to the petitioners, requires the construction of around 100,000 rainwater catchments all over the country. They were all supposed to be completed in 1991. The DPWH, however, began construction only in January 2009, and has so far built only four catchments. “The measly number of rainwater collectors constructed by the government agencies concerned is so infinitesimal it is tantamount to gross negligence in the performance of public duty,” say the petitioners. “When will we ever learn?”
“One thing is clear: climate change is real. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we can face the consequences with adequate foresight and preparation, ingenious adaptation, and determined action,” they note. “Thus, the relief we are seeking is two-pronged: first, for the government agencies and LGUs to submit a detailed action plan and program of action on how they will implement RAs 6716 and 7160 on rainwater catchments; and second, for a court-appointed Commissioner to continuously monitor the implementation of the laws.”
Too much time has clearly been wasted. And so, for the petitioners, no more talk. Time to act.
_______________
A.M. No. 09-6-8. “Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.” Supreme Court of the Philippines, April 13, 2010.
Bapna, Manish et al. “Enabling Adaptation: Priorities for Supporting the Rural Poor in a Changing Climate.” World Resources Institute Issue Brief, May 2009.
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “Integrated Solutions to the Water, Agriculture, and Climate Crises.” March 2009.
Nash, J. Madeleine. “Fire and Rain.” Time, April 20, 1998.
Nelson, Andrew and Chomitz. Kenneth M. “Protected Area Effectiveness in Reducing Tropical Deforestation: A Global Analysis of the Impact of Protection Status.” Evaluation Brief No. 7. Washington, DC: Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank. October 2009.
Sze, Abigail T. “SC unveils landmark Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.” April 14, 2010. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph.
The Global Legal Action on Climate Change vs The Philippine Government. GR No. 191806. Filed with the Supreme Court on April 21, 2010.
Transparency International. “Corruption and Renewable Natural Resources.” Working Paper. Berlin: Policy and Research Department, Transparency International, January 2007.
Villarin, Jose Ramon T. et al. “In the Eye of the Perfect Storm: What the Philippines Should Do About Climate Change.” Working Paper. Berlin: Transparency International, July 2008.
Dear Elizabeth 