|
Fifth of seven parts
LGUs should be given more powers under the
Sustainable Forest Management Bill. Section 16 of the Local
Government Code provides:
SEC. 16. General Welfare.—very local
government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those
necessarily implied there from, as well as powers necessary,
appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective
governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the
general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions,
local government units shall ensure and support, among other things,
the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and
safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology,
encourage and support the development of appropriate and
self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve
public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice,
promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and
order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their
inhabitants.
While the Local Government Code gives the LGU
the duty to preserve the environment, the methods by which it can do
so are severely limited by existing laws. For instance, Sections 26
and 27 of the Local Government Code merely give LGUs the right to be
consulted on, and for the local legislative bodies to approve,
projects and programs proposed by the national government that may
cause pollution, climatic change, loss of forest cover, and
extinction of plant and animal species, among other detrimental
effects.
It is respectfully submitted that this should
not be the case. The LGU is closest to the community. It is more
aware of, and more responsive to, the needs of the people. It should
be expressly given the power to make decisions regarding the use,
conservation and management of the forest resources in its
territorial jurisdiction from the very start. It would not be
farfetched to claim that in most instances, the national government
has decided to approve projects with obvious detrimental effects on
a community and merely consults the LGU as an afterthought. This
should be changed. It is the community that stands to suffer most if
its natural resources are destroyed. From the beginning, the people
should be given the right to decide the use, conservation and management
of their natural resources.
Thus, consistent with the policy of devolution
and the reality that in certain places in the Philippines, the LGU
is the only representative of the government, it is imperative to
expand its role and give it more powers under the law. This could be
done by providing for a representative from the LGU in the
monitoring of compliance with terms and agreements in co-production
agreements, the information and rewards system found in the proposed
bill, the Environmental Impact Assessment System, and the proposed
forestland management council.
While there are concerns that there may be LGUs
that are not up to the task, it is more important to focus on
awareness, training, education, and building their capacity to get
the job done rather than on their weaknesses. Studies have shown
that community-based resource management approaches work best in
environmental conservation. As a means to facilitate LGU
involvement, it is suggested that the law require the LGUs to review
and revise their local development plans to integrate local forest
management plans. It is also suggested that the LGU be required to
provide assistance to the complainants who conduct citizen’s
arrests in crimes involving violation of environmental laws. In
municipalities, the LGU should be mandated to create a position for
a Municipal Environmental Officer. For the LGU to be able to perform
these additional roles and perform these functions, it is also
necessary to provide it with additional resources and support. It is
suggested that LGUs be given a share in the income from
co-management agreements to supplement IRA.
|
