Use pork barrel for rehab, forest protection
Use pork barrel for rehab, forest protection
Updated 10:41pm (Mla time) Dec 09, 2004
By Neal Cruz
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the December 10, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
THERE were three significant stories the other day: 1. the Pulse Asia survey showing 84 percent of Filipinos in favor of either cutting or abolishing the pork barrel; 2. the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) has run out of funds for relief operations; and 3. the continuing debate on a logging ban and forest protection.
The survey also showed that "79 percent of respondents believe more than half or more of the budget of a project (funded by the pork barrel) goes to corruption." In short, you can't fool the people. They know where the money is going. Each congressman will get P70 million in pork next year, and each senator will get P200 million.
Malacañang had submitted a budget proposal with the pork funds cut by 40 percent (to only P40 million per congressman) to save P10 billion because of the fiscal crisis, but the lawmakers defied the President and restored the full P70 million. In contrast, the House of Representatives appropriated only P69 million for forest protection for one year. Repeat: the annual budget to protect millions of hectares of forests throughout the Philippines is even less than the pork of one congressman. Isn't that a crying shame? Meanwhile, the DSWD can no longer provide enough relief goods to the storm victims because it has run out of funds.
The Inquirer headline said: "Poll shames solons on pork." But Davao del Sur Rep. Douglas Cagas said the "pork barrel was nothing to be ashamed of."
Congressmen are already too thick-skinned to be ashamed of anything. But isn't it timely, because of the tragedy that the storms have wrought and the lack of funds to help and rehabilitate the victims, to totally abolish the pork barrel now and use the money for forest protection and for rehabilitation of the people and places hit hard by the floods and landslides?
Anyway, congressmen claim that the pork is for the people, so let's use the funds intended for the pork barrel to really help the people and protect the forests so the tragedy that befell Real, Nakar and Infanta won't happen again. The lawmakers can't object to that (unless they're selfish), and the people will applaud that.
The Senate can still realign the appropriations, and if it doesn't, the President can veto the allocation for the pork. That will show who is the boss.
Come to think of it, who really is the boss? President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has ordered the suspension of all logging operations, but two of her Cabinet members are defying her. Environment Secretary Michael Defensor is defending the loggers and Trade and Industry Secretary Cesar Purisima is opposing a total log ban, saying it would be bad for the economy. If Cabinet members don't agree with the President and can't obey her orders, shouldn't they resign?
Defensor even relaxed, on his own, the presidential ban by allowing the mass cutting and transport of timber from "private plantations." These are different from public lands: private firms planted the trees there and it seems only fair that they should be allowed to harvest them. But the trouble with this arrangement is that it leaves the door open for private plantation operators to poach on public forests and then claim that the timber came from their own plantations.
This was what the licensed loggers (whom Defensor is defending) have been doing. They hired poachers to cut timber from public forests and then claimed that these came from their concessions.
For his part, Purisima said that with a total log ban, we would have to import lumber for our needs. But do you know that we still export logs and lumber even if we are already running out of forests to cut?
And what's wrong with importing? We are importing almost everything else anyway. Other countries like Japan import most of their wood needs while preserving their own forests. Even the wood for their chopsticks is imported.
Besides, our construction industry is very wasteful in the use of wood. Builders should learn to use less wood. The wood used for scaffolding of any one project, for example, is enough to lay to waste one whole forest. After the construction is finished, this wood is not good for anything else but firewood. At this rate of wastage, even our coconut plantations, now that coco lumber is being used for scaffolding, will be gone soon.
Modern construction methods use steel for scaffolding. They can be used again and again. But many contractors still use wood because it is still relatively cheap. If wood is expensive because of scarcity, they will learn to use steel instead.
In the United States, tropical hardwoods are so expensive that they are used only as accents in furniture. They are never used for flooring or walls or posts like we do here.
In fact, our builders should study the new technology in construction in the United States. Instead of wood, they use substitutes made of plastics, vinyl and other petrochemical products.
Homes with clapboard walls in the New England states use plastic. They look like wood, complete with grains and whorls, but they're not. Indoor walling can look like wood, marble, granite, brick, or tiles, but they're really plastic. Whole bathrooms come in one piece, complete with toilets, bathtubs, washbowl, floor and walls.
These construction materials would be ideal for the Philippines. They're cheap, light, don't rot like wood does, termite and fungus-proof, plus you don't have to paint them. They come in different colors.
What's more, it will help save our forests. And, Secretary Purisima, saving our forests is more important than our balance of payments. Once the forests are gone, they're gone. But the economy rises and falls regularly.
