Blue Economy Bill needs stronger climate lens

FOR the Philippines to properly address the climate crisis, its laws and policies need to adapt to the present and projected reality.

In recent years, Congress has been pushing for bills that are relevant to enhancing climate resilience. For example, the Senate is currently deliberating on SB 2450, or the “Blue Economy Bill.” If passed, this would formalize a national framework for the sustainable development of marine and coastal resources and strengthening coordination among different sectors in their governance and management.

While the enactment of this proposed legislation would help strengthen mitigation and adaptation in the Philippines, it is missing key climate-relevant terms and principles that would hinder its enforcement and, consequently, the country’s pursuit of development.

What is in the bill?

SB 2450 would institutionalize a “blue economy framework,” a development model that would ultimately create a diversified, sustainable economy concerning oceans, seas, and freshwater resources in the Philippines. It would cover all activities and industries involving these areas, from fisheries and aquaculture to renewable energy, from eco-tourism to maritime transport.

A key feature of the bill is the establishment of the Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management (IMCAM) Framework, which would respond to human impacts on marine and coastal biodiversity. Under this framework are provisions for capacity-building for stakeholders, strengthening research and valuation activities for coastal and marine ecosystems and resources, and protecting these environments from threats such as pollution to habitat destruction.

Several new plans would also be created under this proposed legislation. This includes a nationwide marine spatial planning to better identify and support activities within the territorial waters in aid of sustainable development. This would be complemented by development plans for each ocean-related industry, and corresponding marine spatial plans in local government units.

Other measures under SB 2450 would enable provisions of blue financing, such as bonds and credit issuances aligned with existing national and Asean standards, and improving marine science and ocean literacy through scientific research and integration of relevant topics into school curricula.

All of these would be supervised under a Blue Economy Council, which consists solely of national government agencies. It would be led by the Executive Secretary, with the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources and the Secretary of Socio-Economic Planning as co-vice chairpersons.

What is missing?

While addressing climate change is recognized throughout the bill, it is puzzling that the Climate Change Commission (CCC), the mandated lead advisory policymaking body on this issue in the Philippines, is not a member of the Blue Economy Council.

While the current secretary of Environment and Natural Resources is also the chairperson-designate for said agency, there is no guarantee that this representation would continue, considering the secretary of Finance held said position during the previous administration. If passed into law, the Blue Economy Bill would help address long-term issues linked to the climate crisis, which necessitates the CCC’s permanent membership in the proposed council.

As of this writing, there is also a glaring lack of any mention of a National Adaptation Plan (NAP) as a climate strategy that would be integrated with the blue economy framework. Considering adaptation is often touted by legislators and the executive branch as the country’s anchor strategy against the climate crisis, this plan needs to be included in addressing oceans-related issues, especially with regards to biodiversity, ecosystems, livelihoods, and resource management.

The alignment of SB 2450 with international policy agreements and frameworks should also be directly recognized, given the potential impacts of transboundary actions on oceans, climate, and biodiversity. Legislators must include the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework as among such instruments with which it would be coherent.

While the proposed legislation states value creation, inclusivity, and sustainability as its guiding principles, it must explicitly recognize just transition as another. This is extremely relevant in the climate and development discourse, as acknowledged in key national policies such as the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).

The establishment of a blue economy framework would require a massive multi-stakeholder undertaking that would impact economic, environmental, and social systems for years to decades. It must be able to anticipate potential changes in coastal, marine, and freshwater ecosystems, many of which would be triggered by the changing climate.

For instance, shifts in patterns of fish habitats and movements can be caused by warmer waters. These would lead to a loss or relocation of many livelihoods, such as fisheries. Policymakers must be able to provide timely and appropriate interventions for affected workers and communities, which is essentially the point of just transition.

It is ironic that inclusivity, which is one of the listed guiding principles, is actually limited under this bill. There are no specific details as to how non-government stakeholders, especially those most vulnerable to the climate crisis, would be meaningfully involved in decision-making processes; this is despite the fact that fisherfolk communities, indigenous peoples, and other marginalized groups would be among those with the highest stakes in the event of its enactment.

If legislators are serious about a “whole-of-society” approach, clear spaces and platforms for non-government stakeholders in blue economy governance must be added to SB2450. The most important of these is allotted slots for membership in the Blue Economy Council for civil society groups, along with businesses and the academe.

All of these key provisions need to be added into the Blue Economy Bill before being passed in the Senate; this would enhance policy coherence and eventual implementation for climate action, biodiversity and ecosystems protection, and sustainable development. Nonetheless, as with any other that came before, a law is only as good as its implementation.

*****

John Leo Algo is the National Coordinator of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas and the Deputy Executive Director for Programs and Campaigns of Living Laudato Si’ Philippines. He has been representing Philippine civil society in UN climate and environmental conferences since 2016. He has been a climate and environment journalist since 2016.