Amb.

Tolentinos articles on Manila Times

An Asean identity?

While the main goals of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia,
Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnamare described in trade terms (single
market and production base, highly competitive economic region, equitable economic development, further integration
into the global economy), the documents that have come out of various Asean meetings talk about many other things.

On the matter of an Asean identity, the Asean Charter (2007), the Asean Declaration on Cultural Heritage (2000) and of
late, the Asean Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint (2009-20015), specify The Asean Identity is the basis of Southeast
Asias regional interests. It is our collective personality, norms, values and beliefs as well as aspirations as one Asean
Community..The strategic objective is to create a sense of belonging, consolidate unity in diversity and enhance
deeper mutual understanding among Asean member countries about their culture, history, religion and civilization

There are, however, sorts of cultural war among some Asean countries related to cultural heritage. In 2012, it was
reported that riots erupted in Jakarta when Indonesian protesters targeted the Malaysian Embassy over dance heritage,
in particular, the Tor-tor dance. Likewise, some quarters claim Malaysias national anthem Negaraku is based on
Indonesias Terang Bulan (Bright Moon). In the area of cuisine, the Yu Sheng/Lo Hei, a dish served during Chinese Lunar
Festival and traditionally thought to bring prosperity is separately claimed by the Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia as
theirs.

Even the Peranakan (Nonya) dishes, a fusion of Malay and Chinese recipes, did not escape similar claims. (Ethnic tension
within Malaysia between Chinese Malaysians and ethnic Malays is still on because of the countrys economic policy of
Bumiputra which gives preferential treatment to the ethnic Malay majority.) Another example is the Preah Vihar temple
issue between Cambodia and Thailand which had to be settled by the International Court of Justice. In April 2013, about
500 nationalists of the Patriot Thai Group raised the flag of Thailand to assert Thai sovereignty over Preah Vihar.

The examples cited demonstrate that cultures should not be thought to have fixed borders. Many of these cultures
evolved in the course of time during Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or Christian periods. Meaning, practices in countries
within the Asean region continued to be shaped by various peoples and events.

Even the legal culture is not an exception. Asean countries have a mosaic of legislations with traces of foreign influence
brought about by periods of Spanish (Philippines), French (Cambodia, Lao PDR, Vietnam), British (Brunei Darussalam,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore) AND Dutch (Indonesia) occupation.

The lack of knowledge of historical roots and evolution of particular ways of life and practices can result in too
nationalistic and divisive views. There should be space for two or more forms of heritages, complementary but not in
conflict. In short, they should be considered shared cultures that transcend political boundaries. In this rubric are the
angklung (bamboo) orchestra as well as the gamelan (gongs) ensemble of Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines which
are like one. Also batiks which are either Indonesian, Malaysian or Thai like the wayang kulit (shadow play).

The Philippine Bayanihan Dance Co. researched Singkil and found that it has its equivalent in Indonesia and Malaysia,
which should not be a surprise considering the geographic proximity of the three countries collectively called
Maphilindo before the birth of Asean. In the same way, the popular Philippine folk dance Tinikling has a slow
movement version in Thailand. Truly Asean, on the other hand, is kite flying as a pastime as well as the tube-like-wrap-
around malong, a real-life practical garment for men still evident all over Southeast Asia from Brunei Darussalam to
Myanmar to Vietnam.
The case of the Preah Vihar temple between Cambodia and Thailand, however, should be viewed in another light.
Involved is sovereignty but a way out is recognition of functional sovereignty as distinguished from territorial
sovereignty. Functional sovereignty refers to specific uses of a resource rather than absolute and unlimited jurisdiction
within a geographic space. It means interdependence in the sustainable use of a resource emphasizing that states are
dutybound to cooperate with each other to promote development sustainability of the common environment.

Preah Vihar ought to be enjoyed as an Asean tourism resource, a cultural heritage of both Cambodia and Thailand aside
from a religious destination in the Asean jurisdiction. Or, in different words, the change of perception of the role of
sovereignty in relations between states regarding their environment should be characterized by equitable utilization
ultimately redounding to the benefit of the Asean region.

A good model for an Asean identity is the Asean Heritage Parks system which continues to focus on cooperation among
member countries to develop a regional conservation and management plan for the current string of over 40 heritage
parks in the region. The criteria to determine if the region qualifies as an Asean heritage park include high ethno-
biological significance, uniqueness and respresentativeness. Designation as a heritage park strengthens cooperation,
awareness and appreciation among Asean countries.

Together with the other aspects of the Asean cultural heritage, the designation promotes the twin objectives of
community building and identity. Best of all, the concept of an Asean heritage parks system advances protected area
goals expressed in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Conservation as well as
the World Heritage Convention.

