Statement regarding yesterday’s PAMB meeting Environmentalist groups meeting in Social Action.Center today expressed disappointment in the PAMB voting on the TWG recommendations on the illegal structures in NNNP. The PAMBs role is to protect the protected area but according to an NGO member of the PAMB, there is even a Mayor member of the PAMB who has 2 structures on protected areas of the NNNP. The environmentalists therefore question the integrity of yesterdays voting as there was conflict of interest. Under RA 10121, a government official or chief executive is liable for dereliction of duties which leads to destruction, loss of lives, critical damage of facilities, & misuse of funds. Should we wait for a disaster to happen before taking action? Under the NIPAS law, squatting within the protected area is prohibited but PAMB itself is protecting the squatters. The environmentalists are being challenged to a debate. Will a debate make the illegal structures legal? There is nothing to debate on. The PAMB members are not above the law Structures inside NNNP should have PAMB clearance before they can be built. The clearance may be given only after application, inspection/survey of area and confirmation that planned development is in accordance with Protected Area Plan, NIPAS Act, Protected Area Plan, Forest Landuse Plan & DRRM, also endorsement of affected barangays and municipalities and cities. The PAMB then assigns the application to TWG, wc recommends safeguards & agendas application for action. If approved, the PAMB issues a PAMB clearance, after which the proponent has to secure other permits and clearances like the ECC & approval of SAPA (Special.Agreement on Protected Areas) required. Among the issues that arise because of unregulated building in the NNNP are conflicts on water resource allocation, contamination of water, reduction of forest land and loss of biodiversity, displacement of local communities and of wildlife, contamination of wildlife The TWGs recommendation was not to be implemented indiscriminately. Each structure is to be reviewed for FLUP and DRRMpliance. If not compliant, a court case has to be filed to declare the structure illegal and that the structure be demolished. So there are safety nets. In any case, the 91 Cease & Desist Orders issued by the PENRO are still valid as they are based on the NIPAS law and DRRM. Only a court can order the lifting of the CDO. Social Action Center-Diocese of Bacolod Governors office Green Alert Negros FDC-Negros Coalition to Save Mt. Kanlaon, Recoletos Social Concerns, AIDFI, Peacenet,
Posted on: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 13:13:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015