SIX YEARS ago, I visited the Las Piñas Parañaque Wetland Park (LPPWP) with my high school batchmates, back when it was still known as the Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area (LPPCHEA).
This day was both eye-opening and insightful, as we witnessed the severity of plastic pollution in Manila Bay and learned about the biodiversity that graced the wetland area. Walking through the mangrove forest, I remember feeling a kind of giddiness that synced with the hum of nature around me.
I never realized that the trip had any remarkable impact on me until much later, when I found myself ruminating on LPPCHEA during my college application. Environmental conservation had taken root in my heart, leading me to pursue a degree in environmental science.
Needless to say, I was appalled when the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA) opened the LPPWP for lease and joint ventures on a Facebook post last March. Perhaps it was my naïveté that made the thought of a Ramsar site being exploited seem unfathomable. Then again, greed has never spared anything sacred.
After the uproar among netizens and environmentalists, the agency was quick to delete the original post, but their projected infallibility extended. A rhetorical video was produced, notably without any environmental scientists, introducing nonsensical ideas of relocating and replanting mangroves—the very trees that protect against flooding and serve as a vital sanctuary for marine life and migratory birds.
The PRA then posted a brazen warning against the “misuse of environmental advocacy,” dismissing environmentalists’ valid concerns as mere tools of private developers. They also absurdly claimed that maintaining the site as a bird sanctuary risks bird strikes, given its proximity to the airport—revealing their so-called commitment to sustainability as a farce.
To top off their self-legitimization, they ended the statement by saying that “environmental sustainability must ultimately serve the people, it is not enough to preserve nature for its own sake,” and to that, I disagree wholeheartedly.
Humanity has long benefitted from Earth’s resources, yet we control it as if it owes us more. The PRA insists that preserving nature must consider job creation and national development, but can true development arise on dead land?
A Cumulative Impact Assessment conducted by the Marine Environment and Resources Foundation (MERF) last April revealed that the Manila Bay reclamation projects may harm ecosystems, worsen flooding, and affect fishing livelihoods and public health. Once again, our misguided attitude toward the environment buries the marginalized in the same crises these agencies pretend to consider.
Sustainability is and never was self-serving, and those who revel in disingenuous gestures toward it, while leaning on legal technicalities, only reveal that power and profit are what truly motivate them.
I long for the day when those in control acknowledge how much nature serves us, and that it is not merely an expendable commodity. Once we realize how even the most minute and unseen natural processes impact our lives, then perhaps we can all agree that we are more than rich enough.
Caitlin is a fourth-year Environmental Science student at the Ateneo de Manila University. With a passion for sports and science, she aims to amplify calls for sustainable development, climate justice, and gender equality.
Editor’s Note: The views and opinions expressed by the opinion writer do not necessarily state or reflect those of the publication.
