Cut trees in the name of development?

Last Wednesday, barely an hour after I submitted my May 28 article entitled “No to cutting of 617 trees on Quirino Avenue”, came the unexpected announcement of the DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources) that the proponents of the Southern Access Link Expressway (SALEX) project have agreed to suspend the Quirino Avenue tree-cutting.

DENR Secretary Juan Miguel Cuna’s message – “Right now, the cutting has been voluntarily stopped and we agreed to it. Let it be paused first so we can study it more thoroughly, there might still be additions to the earth-balling measures.”

Goodness.

Were there no strong protest from Caritas and other environmental groups, would the DENR have proceeded with the tree cutting even without seriously, more thoroughly studying/reviewing measures, before the project started, that would have protected the trees?

Of 617 trees along Quirino Avenue originally included for tree cutting, so far, 245 trees have been reported cut, 94 trees identified for possible transplantation, 27 of these for earthballing.

Can these DENR-approved measures ensure that the affected trees will survive?

What is the DENR track record for tree earthballing/transplanting?

Tree-cutting protesters should demand to see DENR’s previous earthballing and transplanting performance.

Where are these previously transplanted/earthballed trees, in what locations?

How many of the trees they have earthballed and transplanted in the past survived until now?

Protesters ought to demand as well the review of the DENR categorization of the affected 617 trees, why were the 245 trees cut, what criteria has been used for classifying which trees had to be cut, transplanted, and earthballed, where and how?

Protesters also should insist on having genuine, non-DENR tree experts and specialists examine and determine the condition of all the trees involved and to suggest measures to protect the trees as far as possible.

DENR should have followed these suggestions before the start of the project, before any tree was cut and sacrificed in the name of development, of progress.

Protesters may also wish to question if the present DENR leadership is thoroughly informed about global warming, the value of trees (for people, for clean air, for flood control and for healthy biodiversity), how best to protect all trees, what sustainable development truly means, and how best to protect trees for sustainable development.

This last suggestion is made in the light of some worrisome reported statements of DENR Secretary Cuna:

“If we can avoid cutting even one tree, we will do that. But if based on the study, the design and the purpose of the project, we need to cut trees for development.

“We reiterate, nobody wants to cut trees but this is the reality of the world we live in.

“That is why the term sustainable development was coined because we recognize that for our economy to grow and improve, development is necessary. We cannot avoid that.”

Goodness.

Sustainable development stresses meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, aims to have a society where living conditions and resources meet human needs without undermining planetary integrity, and, aims to balance the needs of the economy, environment, and society.”

To his credit, Secretary Cuna adds, “but even if we need to pursue this development, which our country requires, we must not forget environmental protection and the impact of these developments on our communities.”

If he so believed in the impact of development on communities and the need for environmental protection, why then could not DENR have earlier proposed better measures to better protect all the trees along the proposed expressway project?

Surely, there abound lessons and actual practices, science, and research, that have allowed trees and development to proceed together?

Bring the experts in --those who understand how projects can proceed without sacrificing the trees!