All this will help forge an Asean identity which is important for the future implementation of Asean policies. It is a
complementary to the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention (Asean Way) which can, without the recognition of
a cultural bridge, hinder the implementation of Asean legal instruments and tools including environmental laws. After
all, what society chooses to preserve of the past defines who we are today, creates our collective memory and hastens
our new development as Asean Community bound by a common regional identity. In the words of Asean law expert
Koh Kheng Lian, an Asean identity is crucial to bringing about enhanced cooperation to supplement the Asean Way and
make it more meaningful, to encourage all to THINK Asean instead of only Think National.
Changing concept of sovereignty over natural resources

..it is time to bring sovereignty down to earth, cut it down to size, discard its own rhetoric, to examine, analyze,
reconceive the concept and break out its normative content; to repackage it, even rename it; and slowly ease the term
out of polite language in international relations, particularly in law. - Louis Henkin (1994)

Sovereignty in its widest sense means the supreme, absolute and uncontrollable power by which any independent State
is governed. Through the years, the concept of sovereignty has evolved to include not only territorial sovereignty but
permanent sovereignty over natural resources (PSNR) as well. Fundamentally, PSNR means the State can freely dispose
of its natural wealth and resources within its territory. Correlatively, the principle brings about the State duty to properly
manage its wealth and resources as well as due care of the environment.

Efforts at formulation of the principle culminated in the adoption of a UN resolution called Declaration on Permanent
Sovereignty over Natural Resources in 1962. The principle progressively developed that by 1972, the well-known
Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment declares the sovereign right of States to exploit
their own natural resources pursuant to their own environmental policies. However, the right is qualified by the
obligation not to cause any extra-territorial environmental harm.

For many years, the main purpose of international agreements related to the principle of permanent sovereignty over
natural resources was the maximum use and development of natural resources instead of rational management and
conservation of natural resources in order to prevent their depletion or degradation. Perhaps, the reason was the
concept of sovereignty is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom in an ecological frame of reference. The very thought of
ecology is based on the notion of interdependence rather than independence. In fact, rights of full disposal were
granted to States on the basis of territorial sovereignty rather than a principle of sharing the worlds resources. The
trend was overtaken after the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment by resource-oriented
multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) or treaties. An example is the UN Law of the Sea Convention (1982)
which adopted the regime of common heritage of mankind by which non-State areas are not freely appropriated
anymore by financially capable developed countries for their exclusive use. Similarly, incorporation of the integrated
ecosystem approach in the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) enumerates State duties to properly manage its
species of plants and animals which, in effect, limits a States exercise of jurisdiction over its natural resources. From
unrestrained freedom of action, State sovereignty was interpreted in a more functional way to mean specific uses of a
resource rather than absolute and unlimited jurisdiction within a given geographical space.

Functional sovereignty is bolstered by reference of various PSNR-related UN resolutions and treaties to mankind
referring to areas and resources beyond the limits of national jurisdiction or the global commons. In this connection,
mention should be made that at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, proposals
were made to characterize biological and genetic resources as well as the worlds forests as the common heritage of
humankind. Thus, the three Rio treaties recognize that change in the Earths climate and its adverse effects are a
common concern of humankind (Climate Change Convention); that the conservation of biological diversity is a concern
of humankind (Convention on Biological Diversity); and desertification and drought are problems of global dimension
and human beings in affected areas should be at the centre of concerns to combat desertification and to mitigate the
effects of drought (Convention to Combat Desertification). Note that in those treaties people, humankind and the
environment as such are objects rather than subjects of international law. As objects, indirectly they have rights under
or are beneficiaries of international law through subjects of international law, referring to the State actors in the
international legal system.

Sovereignty has served as the foundation of public international law since the Peace of Westphalia (1648) with sovereign
states as the principal actors in international relations. But as can be gleaned, times have changed. What does the
principle represent in the changing world? Current thinking maintains permanent sovereignty over natural resources as
a State-oriented law under which natural resources regimes co-exist but barely interact. Be that as it may, the trend, as
can be observed, is towards a legal interpretation that is humankind-oriented, under which sustainable development
and environmental preservation are approached from a global perspective. At its core is cooperation aimed at
implementation of the right to development, the wise management of natural resources, equitable sharing of
transboundary natural resources and the global commons for preservation for the coming generations. With this legal
thinking and the concomitant framework, sovereignty over natural resources as the fountainhead of rights and
obligations can very well continue to serve as a basic principle of public international law. The above-enumerated
treaties incorporate the law of interdependence in the sustainable use of natural resources emphasizing States are
under the duty to cooperate with each other to promote development sustainability of the common environment.

With this latest development in the increasing appreciation of PSNR, is it not time to re-think and re-actualize
sovereignty in order to formally recognize its functional role as demanded by changing times?

