SHOULD BIODIVERSITY BECOME A CABINET CLUSTER?
SHOULD BIODIVERSITY BECOME A CABINET CLUSTER?
Once upon a time, we had the Parks and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB). The very name already suggested its limits: just parks and wildlife. Then came the change into the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB)—a much broader term that covers not just wildlife but the entire spectrum of our environmental and natural assets: forests, mountains, rivers, oceans, wetlands, skies, and everything in between.
But here’s the question: does the new name truly encompass the full scope of its mandate?
Biodiversity is not just about trees and animals. It is about life systems—how forests protect watersheds, how mangroves shield coasts, how coral reefs sustain fisheries, and how every species, no matter how small, plays a role in the health of the whole. The Philippines, being one of the world’s megadiverse countries, should treat biodiversity not as a side issue, but as a core concern of national governance.
Is BMB Strong Enough?
The BMB has impressive functions on paper. It manages protected areas under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (RA 11038). It enforces the Wildlife Act (RA 9147). It develops the Philippine Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (PBSAP 2024–2040), which now sets ambitious goals: protecting 24% of our land and 16% of our seas by 2040, aiming for “zero extinction” of key species like the Philippine eagle and the dugong.
It also oversees the Coastal and Marine Ecosystems Management Program, promotes biodiversity-friendly enterprises, and conducts research with academic partners. Recently, the DENR even announced that Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) will become part of national policy for climate adaptation.
But here’s the catch: does the BMB have enough powers like the NBI has in criminal justice? Environmental crimes are rampant—illegal logging, wildlife trafficking, destructive fishing, encroachment on protected areas. Yet one forest ranger is tasked to guard 7,000 hectares of forest, when the ideal is 1,000 hectares per ranger. Many rangers risk their lives without proper pay, equipment, or backup.
So I ask: does the BMB even have real police powers? If yes, do they have the manpower to enforce them? If no, should Congress give them that mandate? After all, what good are conservation laws if we cannot enforce them?
The Need for Inter-Agency Cooperation
Another question: Can the BMB enter into cooperation agreements with the Coast Guard, the Navy, or the Maritime Police? After all, much of our biodiversity lies in our seas. Illegal fishing and poaching are maritime crimes. Why should the BMB stand alone?
And what about cooperation with BFAR (for fisheries), UP Marine Science Institute (for research), DA and DAR (for agricultural land use), and DOST (for science-based monitoring)? Even the DILG should be on board, since LGUs are the first line of enforcement.
Does the BMB have access to the data of PSA, NEDA, NAMRIA, and PHILSAT? Biodiversity governance requires good data—maps, statistics, forecasts. Without data, we are flying blind.
Why Not a Cabinet Cluster?
We have Cabinet clusters for security, economic development, and climate change adaptation. Should we not also have a Cabinet Cluster on Biodiversity?
Think about it. Biodiversity touches everything: food security, water supply, energy, disaster risk reduction, public health, even tourism. Protecting mangroves is cheaper than building sea walls. Healthy forests prevent floods. Coral reefs bring in billions in fisheries and tourism. A Cabinet cluster would elevate biodiversity to the level of national policy priority, ensuring collaboration across agencies.
A Call for Bold Action
Let’s not forget: the Philippines is losing biodiversity fast. Deforestation continues, invasive species spread, wetlands shrink, coral reefs bleach. Every year, we lose species that may never come back. The BMB is doing what it can, but with limited manpower and budget, the task is overwhelming.
I believe the solution is threefold:
Strengthen the BMB’s legal mandate—give it clearer enforcement powers, backed by funding.
Institutionalize inter-agency cooperation—from the Coast Guard to LGUs to universities.
Elevate biodiversity to a Cabinet-level concern—because it is too important to be left as “just another bureau.”
The late National Scientist Dr. Angel Alcala once said, “Biodiversity is life itself.” If that is true, then should not life itself be at the center of governance?
So I ask again: Should biodiversity become a Cabinet cluster?
For me, the answer is yes.
Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com
12-19-2025
Comments
Post a Comment