Sylvia Miclat

This relationship between landslide and flooding disasters and forests always seems to invite political muscle flexing and log bans, total or selective, appear to be a favored response. Then what happens?

We might also look at what happens to log bans. These are usually eroded by weak political will at the level of policy commitment over time. And again at the local government level, there is inaction in consistently enforcing and identifying the people behind illegal logging. The sustained cutting of the Sierra Madre is an example. After the REINA disaster in 2004, there were at least 20 repositioning memos issued. With these, who will not be confused by the present situation and its implementation? Is this time going to be any different? Will we have the political guts and also the management capacity to get it to work?

Forests clearly reduce landslides but in these major events - most evident on loose volcanic soils suffering from heave rainfall infiltration - no mountain forest is secure and gives security!

Who is really listening and who seriously wants to take action?

It can be viewed that for those long advocating forest restoration in our denuded forest areas and those genuinely enforcing forest protection laws, those frustrated with and angered by government inaction and abuse, government attention, especially presidential attention, is most welcome. We clearly need to protect what natural forests we have left and seriously apply our knowledge and investment in plantations to meet wood needs. The forests cannot meet all needs.

Illegal and legal logging in the country, whether by small operators and big corporations, is a long-festering major problem. The remaining natural forests and the biodiversity these areas host are under constant threat by those who want to cut. These could be companies with appropriate legal documents but who extend beyond their boundaries. These could be upland communities eking out a living through selling of logs and charcoal making. Reforestation efforts in the past did not translate to success rates of forest restoration.

We have to get clear in our minds and our hearts and wherever political will lies as to where flooding disasters and forest degradation intersect. Also intersecting with these concerns is the need to give security of tenure with capacity to local forest management, to pay for ecological services such as clean water (not simply dams) as well as to allocate land for plantation and wood industry. Production plantation must not be mixed with reforestation for environmental sustainability.

For those who view large-scale flooding as a concern requiring a multitude of responses ranging from the clearing of waterways and drainage systems, permanent relocation of people away from landslide- and flood-prone areas, soil and water conservation strategies, re-engineering of water infrastructure, a total log ban is an inept and ineffective response.

ESSC's statement on the Aurora-Quezon-Nueva Ecija disaster in November 2005   presented the situation in the country  year after the disaster that cost 2,000 lives. Four tropical cyclones unleashed volumes of rainfall in 20 days, a 100-year event given its magnitude and devastating impact on the physical and social landscapes. The call was for a more coherent response involving different levels of government and governance. It was also a call for a shift in our attitudes to the environment, our expectations from government, and our roles in an ecological system where forests are but one part.

Log bans may be an effective response, if Philippine society is unwilling to change its attitude towards wood consumption and continuously neglects forest restoration and regeneration. But to stop large-scale flooding and landslides from occurring, ensuring that people's lives and homes are not at risk, safeguarding infrastructure and agriculture crops from damages, log bans do not stand up to the natural forces unleashed by heavy rainfall, swollen rivers, saturated soils, and the power of water and debris that crashes down populated areas.

Ormoc showed us a way forward in responding to flooding. The flood control project the city undertook after the November 1991 disaster   that killed 4,992 lives (with 3,000 listed as missing) withstood the February 2001 typhoon of similar magnitude. With assistance from the Japanese government, the flood mitigation project had a goal, which was not to repeat the damage caused by the 1991 flood. And so it was that when typhoon Gilas swept Ormoc, the flood waters were satisfactorily disposed seaward, although there were some portions of the dikes that got damaged and had to be reconstructed. It would also be good to see if we can reforest the area and assist the limited natural forest to regenerate. Does anyone have an update?

It is not good that we take solace that other countries are facing at the very same time similar disasters, whether Brazil or Australia. Australia, the "laboratory of climate change," is evaluating the role of dams in the recent disaster but the bottomline is that people should not be living in the type of housing they are in on the flood plains. There are many other changes that have to be made but the primary ones are about where people are located in relation to our mountains and our rivers.

We can respond to the flooding and the landslides and we can also respond to the continued forest loss in the country. But simplistically equating these two through a log ban and expect effective responses will not do the trick.