After all, the general principle that ensues from all this is that the Earths biosphere is the common heritage of all life on
earth of which humanity is the steward.
Common sovereignty over transboundary natural resources

Transboundary natural resources transcend national jurisdictions, which means that the exercise of jurisdiction of one
state affects the environment of one or more other states or areas owing to the original and traditional interpretation of
sovereign rights of sates over their natural wealth, resources become depleted or exhausted as each state seeks to
maximize its own benefit by exploiting the resources. Also, existing international law on transboundary natural
resources tends to be piecemeal and uneven when dealing with the issue of transboundary waters, e.g. ECE
Transboundary Watercourses Convention (1992), Danube Convention (1992); and living resources, e.g. Whaling
Convention (1946), Antartic Marine Living Resources Convention (1980).

The international challenge for coordination and cooperation to ensure the equitable and sustainable or reasonable
utilization and management of transboundary natural resources was brought forth by two international legal studies
done by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1986) and the International Council of
Environmental Law (2004) which expound on the principle that States are entitled to a reasonable and equitable share in
the beneficial uses of a transboundary natural resource. According to this principle, no use or category of uses is
inherently superior to any other use or category of uses. Whether a certain use is reasonable or not has to be
determined in the light of all relevant factors in each particular case. These factors may include, inter alia, geographic,
hydrologic, climatic, biologic or ecological conditions, the existing use made of the natural resource, the economic and
social needs of the States concerned, the feasibility of alternative means including the availability of other resources
to satisfy these needs and the possibility of compensation to one or more of the States concerned as a means of
adjusting conflicts among uses. The essence of the principle of equitable utilization is that instead of laying down a norm
with a more or less specific content, it rather prescribes a certain technique aimed at reaching an equitable result in
each concrete case.

The principle has been applied in many multilateral environmental agreements or treaties specifically those concerning
the use of the waters of international watercourses. Examples are the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan
(1960) and the Agreement Regulating the Withdrawal of Water from Lake Constance between Austria, Federal Republic
of Germany and Switzerland (1996) which determined the delimitation of the rights and duties of each State over the
transboundary waters.

An example in Southeast Asia is the Agreement on the Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong
River Basin (1995) drawn in accordance with the principle of safeguarding sovereignty, territorial integrity and mutual
benefit.

Aside from treaties, the equitable utilization principle was also a recommendation in the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference
on the Human Environment which says The net benefits of hydrologic regions common to more than one national
jurisdiction are to be shared equitably by the nations concerned (Recommendation 51). It was also a recommendation of
the Action Plan adopted by the 1977 UN Water Conference which declared that In relation to the use, management
and development of shared water resources, national policies should take into consideration the right of each State . . .
to equitably utilize such resources (Recommendation 91). Furthermore, highest courts or arbitral tribunals in Germany,
the United States, Switzerland and India have also frequently applied the principle of equitable utilization in the sharing
of waters of interstate watercourses.

To efficiently manage what is left of the earths natural resources, a relaxed concept of sovereignty was thought of
through equitable sharing of transboundary natural resources and the global commons. It appears on the basis of State
practice that a rule of customary international law has emerged requiring States to cooperate in the conservation and
management of transboundary natural resources.
Sovereignty as a responsibility in the Asean

Sovereignty in its widest sense means the supreme, absolute and uncontrollable power by which any independent State is
governed. Through the years, the concept of sovereignty has evolved to include not only internal or territorial sovereignty but
also permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Fundamentally, it means the State can freely dispose of its natural wealth
and resources within its territory. Correlatively, the principle brings about the State duty to properly manage its wealth and
natural resources as well as due care of the environment. Derived from this principle is also the right of the State to pursue its
own socioeconomic and environmental policies.

The growth of the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources is closely associated with two main concerns at
the time of the creation of the United Nations in 1945. These are (i) the economic development of developing countries; and
(ii) the self-determination of colonial peoples. The principle progressively developed that by 1972, the well-known principle of
the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment declares the sovereign right of States to exploit their own natural
resources pursuant to their own environmental policies. However, the right is qualified by the obligation not to cause any
extraterritorial environmental harm. Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development restates
Principle 21 as mentioned and confirms that sovereignty does not only give rise to State rights but to State obligations and
responsibilities as well.

Emerging environmental challenges such as climate change mitigation, food and water security and disaster management add
new dimensions to environmental issues. No country can deal with those challenges alone. States must continually identify
common priorities to deal with those concerns. It must enhance coordination among states and even challenge the dichotomy
between regional and national interests, reexamining principles of sovereignty and non-interference in the context of
environmental challenges. Asean response in this regard are the on-going cooperative efforts to promote conservation
activities which include, among others, (i) The Heart of Borneo initiative to create a transboundary biodiversity sanctuary
straddling Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam and Indonesia against illegal logging and clearing land for palm oil plantations; (ii) The
Asean Heritage Parks program which consists of identified and proclaimed protected areas of high conservation importance in
each member country, preserving in total a complete spectrum of representative ecosystems of the Asean region; (iii) The
Asean Turtle Conservation and Protection Memorandum of Understanding between the Philippines and Malaysia to jointly
manage, protect and conserve all species of turtle and their habitats in the region through unified management, conservation
and protection strategies; (iv) The Sulu Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion as part of the Asean Marine Heritage Areas about which
conservation plans for joint implementation are in place to protect and conserve the coral triangle bounded by the
Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia.