Updated 10:41pm (Mla time) Dec 09, 2004
By Neal Cruz
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the December 10, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
THERE were three significant stories the other day: 1. the Pulse Asia survey showing 84 percent of Filipinos in favor of either cutting or abolishing the pork barrel; 2. the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) has run out of funds for relief operations; and 3. the continuing debate on a logging ban and forest protection.
The survey also showed that "79 percent of respondents believe more than half or more of the budget of a project (funded by the pork barrel) goes to corruption." In short, you can't fool the people. They know where the money is going. Each congressman will get P70 million in pork next year, and each senator will get P200 million.
Malacañang had submitted a budget proposal with the pork funds cut by 40 percent (to only P40 million per congressman) to save P10 billion because of the fiscal crisis, but the lawmakers defied the President and restored the full P70 million. In contrast, the House of Representatives appropriated only P69 million for forest protection for one year. Repeat: the annual budget to protect millions of hectares of forests throughout the Philippines is even less than the pork of one congressman. Isn't that a crying shame? Meanwhile, the DSWD can no longer provide enough relief goods to the storm victims because it has run out of funds.
The Inquirer headline said: "Poll shames solons on pork." But Davao del Sur Rep. Douglas Cagas said the "pork barrel was nothing to be ashamed of."
Congressmen are already too thick-skinned to be ashamed of anything. But isn't it timely, because of the tragedy that the storms have wrought and the lack of funds to help and rehabilitate the victims, to totally abolish the pork barrel now and use the money for forest protection and for rehabilitation of the people and places hit hard by the floods and landslides?
Anyway, congressmen claim that the pork is for the people, so let's use the funds intended for the pork barrel to really help the people and protect the forests so the tragedy that befell Real, Nakar and Infanta won't happen again. The lawmakers can't object to that (unless they're selfish), and the people will applaud that.
The Senate can still realign the appropriations, and if it doesn't, the President can veto the allocation for the pork. That will show who is the boss.
Come to think of it, who really is the boss? President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has ordered the suspension of all logging operations, but two of her Cabinet members are defying her. Environment Secretary Michael Defensor is defending the loggers and Trade and Industry Secretary Cesar Purisima is opposing a total log ban, saying it would be bad for the economy. If Cabinet members don't agree with the President and can't obey her orders, shouldn't they resign?
Defensor even relaxed, on his own, the presidential ban by allowing the mass cutting and transport of timber from "private plantations." These are different from public lands: private firms planted the trees there and it seems only fair that they should be allowed to harvest them. But the trouble with this arrangement is that it leaves the door open for private plantation operators to poach on public forests and then claim that the timber came from their own plantations.
This was what the licensed loggers (whom Defensor is defending) have been doing. They hired poachers to cut timber from public forests and then claimed that these came from their concessions.
For his part, Purisima said that with a total log ban, we would have to import lumber for our needs. But do you know that we still export logs and lumber even if we are already running out of forests to cut?
And what's wrong with importing? We are importing almost everything else anyway. Other countries like Japan import most of their wood needs while preserving their own forests. Even the wood for their chopsticks is imported.
Besides, our construction industry is very wasteful in the use of wood. Builders should learn to use less wood. The wood used for scaffolding of any one project, for example, is enough to lay to waste one whole forest. After the construction is finished, this wood is not good for anything else but firewood. At this rate of wastage, even our coconut plantations, now that coco lumber is being used for scaffolding, will be gone soon.
Modern construction methods use steel for scaffolding. They can be used again and again. But many contractors still use wood because it is still relatively cheap. If wood is expensive because of scarcity, they will learn to use steel instead.
In the United States, tropical hardwoods are so expensive that they are used only as accents in furniture. They are never used for flooring or walls or posts like we do here.
In fact, our builders should study the new technology in construction in the United States. Instead of wood, they use substitutes made of plastics, vinyl and other petrochemical products.
Homes with clapboard walls in the New England states use plastic. They look like wood, complete with grains and whorls, but they're not. Indoor walling can look like wood, marble, granite, brick, or tiles, but they're really plastic. Whole bathrooms come in one piece, complete with toilets, bathtubs, washbowl, floor and walls.
These construction materials would be ideal for the Philippines. They're cheap, light, don't rot like wood does, termite and fungus-proof, plus you don't have to paint them. They come in different colors.
What's more, it will help save our forests. And, Secretary Purisima, saving our forests is more important than our balance of payments. Once the forests are gone, they're gone. But the economy rises and falls regularly.
posted by Dante at 2:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home