Alsons’ decision to put off plan for CDO bioethanol plant hailed

Regions

Written by Bong D. Fabe / Correspondent

Wednesday, 31 March 2010 19:00

http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23563:alsons-decision-to-put-off-plan-for-cdo-bioethanol-plant-hailed&catid=45:regions&Itemid=71

CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY—The Archdiocese of Cagayan de Oro and environmental groups have hailed as a victory for the environment and the rural communities reports that Alsons Consolidated Resources Inc. has put off plans of building a bioethanol plant in the upstream barangays here.

“This is very good news for us here. And I am glad that Alsons has also heeded the calls of our communities here not to put up their bioethanol plant in the upstream barangays of our city as it will surely affect us all and not just negatively impact our fragile environment,” Archbishop Antonio J. Ledesma told the BusinessMirror. Myrna Aboniawan-Siose, coordinator of the Archdiocesan Center of Concern, Empowerment and Social Service said the decision of Alsons not to pursue its P2.1-billion, 100,000-liter-a-day bioethanol plant on a hastily reclassified piece of land in barangays Bayanga and Mambuaya is a belated birthday gift to Archbishop Ledesma.

Ledesma celebrated his 67th birthday on March 28. Carl Cesar Rebuta, team leader of the Cagayan de Oro City office of the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Kasama sa Kalikasan/Friend of the Earth-Philippines, said Alsons’ decision “is another victory for the communities in the upland areas of Cagayan de Oro that would be affected by the proposed bioethanol plant.”

Alsons’ board of directors decided the other day to “put off plans” for its bioethanol project here because of deterrents that included “current ambiguities in the implementation of the Biofuels Act; its experience of unjustifiable delays in the issuance of an environmental compliance certificate... and the Catholic Church’s and the nongovernment sectors’ apparent lack of genuine concern for the plight of the poor.”

Ledesma said the Church and various nongovernment organizations and environment supporters opposed the project because Alsons insisted on constructing it on a watershed area.

As proposed by Alsons, the bioethanol plant would be built on a 16-hectare area in Bayanga and Mambuaya, two hinterland villages that have been identified as part of the Iponan watershed along with barangays Tumpagon, Tuburan, Pigsag-an, Dansolihon and Taglimao. This 16-hectare area is part of the 24 hectares in Bayanga and Mambuaya that the city council hastily reclassified into agro-industrial from agricultural through Ordinance 10885-2008 passed on Jan. 7, 2008. Councilor Dante Pajo was then the presiding officer when it was passed.

Barangays Bayanga and Mambuaya are in the middle of one of the country’s few remaining ecologically diverse environments—a rich agricultural and tourism asset.

Beneath them lies an extensive system of caves and caverns that could lure spelunkers, trekkers and nature-seekers to explore and pay for the exotic pleasure. Aboveground are exciting vertical and horizontal spaces for adventurers: undulating landscape for horseback-riding enthusiasts, white cliffs for wall-climbing/rappelling fanciers; jump-off points for hang-gliding hobbyists; and verdant plains/plateaus/valleys for camping, scouting and other outdoor events.

The proposed bioethanol plant will get its water from the Munigi River, which is the only source of potable water of residents of the two barangays. The plant is also near the Munigi Cave, a network of caves spanning 6 kilometers in barangays Mambuaya, Bayanga and Dansolihon.

Munigi Cave is a sanctuary of the Philippine Tarsier in the city. Munigi River, which feeds the Cagayan de Oro River, is the only source of drinking water for over 5,000 households in Bayanga and Mambuaya. Water from the river is pumped to Bayanga only thrice a week and the pump is located five meters downstream from the planned bioethanol plant wastewater exit.

“The processing plant will gravely compete with sufficiency, and endanger the quality of the local water supply, and may result to marginalization of their basic need,” said the Kagay-an Watershed Alliance, a group composed of professionals, entrepreneurs and educators who live, own farms or manage nature-oriented operations in Bayanga, Mambuaya and environs.

Study: Last Decade Saw Boom in Environmental Courts, Tribunals

The number of courts and tribunals specializing in environmental issues doubled during the past decade, prompted by increasingly complex regulations and growing concerns about natural resources, according to a new study.

There were a total of 354 environmental courts in 41 countries in that period, with about 170 created since 2005, according to thereport

"While such specialist courts and tribunals have been created from time to time, their accelerated growth is a 21st century phenomenon," the report says. "Complex, fragmented, and often conflicting aspects of environmental management and protection have made it difficult for governments, developers, communities and advocacy groups to achieve consistent and long-range sustainable development. This has resulted in pressures to streamline and rationalize the adjudication and enforcement process and increase access to justice."

The study was prepared by University of Denver law professor George Pring and his wife, Catherine Pring, a mediator specializing in environmental issues. In the United States, they counted dozens of city- and county-level environmental courts, as well as state-level courts in Vermont and Washington and federal courts at U.S. EPA and the Interior Department.

Dedicated environmental courts date to at least 1917, when Denmark created its Nature Protection Board, according to the report. Both Sweden and Finland founded courts the next year to settle cases involving the countries' water supplies.

There was then a boom in the creation of specialized environmental courts at the onset of the modern environmental movement in the early 1970s, followed by a lull that lasted until the past decade.

While many wealthier nations had already created environmental courts by the start of the new millennium, poorer nations lagged behind, said Lalanath de Silva, director of WRI's Access Initiative. Many developing nations, faced with a flood of environmental cases and a dearth of judges qualified to weigh in on the technical questions they raise, have concluded that specialty courts are a "just, quick and cheap" solution, he said.

The past five years saw the proliferation of environmental courts in China, which created 15 environmental courts in 2008 and 2009, and the Philippines, which started a network of 117 such courts in 2008. If the large Filipino network of environmental courts is excluded from figures, the number of courts worldwide increased by more than 55 percent since 2000.

Citizen groups and governments have typically pushed for the creation of environmental courts. In some developing countries, they have garnered support from industry groups concerned that rulings in standard courts could be swayed by "emotional considerations" rather than science, de Silva said. The Asian Development Bank has been a key backer.

Because some of the courts have been more effective than others, WRI sponsored the new study to "make sure that these tribunals are established in ways that allow them to learn from the positives and negatives of the current institutions," de Silva said.

"A green tribunal works really well if it's carefully crafted," de Silva said, "but that's not always the case."

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/20/20greenwire-study-last-decade-saw-boom-in-environmental-co-74053.html