The involvements of Asean countries mentioned above demonstrate the right of states, within the framework of other
principles and rules of international law, to manage natural resources in accord with developmental and environmental
policies and objectives. It confirms that a states sovereignty over its natural resources involves a number of duties. Among
them: (i) The duty to ensure benefits for the whole population and not to compromise the rights of future generations; (ii) The
duty to prevent harm to the environment of neighboring states or areas beyond national jurisdiction. This implies a prudent
use of natural resources not only to protect biodiversity but also to prevent and control pollution. Gradually, it has become
recognized that under international law, natural resources management is no longer exclusively within the jurisdiction of
individual states and that sovereignty is a responsibility and not an absolute right.

There is much discourse nowadays about sovereignty vis-a-vis natural resources and economic growth, natural resources and
conflict in use and natural resource governance mechanisms; proof that the 21st century marks an increasing and continuing
appreciation of the concept of sovereignty over natural resources. Looking back, the decades after the 1972 UN Stockholm
Conference on the Human Environment could well be described as decades of clarifying and updating the earlier economic
and political concept of sovereignty and integrating it into the present legal thinkinga dynamic response to changed
circumstances and insights in the changing world.
Asean: Indonesian haze not a sovereignty issue

Illustrative of Asean cooperation on the principle of sovereignty over natural resources is the Asean response to the recurring
Indonesian haze, which has been affecting the neighboring countries specifically Singapore, Malaysia and southern Thailand
since 1982.

It is the result of land-clearing fires for palm plantations and the practice of swidden (kaingin) agriculture particularly on peat
lands in Indonesia.

Only in 2002 did Asean formulate a hard law instrument on the issue: the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution
(ATHP). Although generally applicable to all Asean states, it was formulated in response to the Indonesian haze. It took effect
in November 2003 with the ratification by nine member states. Indonesia has yet to ratify, which rendered the Agreement
essentially ineffective.

In October 2006, Singapore decided to raise the issue at the UN General Assembly, a permissible move under Article 2 of
ATHP, which specifically states that the Agreements objective is to prevent and monitor transboundary haze pollution
through concerted national efforts and intensified regional and international cooperation. Indonesia, however, invoked the
principle of sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs. (A word must be said about the Asean way of doing things.
Cooperation is done through consensus. There is no Asean Parliament to issue laws, regulations and directives to its members
and no enforcement agencies. Non-interference in the domestic affairs of a member State is the rule of conduct.)

This controversy illustrates the complex political and economic dimensions of the haze problem as well as the conflict
between national and regional interests confronting the Asean. The successful adoption and ratification of ATHP attests to
Aseans growing stature as a transnational environmental lawmaker. But, at the same time, the controversy demonstrates the
obstacles in Aseans path towards environmental regulatory effectiveness.

Perhaps it is time for Asean to take a strong stand, that the principle of sovereignty be modified in the context of
environmental law. Far from undermining state sovereignty, enhanced cooperation in the area of environment will strengthen
states sustainable development. By adopting a flexible engagement approach to transboundary environmental issues, Asean
member states could discuss complex problems such as the Indonesian Haze without being accused of interfering with the
internal affairs of the country.

Flexible engagement is not yet an accepted principle in the Asean, but its application to transboundary environmental issues is
relevant. Flexible engagement is an attempt to delimit the range of situations in which individual member states would be
justified in appealing to non-interference to ward off outside involvement in their internal affairs. As serious threats to
sustainable development and human security more broadly, transboundary environmental issues would be classified as
beyond the scope of internal affairs and would be subject to regional governance despite sovereignty.

It is interesting to compare Aseans response to the Haze issue with the threat posed by zoonotic diseases, e.g. SARS, avian flu,
swine flu (H1N1) during the last 7 years which raised not only issues of human security but also challenged animal protection,
the protection of biodiversity and ecosystems and the pursuit of sustainable development, i.e. sustainability of the chain of
animal food production.

