EDITORIAL - Trees to die in 20 years? So why wait?

It is good that Cebu Governor Hilario Davide III has written DENR secretary Ramon Paje to reconsider his decision revoking all permits to cut century-old acasia trees along the Cebu south road. As head of the province, Davide carries the voice of all Cebuanos and is ultimately responsible for their safety and progress, which the trees threaten and hamper.

For it was wrong of Paje, sitting in his office in the capital, to listen to the noise generated by environmentalists who are mostly not even from Cebu and not mind the arguments made by Cebuanos themselves. If at all, the revocation of the permits was a knee-jerk reaction meant to earn pogi points than address in a realistic and meaningful way an issue that is not really a problem except to those with advocacies to live on.

The letter of Davide also got an unexpected boost from experts sent from Manila to find out the true condition of the trees. One of them is Dr. Roger Guzman, a retired forestry professor who now heads a conservationist group called Philippine Federation for Environmental Concern. While Guzman has yet to make an official report on his findings, he has already issued an initial assessment.

In his initial assessment, Guzman said the trees in question need not be cut now because they can survive for 20 to 30 more years. And there is the knockout punch, thrown in defense of the trees but actually working to bolster the argument that they should be cut now. For if the trees are not expected to live beyond 30 years, what is the point of delaying projects that long if the trees will still eventually fall of their own accord when that time comes?

That is precisely the point made by those who agree that the trees need to be cut now because they will eventually be cut, or die away, anyway. Whatever, historical, cultural, aesthetic and environmental value those trees may have now will eventually go when they die. In the meantime, lives will continue to be in danger (two have already fallen on houses, remember?) and precious time will be squandered in favor of a loss that is inevitable. Just how silly can anyone get.

As we have previously argued here before, those trees do not really contribute much to the environment where they are — in the midst of human domiciles and activities. Trees become much more valuable contributors to the environment in their natural habitat which is the forest. That is why hundreds of trees have been proposed to be planted in exchange for their cutting.

But no, the so-called environmentalists and other advocates will hear none of these arguments. To them the aging trees must be left standing where they are no matter the cost to human life and progress. And what have they done for these trees? They climbed them and tied white ribbons around them to prevent their cutting. But only when the media reported they were about to be cut.

Prior to any public announcement about the planned cutting, not a single soul has ever visited the trees to check on their health. No one even knew they existed, in the same way that they have remained oblivious to all the illegal cutting that has been going on everywhere, as evidenced by news reports every now and then of arrests and apprehensions.