House committee on logging
|
December 13, 2004
CONGRESSMEN are making it appear that they approved a total logging ban in the House committee level. But it's really far from being a total ban.
It's deviling that the representative of the 1st District of Agusan del Norte can afford to brag about how he and members of his committee managed to agree on and push a House bill on a "total ban" on logging last week. Rep. Leovigildo Banaag, chairperson of the House committee on forests and natural resources, said the bill passed through his committee on "record time" in response to a clamor that came after killer typhoons left hundreds dead, missing and homeless in Luzon. Banaag calls it "decisive action".
Nagkinapayas pa.
It's because of A-holes in Congress that many people are dead, missing and homeless in Luzon today. They think we have stickers on our foreheads that say we’re stupid. What the hell we're these guys in the Lower House thinking?
In 1987, Congress tackled a proposed logging moratorium in the country. If only they made it a law, we won't be seeing this much bald land anywhere in the country today. The proposal got enough support in the Senate--and, for a moment, at the Lower House. But when the time came for the two chambers of Congress to do the finishing touches, the district representatives were a no-show. And since it takes two to tango in making a national law, so to speak, the 25- or 30-year logging ban by way of legislation remained a proposal up to this day.
Nearly 20 years ago, loggers and/or logging protectors masquerading as public servants in the legislative branch of government shot down the very bill that could have saved our remaining forests. Some 20 years later, today, the same breed of politicians are threatening to kill the same proposal despite the public outcry.
Now comes the Banaag committee boasting about how fast it elevated the bill to the House plenary. Is that really something to be proud of, Mr. Congressman?
Journalist Pat Samonte of Butuan City reports that the bill is actually a "total ban" on logging in "selected areas". You call that a "total ban"?
Based on the Samonte report, consider the Banaag committee version of the bill (italics mine):
(Exactly, what are "protected virgin forests"? Is there such thing as an "unprotected virgin forest" as far as Banaag's committee is concerned?)
(This simply means that if it's not identified through satellite mapping and not Namrea-certified, you may log, log and log to your heart's content.)
(A forest is a forest--period. But what the Banaag committee really means is, after the evaluation, loggers may proceed in securing a government permit.)
(Translation: Bribe politicians and people in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources so they'll keep their eyes closed and their mouths shut.)
(All loggers have to do is namedrop an influential politician or bribe the one signing the logging papers so they will be classified as "private-tree farmers" and it's going to be business as usual for them. Environmental activist and columnist Bencyrus Ellorin puts it this way: Have you ever seen a "tree farmer" plant oak trees?)
These @#$%^&! congressmen only want to make it appear that they are quick in responding to a clamor for decisive action as an aftermath of the recent Luzon disaster. But truth is, the Banaag bill is designed to allow loggers to continue the flagellation of our forests.
What these wise guys should really be doing is to think of a way to ban people with present and past ties to logging from public service and much more, from being in Congress. But what can we really expect from congressmen who come from timber-rich provinces that continue to be raped by loggers and politicians alike?
I could be wrong about this, but the Banaag committee really sounds like a committee of people with stakes in the logging industry.
Shame on our congressmen for the pro-logging bill that they are pushing.
Pastilan.
| Webweaving by Zerobull |