The threat of a pandemic drove Asean to act with prompt response with no less than 25 Asean soft law instruments. Possibly,
Aseans response to zoonotic diseases was more successful as a result of the threat of pandemic not only in the region but
also in many parts of the world. In the words of eminent Asean law expert, Koh Kheng Lian, Asean should use its rich history
of cooperation among States to build . . . environmental cooperation . . . This would enhance respect for sovereignty, not
undermine it; it can be argued that the inability to avert an environmental disaster is a greater loss of sovereign authority than
cooperation in agreed programs to control the harm. Aseans deferential approach to others domestic affairs can
inadvertently lead to violations of Principle 21 of the UN Declaration on the Human Environment in which all States
acknowledge that each must act so as not to harm the environment of each other.
ASEAN WATER PARTNERSHIP - The great Mekong River

THE Mekong River is the twelfth longest river in the world at 4,173 kilometers. The headwaters originate in the Tibetan
region of China and the river then flows through Yunan province in China into five Asean countries: Myanmar,
Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam.

The Mekong forms the boundary between Laos and Myanmar. It courses through Laos for approximately 500 km before
once again becoming the boundary between Laos and Thailand. Then the Mekong passes through the southwest corner
of Laos and flows through the heart of Cambodia where a very unique physical feature exists, the Tonle River and the
Tonle Sap Lake. Then it flows into Vietnam and empties out through the Mekong Delta of Vietnam into the South China
Sea.

The Mekong River basin covers 795 km. (A water basin, also known as a catchment basin, is a geographical and
hydrological unit consisting of a main river and all the territories between the water source, the spring and the mouth of
the river).

The tremendous natural resources of the Mekong Basin have long been recognized. The tropical climate of the region
along with the abundance of water during the wet season supports an extremely productive and diverse aquatic
ecosystem with numerous ecologically important wetlands. In addition, the basin states rely upon the natural
productivity of the basins fisheries to help meet the subsistence needs of many of the approximately 60 million
residents of the Mekong basin.

Common ground

While the interest of each country is different and there are diverse upstream and downstream issues, the Lower
Mekong countries have found a common ground on which to cooperate in addressing issues from a basin point of view.
Cooperation in all fields of sustainable development, utilization, management conservation of water and other resources
is somehow evident in irrigation, hydro-power, navigation, flood control, fisheries, timber floating, recreation and
tourism initiatives and projects.

It was the United Nations which drew attention to the potential for integrated development in the lower Mekong basin
as early as the 1950s. A Mekong Committee was set up by Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and the then Republic of South
Vietnam in 1957 to promote, coordinate, supervise and control the planning and investigations of water resource
development projects.

Political events, however, transpired to dampen the committees prospects and the change of government in Laos,
Cambodia and Vietnam during the mid-1970s cast doubt on the committees future. By 1991, reactivation of the
Mekong Committee began.

Circumstances, however, had changed considerably since the mid-1970s in many ways: a) although the region seemed
to be entering a new era of peace in the 1990s, the governments were no longer as closely allied to each other as they
were before the mid-1970s; b) the viability of large mainstream dams, the quest for joint developments under the
original Mekong Committee was under question due to the potential environmental and social impacts; c) China was in
the process of implementing a large-scale hydropower development program in the upper reaches of the Mekong River
which could significantly alter the downstream flow regimes and hence, there was a need to bring China into a more
active cooperation framework (Far Eastern Economic Review, 1992).
Basin nations agreement

In 1995, the Agreement on Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Mekong River Basin was signed by
Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam and established the Mekong River Commission. The philosophy of the agreement
is to improve the livelihood of 60 million people living in the Lower Mekong River Basin. China and Myanmar which are
part of the Mekong River Basin have not signed the agreement but were designated Asean dialogue partners in 1996
and have participated in various Mekong River-related activities.

A close look at the 1995 agreement reveals that while signatory countries agreed to cooperate in maintaining minimum
flow levels of no less than the acceptable monthly minimum flow rates during each month of the dry season, the same
agreement does not require consent/consensus/agreement of the riparians for national projects which may affect the
river flow levels. The prior legal agreement in place required the consent/concurrence of all riparian countries for any
national project that involved the Mekong River. Moreover, the agreement is silent about distribution of water to the
member states although basic principles to be applied in developing rules for water distribution are set forth in the
agreement.

After sixty 60 years of Asean riparian country cooperation in the utilization of the Great Mekong River, some questions
surfaced that needed to be attended to: a) What types of activities are or should be forbidden within the shared
Mekong River Basin?; b) Is it possible to harmonize national laws of the riparian countries to regulate the use of the
shared basin?; c) What does it really mean to manage the Mekong River Basin in an integrated manner?; d) What rights
and obligations do upstream and downstream states have?; e) How can environmental flows be effectively regulated
within the shared Mekong River basin?

Above all, what approach should be taken if and when the water flow from the Mekong Rivers source markedly
lessened or diminished because of the gigantic dam projects of China to divert the flow for its own use to open up
agricultural areas to attain food security for its overgrown population?
Strategy for disaster risk reduction

Climate change induced weather disasters have quadrupled during the last few years. The 2011 horrifying earthquake
and tsunami in Japan is one such weather disaster. The 2013 typhoon Yolanda accompanied by the terrifying storm
surge in the Philippines is another.

