Greening should be everybody’s business

As we approach Earth Day, I contemplate with sadness how little regard we have for our environment. We have denuded our forests, abused our oceans and rivers, and poisoned the air we breathe. We have created several of the most unattractive cities on earth, which fail to provide services like waste and sewerage treatment to sustain our bludgeoning population. This is why untreated waste flows directly into our rivers and bays. We do not bother to take the time necessary for a land-use framework, central planning efforts, or greening and public domain programs. We believe that greening is a decorative exercise that is changed with every administration. All these and more point to a shocking lack of respect for ourselves and for what we, as a people, deserve.

I often debate in my mind whether I prefer Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, or Jakarta’s greening program. Traveling throughout these different Asian cities and enjoying the beauty of their urban landscape, I wonder how we could have so tragically missed greening our cities and roads.

I believe that there are several fundamental reasons why:

1) We tend to look at greening as decoration seen from afar rather than as a necessity to provide shade and protection from nature for the citizen. This must be the reason why so few sidewalks are provided. This is also why we have a predisposition to plant decorative plants that are difficult to maintain and trees on islands where no one walks. Look at Rizal Park. There are no trees along the two paths where people stroll. Instead, trees are planted inside fenced areas that are enjoyed from a distance.

2) We do not have an empowered planning culture and infrastructure that transcends the term of the current elected official. Therefore, plans are not institutionalized. Since mayors have three years, there is a tendency to implement short-term projects that have high impact. This also makes it impossible for a mayor to continue his predecessor’s projects.

Several NGOs have made proposals to both national and municipal governments:

1) There should be a shift in thinking and approach on the right of the citizen to have public domain areas like sidewalks, parks, waterfronts and view corridors. When a city planner provides for a sidewalk, for example, he must design it from the point of view of the citizen. Make it an interesting experience, plant it with trees to provide shade and protection from nature, and design it so that it is safe, lit and unobstructed. A good example of planning "from the viewpoint of the citizen" is the promenade along the Marikina River implemented by Mayor Fernando. We enjoy these public domain areas, as the minimum in cities we visit yet cannot seem to implement the same at home.

2) Public-domain areas must be protected for public use. Park areas, plazas and sidewalks must not be converted into commercial areas like malls, fast food restaurants, parking areas, barangay centers. As a matter of fact, there should be more open space allocated for parks and playing fields for children especially near schools. It is no wonder that Filipinos play basketball because children can use the streets for this sport.

3) Planning offices must be empowered to administer institutionalized programs adopted by municipal and national governments regardless of who the administration is. In the case of Metro Manila, each city planner can continue to report to the respective mayor but could work all together under one roof at the MMDA for better coordination and long-term orientation.

4) We should seriously study a simple greening ordinance used by both Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. This ordinance requires all developers of buildings, subdivisions, roadways, parkways, parking lots, to submit a greening and landscape plan to the Municipal Parks Office. Plantings follow a master plan that includes specified tree selections for roads and is supervised and maintained by the city. Once approved, the developer pays a tree-planting fee to the city to fund the maintenance of the program. This program passes the responsibility of greening to the private or public sector developer in an orderly and planned manner, provides a new funding source for maintenance, and ensures the sustainability of the program. (Today after many years, Singapore no longer collects a fee) If this plan were in place, the developer of C-5 for example, would have planted all the trees during construction. The cost of trees relative to the road cost would have been insignificant compared to raising money to plant the trees after the fact.

In many attempts to work with government on greening, we have discovered that one very grave problem is the tendency to fast-track greening. Since planning is not institutionalized and sustained, each mayor or president feels compelled to redo main roads and highways all within a three- to six-month framework to catch the rainy season or to impress upon the populace that something is being done. Trees need time and care to grow. The tragedy is that in most instances, trees die and planter boxes, and decorative elements are broken from lack of maintenance. This short-term thinking is possibly the biggest single contributor to our total failure in the greening of our cities. The Keppel Shipyard chairman, Charles Foo, described to me how Singapore is now planning for the next 10 years. "Singapore is now called a ‘Garden City.’ The new vision for our country by 2012," he said, "is for Singapore to be a ‘City in a Garden.’" So how do we catch up with that?

* * *

I would be happy to forward the Singapore ordinance to interested parties. Please contact me at dorisho@attglobal.net.

There will be a fundraising dinner concert for the Piso para sa Pasig on April 19, 2002. Please help clean the Pasig River. Call 528-09-76 for more information.