DAVAO CITY (MindaNews / 20 July) — “Give a man fish and you feed him for the day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Or so the adage goes.
What happens when the fishing ground and the entire marine ecosystem that supports it collapses under and around the bridge?
More than a decade ago, I lived among marginal fisherfolk (and farmers) community in a far-flung barangay that was a three-hour bus ride away from the city.
There was no electricity, no tap/service water, no cellphone access/signal. Yet, these things were not what made them feel poor. They were used to using ga-as (gas lamps). Water came from springs and streams (which was sweet and genuine mineral water). A phone call required a tricycle’s ride to the pueblo.
What drove them to poverty was declining fish catch. Commercial trawlers entered the 15-kilometer municipal waters. The changing seasons and climate drove some fisherfolk to harvest corals for sale. They decided to put an end to these by organizing themselves into a federation of barangay level marginal fishers’ association. They defended the municipal waters as Bantay Dagat, they had the seascape declared protected – at least the part of the sandbar and surrounding reefs. I wish I could say that the cycle of poverty has been broken completely. No, but at the very least, things have not gotten worse. Some children have finished schooling (though many started young families), and the protected seascape remains and is at the center of annual fiesta celebration of the village.
What did I learn? Poverty is experienced not so much as a limited cash/liquidity (which is also their reality) or lack of modern amenities. They consider themselves poor because their right to self-determination is limited. They plant, then El Niňo hits. On days when their harvest is good, the lack of farm-to-market road and postharvest facilities keep their target buyers out of reach. When they fish, they either face competition with commercial trawlers or fish catch is affected by the changing climate or both.
I remember them most at this time. Nong Ham (+), Nong Lodegario, Nong Roy et al.. I see their faces and hear their voices in the Samal fisherfolks who have asked not to be named but are behind this Writ petition to save marine life in Davao Gulf from the SIDC Project (Davao-Samal bridge).
They who, on top of their struggles in sharing the fishing grounds with others who come from as far as GenSan, now face this giant monster that is the SIDC Project. It is monstrous not only because it costs P23B (of which P19B loan will be shouldered by the entire nation of taxpayers). It is monstrous because it occupies the nearly three-kilometer stretch of crossing from Davao City side (Brgy Hizon/Hizon Marine Protected Area) and the Samal side (Brgy Limao/Paradise Reef). Its radius of impact from sedimentation during construction is expected to reach Malipao and Talikud islands in the South and Sanipaan island in the North of the bridge alignment. (page 219 EIS Report of the Project). These sediments will be the death of marine life in the vicinity such as corals and clams, and all biodiversity that depend on this marine ecosystem (fish, turtles, dolphins). These will suffocate, clog, trap light needed for photosynthesis and bring various toxins and chemicals associated with bacterial processes and breakdown of organic matter in the sediments.
Is this the “big picture” behind the SIDC Project?
- Does this really serve the economic interest of Davao City when it will paralyze traffic along the Lanang business district: a corridor of malls, business and commercial establishments?
- How does this serve the economic interests of Samal: an island that relies on its tourism potential but which the bridge is poised to destroy virtually the remaining healthy reefs in the Southern Corridor of the island?
- Does the big picture not include food security and disaster prevention?
- Is that particular part of Pakiputan Reef not prone to storm surge?
- Does not a sink hole lie at the Samal side where the bridge lands?
The entire Samal island for that matter is limestone-based – a twin of Shrine Hills. Shrine Hills was protected (222 hectares of it) by Davao City precisely because heavy development and infrastructure will compromise its slope and is vulnerable to sinkholes and land subsidence.
- Why must the bridge be put right there at the Southern Corridor?
- Why was there a change of plans from the 2016 Japanese-studied alignment? Is not the choice for a simpler design that had cheaper cost (16B PhP) and had a shorter crossing of 2.6 km to Bridgeport at the Central Corridor be more prudent?
- Why did the Stage 1 of the Feasibility Study (16 Nov 2018- 19 Feb 2019) focus only on the Southern Corridor for its three options for siting[1]?
- How come in the May-June 2019 consultations, residents asking where the alignment would be were not given direct answers?[2] Even as the current alignment was already endorsed as early as February-March 2019?[3]
- Were there focus group discussions (FGD) and consultations with fisherfolks held after the May-June 2019 project presentation attended by the 344 residents (half unemployed) of 3 barangays?
- Why was BFAR not informed of the project as late as the last quarter of 2022 if the Project had received its ECC (Environmental Certificate of Compliance) in December 2020?
- What are the livelihood plans for the fisherfolks affected by the project?
- How is it that the current bridge alignment is declared to be outside the protected area of Samal island when the entire island is still a protected area as confirmed by the Biodiversity Management Bureau in January 2023 and this year by the DENR XI- PAMBC chief[4]?
- Why was the Hizon MPA chosen as take off point from Davao City when it is the topmost productive among the MPA network of Davao City and is recognized in the current CLUP 2019-2028?
- Why was the CRBC (China Road and Bridge Company) chosen as bridge contractor when it has a history of lack of environmental care across the globe?
These are just some of the questions asked in 2022 but nobody has been able to answer fully, not the project proponents nor other government entities and bodies. The silence is enabling all the wanton destruction to continue to this day.
Sadly, when you ask real questions on environmental matters, you are falsely branded and tagged anything-and-everything a random person/account on social media can imagine.
As if that brand or tag diminishes the fact that serious and catastrophic irregularities (and gross illegalities) surround this Project from Day 0.
As if people do not enjoy the bounty of the sea and green space both on land and water.
As if climate change is felt only by a limited few.
As if Common Good does not matter in the greater scheme of things.
As if we can ever really realize genuine development through environmental destruction.
Who, in the end is really the one who is anti-development?
Can we try to readjust our lens to plan both for our present needs as a growing human society and what the planet needs to survive, today and tomorrow? Maybe this way we can have 20-20 vision that will help us reach 2030 as one Earth-and-humanity.
(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Carmela Marie Santos is an environmental practitioner with a background in environmental science and management. She is a licensed environmental planner, a bike commuter and mother of three).
“Our Common Future,” also known as the Brundtland Report, is a 1987 report by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. It is this report that launched the concept of sustainable development — development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
[1] See page 7 of the Project Description Report received by the DENR Records Section last August 6, 2019.
[2] See pages 18-19 of the Project Description Report.
[3] From the Project Update delivered by DPWH XI representative at the Joint Committee Hearing held last November 23, 2022. The DPWH materials/file was shared on my laptop which was used to project their powerpoint presentation.
[4] The chief declared this at the open forum of the DENR XI Interfacing for Sustainable Tourism and Waste Management organized by IDIS last January 31, 2025.
0 Comments