Tropical storms, extended drought, harder monsoon rains, devastating floods, unexpected landslides and earthquakes
are more common now in densely populated Asia where people are the most endangered when natural calamities
strike. The annual cyclones in Bangladesh, the uncommon cyclone occurrence in Myanmar in 2008 as well as the
destruction brought by typhoons Ondoy, Sendong, and Pablo in the Philippines drew attention to these countries
efforts at reducing disaster risks in managed ways.

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) systems are now in place in Bangladesh, Myanmar and the Philippines with the support of
international organizations like the Red Cross and the Save the Children and their respective governments. DRR refers to
all activities by local communities, families, governments and NGOs that help reduce in advance the effects of natural
disasters. The objective is to cover all risks including the effects of climate change.

Disaster risk reduction system

The main feature of a disaster risk reduction system is a disaster plan and prevention program in endangered towns and
villages. It incorporates standardized warning signals, different flags for use before and during disasters, identification of
emergency shelters, evacuation procedures, emergency food stocks (and replenishment), utensils for immediate use like
cooking stoves, water supply, provision of sanitary facilities and others.

Experience with disaster emergency management gave way to the principle of build back better which means that
damaged structures are not simply replaced but improved to make them more resilient and intact for the onslaught of
another natural calamity.

Like in other areas of environmental management, the institutional arrangement to cope with natural disasters involve
not just one government agency like the Department of Social Welfare and Development but many other environment-
related agencies such as those on local governments, health, education, agriculture, police, public works, etc. The
Philippines National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) follows that direction through
effective inter-agency linkages and coordination with regional and local governments for disaster remediation
operations.

Global level

At the international level, the UN has an International Strategy for Disaster Reduction which aims to guide and
coordinate the efforts of a wide range of partners to achieve substantive reduction in disaster losses and build resilient
nations and communities as an essential condition for sustainable development. The United Nations International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) is the secretariat of the ISDR system and comprises numerous organizations,
states, NGOs, financial institutions, technical bodies and civil society which work together and share information to
reduce disaster risks.

It also serves as the focal point for the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action, a ten-year plan of action
adopted in 2005 by 168 governments to protect lives and livelihoods against disasters.
With the prominence of the field of environmental law during the last four decades, the enactment of a legislation on
disaster risk reduction and management is encouraged. One such is the 2010 Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Act (R.A. 10121). An action plan and guidelines to define the respective roles and responsibilities of
government agencies, schools, NGOs and other groups is in place. The challenge is to translate into effective local
community action to save lives and reduce disaster risks and economic losses. Above all, a safety culture in times of
disasters and emergencies should be established so that people in danger areas will be well informed and motivated to
consciously integrate the risks in their day-to-day living.

Indeed, the success of any disaster plan and prevention program depends on the cooperation of the local people
exposed to danger. Nobody is more familiar with the immediate environment than the local inhabitants themselves who
are also best situated to overcome the risks that accompany weather disasters aided by disaster emergency awareness
and preparedness strategies and techniques.
Asean: Better, faster disaster reliefs?

DURING the past three decades, the frequency of natural disasters has increased globally but the worst increase has
been in the Asia-Pacific region. Be that as it may, advances in the science of disaster risk management point out that
there are no true natural disasters. Many natural hazards are accelerated by human activity and no matter how
natural the hazard, it is human exposure, vulnerability, resilience and preparedness that define whether a given event
results merely in a rainy day or natural catastrophe. In short, human behavior can be regulated unlike the weather.

Studies of experiences about regulatory frameworks for reducing disaster risks, responding to disasters and recovering
from them are still in their infancy. Yet states are increasingly turning to legal instruments at the national, regional and
international levels to fight disasters. Are those legal instruments in place meeting their potential to increase
cooperation on disaster risk management and humanitarian response ?

The Asean Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (ADMER) signed and ratified by all ten
member states is one such legal instrument. Agreed on as an aftermath of the 2004 Great Tsunami which hit, among
others, the coastal zones of Indonesia and Thailand resulting in much loss of life and property, ADMER was already in
effect (29 December 2009) when one of the strongest typhoons ever recorded, Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan), hit the
Visayas in the Philippines.

Some of the militaries of the Southeast Asian countries were forced to respond to the calamity but their voluntary
efforts highlighted military operational shortcomings in the region. In many ways, the response was mainly on a national
basis. Some transport aircraft and ships were sent but there was not enough multinational cooperation. Analysts trace
the situation to the lack of trust and confidence between many governments for which reason bilateral and trilateral
arrangements may be more effective.

