THESE REWETTED wetlands also held on to more water (soil moisture rose 55 percent) and retained more nitrogen — improving water quality and nutrient cycling.
This tells me wetlands are not just nice-to-have. They are nature’s multi-taskers: flood buffers, carbon sinks, water purifiers.
Back home in the Philippines, the question looms large: Are we ready?
There are legal and moral pathways. Environmental groups, like Wetlands International Philippines, have urged the government to revert idle or underused fishponds (especially those on A&D lands) back to mangroves.
Under Philippine law, particularly under Republic Act 8550 and its amendments, there may be legal basis for such reversions. Moreover, our legal tools are stronger than many realize.
Do we invoke a Writ of Kalikasan — a constitutional remedy that protects the right to a healthy environment?
Of course, obstacles are real: political will, compensation, and competing land uses. Some landowners may balk. But is that weighty compared to the societal cost of inaction — more floods, fewer carbon sinks, worse biodiversity loss?
We might draw lessons from the European Union model: they are crafting national restoration plans, balancing farmer compensation, and setting legally binding targets. Could we pilot something similar at our barangay level, especially in areas that used to be wetlands?
Maybe starting with a few former fishponds, creating a basin-based governance plan, mobilizing local communities, mapping potential restoration sites, and securing funding.
My questions to us — to our leaders, our scientists, and our communities — are these:
1. Can we map our historical wetlands and prioritize sites for denaturalization?
2. Are we ready to balance property rights with the public interest of flood safety and climate resilience?
3. Can we mobilize public funding (or private) to compensate landowners and support restoration?
4. What legal mechanisms — like the Writ of Kalikasan — can be employed or strengthened for these efforts?
5. Finally, can we shift our mindset, treating restoration not as a cost but as a profound long-term investment?
In short: are we ready?
Because the science, the law, and the case are increasingly clear. The real question is whether we, as a society, can act before opportunity slips away./PN
