Judges order Manila Bay clean-up

But environmentalists are not so optimistic, claiming the lack of adequate sewage systems in the Philippines is at the root of the problem.

Natividad Villamore cooks mussels on the beach at Manila Bay as children swim in the polluted waters behind her.

MANILA // More than half a century has passed since Ernest Hemingway watched the sun set over Manila Bay from his suite at the Manila Hotel. Since then, the vast body of water has become a toxic soup of human and industrial waste. In a scathing indictment of "abject official indifference", the Supreme Court recently said the government had six months to come up with a plan to clean up the bay. But officials and even environmentalists said the government will have a hard time complying with the ruling. "It is not yet too late in the day to restore Manila Bay to its former splendour and bring back the plants and sea life that once thrived in its blue waters," the judges said. "The era of delays, procrastination and ad hoc measures is over." The court did not set a deadline for the clean-up. Instead, it binds various government agencies to take appropriate measures to restore Manila Bay to health. Rellato Cruz, of the department of environment and natural resources, which the court cited as the lead agency in clean-up efforts, agreed that successive administrations have shirked their environmental responsibilities. He said the department has a 15-year rehabilitation plan, and he hoped the ruling would put more pressure on politicians to act, but he was sceptical of any government's ability to restore the bay within the tight time frame the court will now hold the department to. "It's more than 100 years of continuous deterioration," he said. "I don't think you can rectify 100 years of deterioration within 15 years." Mr Cruz said efforts to restore the marine environment must start far inland. Seven major rivers empty into the bay, picking up waste and contaminants as they flow through agricultural, industrial and urban areas. The surface area of the bay is about 1,800 square kilometres, but the the environmental department's coastal strategy - its restoration plan, published in 2001 - also covers 17,000sq km of watershed areas. "These rivers are the major sources of marine pollution in Manila Bay," according to the strategy. About 30 per cent of the Philippines' almost 90 million people live in the Manila Bay area. Many communities do not have adequate sewage or garbage collection systems, so waste gets dumped directly into the rivers. The Pasig River alone receives an estimated 168 tonnes of sewage each day, according to the strategy. Complicating efforts to address the environmental disaster is the raft of agencies and levels of government that will need to work together. Lack of co-ordination is a problem, and many official bodies simply do not have the resources to do their jobs properly. "Not to be ignored of course is the reality that government agencies concerned are so undermanned that it would be impossible to apprehend the numerous polluters of the Manila Bay," the judges said. Mr Cruz said there have been plans to clean up the bay since the 1980s. The majority have not made it off the page in part because politicians are loath to ask voters to pay more taxes to finance the construction of sewage treatment plants or fund such programmes as garbage collection. The ruling, however, may give politicians the chance to explain to their constituents that they are bound by the law to do so. "It's very unpopular for politicians asking for money," he said. "But through this we can say we are mandated." Beau Baconguis, who manages campaigns in the Philippines for the environmental group Greenpeace, suggested the government could ask international donors for financial assistance. She said she welcomed the ruling even though she had doubts about the ability of myriad agencies and local governments to harmonise their efforts. "It might be unrealistic," she said. "But it also tells us that the Supreme Court recognises the urgency. If they get their acts together and work together in a co-ordinated manner, it will go a long way. It can make quite a difference." The costs of not taking action will be greater in the long run, Ms Baconguis said. Manila Bay and the rivers flowing into it pose a major public health risk, which costs the government money when it has to respond to outbreaks of water-borne diseases. Pollution has also killed plenty of sea life, undermining the health and welfare of those who fish in Manila Bay and depend on the marine ecosystem for food. Ms Baconguis emphasised the importance of forcing industry to comply with environmental regulations. Factories producing electronics and other items have been known to dump toxic waste into the bay and into rivers with impunity. "We have not been enforcing our environmental laws as government should be," she said. The Supreme Court rendered a more caustic judgment on government agencies that have failed to carry out their duties. "Their cavalier attitude towards solving, if not mitigating, the environmental pollution problem is a sad commentary on bureaucratic efficiency and commitment." A group calling itself Concerned Residents of Manila Bay initially brought the case, in 1999, to a regional trial court, which ruled in the group's favour in 2002. A host of government agencies including the federal environmental department appealed, but the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the community group last month.