Aware of the need for greater cooperation in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, Thailand and Korea sponsored
a Southeast Asian Regional Forum Disaster Relief Exercise in Thailand while Brunei Darussalam and Singapore co-hosted
in 2013 a combined military medicine/humanitarian assistance and disaster relief exercise with all ten Asean members
involved. Additional region-wide exercises were held in Thailand in 2014. Singapore, on the other hand, offered to the
Armed Forces of the Philippines its newly launched Changi Regional Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Co-
ordination Center to organize multi-national military intervention in response to Typhoon Ruby (Hagupit) which made
landfall in Eastern Samar on 6 December 2014 but was downgraded into a tropical storm soon after its landfall.

Take note that while defense of sovereignty is the primary responsibility of the military, the requirement to respond to
floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc. is likely to remain a secondary priority but one, nonetheless,
which is likely to increasingly influence the modernization drive of the Asean countries military over the next decades.

In that connection, Singapore procured large multipurpose amphibious ships in 2014. Similar efforts at modernization
are being exerted by Indonesia, the Philippines, Myanmar and Vietnam even if, admittedly, security in the increasing
territorial disputes is the prime mover for the heightened emphasis on the militaries capacity and capability in the
region.

To fulfill the military requirements related to humanitarian search/rescue and relief operations, procurement targets of
Asean countries like multi-role helicopters and transport aircrafts would not require new designs to fulfill the militaries
secondary role. What is necessary is inter-operability of joint and multi-national missions with greater command-and-
control capabilities among Aseans military considering the vastness of the region.

In the light of scientific information that natural disasters are projected to intensify in the Asia-Pacific region in the
future, the Asean Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response mentioned above could serve the
Asean countries well if utilized effectively and cohesively. As an agreement on disaster preparedness, emergency
response and rehabilitation, it is about expedited customs and immigration clearance; faster movement of relief goods,
tools and personnel (included are provision of food, water sanitation facilities and temporary shelters); setting up of an
Asean disaster relief fund; better utilization of civilian and military personnel as well as stronger simulation exercises to
test emergency response.

Actually, an Asean Co-ordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA) is functioning in
Jakarta to facilitate cross border movement of relief efforts and coordination among member countries in joint
emergency response.

An ADMER evaluation report in 2013 noted that many civil society organizations are increasingly involved in advocacy
work around disaster management laws in countries such as Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines.

However, there is a need to complement legal instruments with strong research which could help boost our
understanding of the complexities underlying risk and disaster relief at all levels.
Environmental refugees: Quickly spreading

Refugees are people who seek asylum for fear of political, racial or religious persecution or people who leave their
homes because of war or civil strife. This traditional notion of refugees, however, leave out the new, growing and quickly
spreading phenomenon of environmental refugees triggered by natural calamities like earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic
eruptions, landslides resulting to forced displacement of people. (When people seek refuge within their own countries
as environmental refugees, they are commonly referred to as internally displaced persons).

Recent scientific studies show that rising seas will supplant encroaching desserts and other forms of land degradation as
the major threat to habitability of many places this century. The evacuation of 1,400 residents of Papua New Guineas
Carteret Islands (the worlds first climate change refugees according to the UN) due to rising sea levels offers a sobering
vision of the future for coastal populations.

Global warming brought about by excessive fossil fuel use is reported to result to thermal expansion of the oceans and
melting of the icecaps. A one meter increase in sea level will displace millions of people in the delta regions of the Nile
and Ganges rivers, further compounding land scarcity in Egypt and Bangladesh. To think that world population is
projected to increase by 90 million annually all of them in need of food, water and shelter. In fact, as the root causes of
the on-going Southeast Asian migrant crisis unravel, it would not be surprising if it turns out in the UNHCR backed
Bangkok Special Meeting on Irregular Migration in the Indian Ocean of concerned countries and other probes being
carried out that some of those boat people are in reality environmental refugees from Bangladesh and Myanmar
aiming for Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.

The combined effects of warmer climates and higher seas will make typhoons more frequent and more destructive
further damaging the habitability of coastal areas. Extensive river diversions will markedly lessen the amount of
freshwater discharged into coastal areas while higher sea levels will increase saltwater intrusion thus reducing mangrove
forest cover and disrupting major fisheries within fragile ecosystems. Endangered places that may cease to exist include,
among others, Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Marshall Islands in the Pacific, Maldives in the Indian Ocean as well as the
touristic string of emerald islands and islets in the Caribbean prompting the formation of an association of small island
states working towards solutions to their plight to counter sea level rise before the United Nations.

Poverty and inadequate development policies along with rapid population growth are the roots of environmental
degradation in the developing world. Present environmental refugees may already be the biggest single group of
displaced persons. By the middle of this century, people forced to leave their homes and places of livelihood because of
flooding, desertification, toxic pollution, sea level rise or other environmental disruptions may even constitute the
largest in number among those displaced by all other means.

