Knowledge for Truth and Accountability
A statement on the issue of the proposed 100,000L bioethanol manufacturing
Water or Ethanol? Landscape security, or increased incomes?
The proposed 100,000L bioethanol manufacturing plant in Mambuaya and Bayanga, Cagayan de Oro, will have to pass through a ‘litmus test’ of ethanol-from-cassava viability, efficiency, carbon and risk neutrality, to implement the Biofuels Act.
While we welcome technological and policy advancements, especially those that help to address the urgent problems besetting the country and the globe, we have to discern what forms of development we have to accommodate in our city, and what their positive and negative effects to our environment are. The proposed bioethanol project has raised many issues that range from the choice of the location, the contentious water source, the professed zero waste technology, and even on much sought-after livelihood opportunities for the community.
As an academic institution, it is our keen sense of responsibility to inquire into relevant facts, technology, likely impacts provide the correct information and objective analysis of situation to help the city stakeholders and communities make informed and balanced decisions.
As a Filipino and Jesuit institution, we commit to enrichment of Filipino culture and heritage, people welfare and sustainable development, witnessing to and servicing pro poor options, cooperating with other institutions.
In our review of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and our experience with local farmers around the vicinity, it is our position that the bioethanol project, at this stage, does not provide enough information about mitigating measures to ensure that its activities will not result environmental especially water pollution, degradation, and disaster. It is also unclear what social safety net and other economic benefits accrue to local farmers farm workers and share croppers who are the majority of cassava planters in the area.
The “zero waste technology” proposed by Alson’s remains patchy, showed no consistency and no clear operative models. Statements of ‘zero waste’ are contradictory to EIS document of keeping fly ash and bottom ash from the incineration of wet cake and syrup. The burning of concentrated waste water and the use of coal raise new questions on air pollution that will not be isolated to the immediate environs but will spread throughout the city.
Our city landuse document is pivotal to guide the locating of this plant. But the CDO City Council ‘accommodated’ the choice of the location, virtually at odds with the city landuse plan. Last January 7, 2008, the City Council passed City Ordinance No. 10885-2008 reclassifying the land-use of about 24 hectares of Ethanol Plant location from agricultural to agro-industrial, a major revision of the CDO Comprehensive Land Use Plan. We raise questions on whether the City Council decision faithfully followed the required technical studies, legal processes, such as public notice and hearing, consultations with the barangays affected, and cross-referencing with the city development plan, as well as regional development plans. The Alsons proposal is not reflected in the Barangay Development Plans of Brgys Bayanga and Mambuaya. It remains an unjustifiable action to put an industrial plant in the middle of a watershed area and allowing the destruction of a pristine environment with water and air quality that nurtures our water supply, our flora, fauna and fish population; endangering the subterranean limestone cave system in the area, and threatening village water supply, is an unjustifiable action, even for the sake of development.
The Cagayan de Oro River is our cultural heritage, the watershed our investment for a sustainable future. And while we build our society with the vast knowledge and modern technology available, we, as stakeholders and institutions with social responsibilities, should all be accountable to uphold the common good, and for the benefit of the coming generations.
Current form of EIS notably its lack of viable scientific and social parameters and accountable public participation mechanisms for social acceptability, XU cannot endorse this project.
We urge that there be solid inquiry into the environmental, social, economic and political benefits of the Plant. It is timely to open a dialogue, more sincere exploration of better alternatives, and more study and discernment of better policies, decision-making mechanisms and implementation in our government, in our institutions, and in our communities.
Prepared by:
Research and Social Outreach Office
Xavier University
June 27, 2009