A new approach to development and environmental care

MANY, if not most, major development projects in the Philippines provoke strong protests from some quarters because of environmental concerns. This is quite understandable, as most parts of the Philippines are ecologically important areas in one way or another, and it is difficult to avoid conflicts between the equally valid goals of preserving the environment and pursuing development to improve and enrich the nation. Some familiar examples where these conflicts have been particularly sharp include the Kaliwa Dam project, the various reclamation projects being carried out in Manila Bay, and the proposed Rizal wind farm, which we discussed in a recent editorial, as well as virtually every mining or power generation project ever proposed.

Although we do not always agree with those who protest against planned developments out of concern for those projects’ potentially harmful environmental impact, we understand where their perspective originates. The government’s management of environmental protections with respect to any kind of development, quite frankly, does not inspire confidence. The process of vetting a proposed project for the purpose of issuing an “environmental clearance” must be sufficiently thorough, strike the best possible balance between ensuring environmental preservation and allowing productive development, and, above all, must be consistent. Current processes, well-intentioned though they may be, almost never satisfy all three requirements, especially the latter.

There is an approach that, if adopted by the government and applied consistently, could eliminate the delays to developments caused by resistance to their perceived environmental harm and improve environmental protection overall. The approach is called ecosystem services valuation, and while we would presume that our relevant authorities are familiar with the term, it has yet to be pursued in any meaningful way in the Philippines.

Ecosystem services valuation, in the simplest terms, is a way to assign a monetary value to the environment and is based on the principle that the environment provides a fundamentally necessary component of quality of life. The benefits of the environment are largely intangible and difficult to quantify economically, and therein lies the root of the conflict between development and environmental protection because the economic value of any sort of development is rather easy to quantify.

While it may sound cynical to some who believe “you can’t put a price on nature,” identifying environmental benefits as “ecosystem services” and then calculating an economic value for them is, in fact, the only rational way in which the environmental impact of any proposed development can be accurately assessed. It allows the ecosystem and the proposed development in question to be measured according to the same scale so that the costs and benefits of both can be directly compared.

Examples of ecosystem services include “regulating services” that help to maintain the balance of the natural environment, such as air and water purification, climate regulation, and pollination. “Cultural services” are those that enrich cultural life and social and individual well-being, including recreational spaces, spiritual and educational experiences, and aesthetic appreciation. “Supporting services” are functions of ecosystem productivity and include factors such as soil formation, nutrient cycling and primary production.

There are several ways in which value can be assigned to ecosystem services. Cost-based approaches estimate the costs associated with replicating ecosystem services using human-made methods or preventing negative environmental impacts. For example, the cost of constructing and operating an irrigation dam can be compared to the value of water supplies provided by natural rainfall and the watershed. Preference approaches use either revealed preferences — such as data on travel to parks or recreation areas — or stated preferences gathered by consumer surveys to estimate a demand and market value for a particular ecosystem area. None of the three methods is quite exacting enough on its own, so a combination of methods appropriate to the ecosystem and project being studied would have to be employed.

But it can be done, and furthermore, a set of consistent rules and guidelines for doing so can certainly be developed. Getting everyone on the same page, so to speak, in working toward both environmental protection and growth and development would provide profound benefits for the environment and economy alike.