Improvement in general environmental practices particularly agricultural methods, including soil conservation, which
maintains the capability of ecosystems to support life known in environmental science as carrying capacity will help
prevent migration of people. Above all, rapid population growth must be managed particularly in places most vulnerable
to ecological disasters.
Asean environment: Wetlands for disaster resilience

THE 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami originating in an earthquake in the sea off Sumatra in Indonesia devastated 12
countries, including Indonesia, Thailand and Sri Lanka. As an immediate response, the periodic Asian Wetlands
Symposium held in 2005 (in India) recommended, among others, to prioritize the natural coastal defenses through
greenbelt/coastal bioshield development In connection therewith, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction (2015) identified as one of four priorities the matter of investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience.

Not to be missed is the Asean Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (ADMER), which came into
force in 2009 with the intention of providing effective regional mechanisms to mitigate impacts of natural
disasters.through concerted national efforts and intensified regional cooperation.

Early this year, the Asean Institute of International and Strategic Studies, a consortium of Asean think tanks, concluded
that one of the key challenges to Asean is adapting to climate change:Asean needs to be prepared for the real
possibility that global mitigation efforts are not sufficient. Efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change and disasters
will increasingly demand greater coordination and the pooling of resources.

In the light of scientific information that natural disasters are projected to intensify in Asia, the ADMER could be utilized
for disaster prevention and mitigation purposes even if the agreement leans heavily towards disaster preparedness and
emergency response, i.e. faster movement of relief goods, better utilization of civilian and military response, etc.
ADMER could serve as the basis for Aseans active role at disaster risk reduction by incorporating effective wetlands
management strategies for climate change resilience.

Disaster risk reduction, according to ADMER, means a framework of elements considered with possibilities to minimize
vulnerabilities and disaster risks to avoid, through prevention or, to limit through mitigation and preparedness the
adverse impacts of hazards within the broad context of sustainable development.

Wetlands, on the other hand are among the worlds most valuable ecosystems, providing so may benefits to people. As
defense fortifications, wetlands, particularly mangroves, proved excellent defenses against the onslaught of typhoons
and tsunamis as proven by the earthquake occurrence mentioned above. Scientists explained that the roots of
vegetation in Asian mangroves and other forest wetlands helped to hold the sediments in place against the impact of
strong winds, waves and currents. Additionally, wetlands are the kidneys of the earth, purifying water and waste from
both natural and human sources. As biological supermarkets, wetlands provide a wide variety of flora and fauna.
Wetlands act as natural dams, absorbing heavy rainfalls, preventing flood downstream; helps shoreline stabilization and
erosion reduction. Wetlands help recharge groundwater aquifers too. Most important of all, wetlands provide livelihood
to many people.

Aside from mangroves, wetlands include swamps, marshes, mudflats, floodplains, peatlands, estuaries, rivers, lakes and
many more generally described as where water meets land. ADMER is replete with provisions which could be used by
Asean countries in refuting the claim that while emergency response is almost well attended to from the local to the
national government level, much remains to be done in regard to a) cooperation in developing and putting into effect
solutions to reduce disaster impacts; b) development of strategies to identify, prevent or reduce disaster risks and
losses; c) prevention and mitigation legislation, regulations, policies, plans, programs and strategies; and d) raising public
awareness about disaster prevention and mitigation.

In pursuit of this, Asean countries could very well incorporate wetlands for disaster risk reduction and build resilience in
their legal agenda. For instance, the strategy of planting mangrove saplings should be a continuing year-round activity in
the long and extensive coastlines of countries comprising Asean. Likewise, massive planting of high-quality and
commercially productive variety of bamboo could be introduced in riverbanks/river basins and lakeshores as a technique
not only to withstand environmental disturbances but also to preserve and rehabilitate freshwater sources and lakes
and provide added source of income to people.

Take note that Asean is not only about economic partnership, trade liberalization and economic integration. It is also
about environmental security. In that regard, Aseans environment program, conceived in the early 1980s, has
metamorphosed to include an Asean Working Group on Coastal and Marine Environment.

Hosting Asean@50 gives President Duterte a historic opportunity to influence the future direction of Asean vis--vis
disaster risk reduction, an area where Asean lags behind in terms of prevention and mitigation projects to better achieve
climate change resiliency.

It should be borne in mind, however, that building a disaster-resilient Asean needs partnerships among governments,
private sector, NGOs, LGUs, and other institutions with clearly defined roles not only in disaster response but also in
disaster prevention and mitigation. To begin with, a program on the values and functions of wetlands for disaster risk
reduction and onwards to consolidating resilience endeavors among Asean countries on the same track could be
embarked on and, in the process, highlight also the need to scale up adaptation to climate change. Indeed, Asean-wide
advocacy initiatives about wetlands for disaster risk reduction would do well to invigorate efforts in the region to give
climate change resilience the priority that the issue deserves.

Hopefully, the recommendation is realized soon because Asean remains vulnerable to natural disasters. But through
multi-stakeholder engagement, improvements can be made at a much faster pace so the region can have a much
needed disaster-resilient system.