|
by Frank Lloyd Tiongson, Reporter
Not investing in pollution
mitigation is actually costlier than investing, various studies
point out.
Aside from its serious threats to
health, pollution also means billions of pesos wasted in lost
productivity, hospitalization and medication, as well as loss of
possible revenues from tourism.
Government should therefore think
twice before deciding not to invest in long term infrastructure
projects no matter how expensive these may seem.
Air pollution in Metro
Manila, for instance, is responsible for 12 percent of all deaths in
the region, according to a joint World Bank and Department of
Environment and Natural Resources study. Due to poor air quality
alone, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases are reported kill
almost 5,000 people in Metro Manila every year.
Last year, Rahul Raturi, Rural
Development, Natural Resources and Environmental Sector Manager of
the WB, said the cost of treatment and lost income from the
environmental diseases are estimated to be P14 billion annually.
Environmental concerns journalist
Henrylito Tacio had higher estimates of the cost of air pollution—
$1.5 billion per year or about two percent of the gross domestic
product. He figured the cost in terms of lost wages, medical
treatment expenses, and premature loss of life due to air pollution.
Among the prevalent diseases
associated with air pollution are tuberculosis, asthma and
pneumonia, which are also compounded with overcrowding in most areas
of the NCR.
“This means that each person
each year spends around P2,000 for treatment and medication for
health-related illnesses brought about by air pollution,” Tacio
added.
Water-borne diseases brought
about by water pollution, meanwhile, have been responsible for
around 31 percent of illness monitored for a five-year period
according to the 2003 Philippine Environment Monitor of the World
Bank.
The study noted that the
“adverse impact of water pollution costs the economy an estimated
P67 billion annually . . . these include P3 billion for health, P17
billion for fisheries production, and P47 billion for tourism.”
It also cited that there is an
“under-investment” by the government in sanitation and sewerage
even though the said projects have been ranked as high priority as
early as 1996 in the Philippines Agenda 21. For one, a measly seven
percent of the total Philippine population is connected to sewer
systems. As such, the study estimated that over a 10-year period,
the country will need to invest P250 billion in physical
infrastructure.
Local governments must also think
twice about retaining outmoded solid waste management methods, such
as landfilling and dumpsite contracting, since alternative and more
environmentally-sound measures will actually save the government
millions.
In 2004, the National Solid Waste
Management Commission estimated that the country generates about 7.2
million tons of garbage every year. The commission reported that the
volume is bound to increase to more than 10 million tons per year by
2010.
Citing a 2003 Asian Development
Bank study, the Board of Investment of the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI) wrote early this year that “the total cost of solid
waste management in Metro Manila in 2001, from collection to final
disposal, is estimated to have reached P3.5 billion or P1,700 per
ton of waste. Considering the required improvement of final disposal
to sanitary landfill and reduction of waste by intermediate
treatment, the cost of solid waste is expected to further increase
and bear heavily upon the local budget.”
The ADB study, moreover,
indicates that reduction of solid waste generation by 10 percent can
save about P340 million in terms of solid waste management cost. The
DTI paper noted, “this clearly demonstrates the positive impacts
of promoting recycling upon national as well as local budget.”
The government, however, must be
wary when it does invest in technologies aimed to curb pollution.
Environmental advocacy groups
such as the EcoWaste Coalition, for instance, have lambasted a
planned $2.2-million loan in the 2009 budget to purchase a
reportedly outmoded hospital-waste incinerator from Austria which
has been banned in most European countries.
There is no easy, quick fix
solution to a long-standing and systematic malady such as pollution.
It requires large and stringently-monitored investments that are
both sustainable and environmentally sound.
There must be no hesitation from
both government and its citizens to invest in projects aimed at
curbing pollution. While the costs are great, the payback, in terms
of improved and safe living conditions, will be priceless.
|
