LLDA: Incompetent and Powerless

Though perhaps no fault of their own, the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) seems virtually incompetent and powerless to protect Laguna de Bay.

Since Republic Act no. 4850 was passed into law in 1966 and other public acts followed to strengthen the agency's regulatory ability, the efforts of the said agency remains ineffective in halting the degredation of our precious lake and fails to meet the criteria for sustainable development in South East Asia's largest lake.

By its own admittance, the LLDA website itself quoted from Philippine Star that:

"Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Lito Atienza couldn't agree more, [and is] calling LLDA a 'useless agency' that allowed the lake to deteriorate in the last 41 years"

http://www.llda.gov.ph/news/jan4_08_GMA_urged_to_certify_LLDA_reform_bill.html

But why is it so? A January 9, 2008 report from Philippine Star (the web address above) seems to suggest that lack of public participation, as well as minimal local government involvement, diminishes the capability of the lake agency to combat pollution and prevent the destruction of the lake's ecology.

Suppose it is the case that lack of public participation and local government involvement are to blame. But what about the competency of policies made to direct the protection of the lake? Were those policies made by individuals with much needed environment-focused experience or were they just plain bureaucratic decisions?

What is the qualification of its officials? Hopefully, they are not appointees based upon patronage and are experts who are willing to accept some significant criticism from those who are used to actions which is detrimental to the lake environment. If appointees delegated to protect the environment were there just to have employment, out of gratitude, and fails to walk the walk with those who have high stakes in the lake's survival, what is their use?

What actions have the agency taken to inform the public surrounding the lake region regarding the adverse effect of continuing disregard for the lake's well-being? The agency has a website and policies made were given formidable technical names. But did the agency involved fishermen, lake polluting industries, and local municipal officials to reverse the disastrous trend? How did the agency enforced its policies?

Let me use the MMDA as a model agency. This agency enforced the metropolis's traffic laws and promulgated tough policies which, in the beginning, were opposed by formidable jeepney unions and other transport groups. The agency persevered and learned from its mistakes. Motorists and pedestrians benefitted and began to see the positive contribution of the agency. And lo and behold, good things comes to those who perseveres! The agency was able to somehow regulate the chaotic traffic of the metropolis and had credible results. Later on, it received international recognition for its efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Now, motorists and pedestrians recognize the policies passed by the MMDA, even though it may be to their inconvenience because they believe in the long run, they also would benefit.

Back to the said lake agency, how can it protect the precious lake if in the first place, it does not know how to use the carrot and stick approach or the combination of both towards lake residents and institutions in order to change their habit? What incentives have the agency created in more than forty (40) years of its existence and what policies have they enacted to curtail the negative effects of the growing industrialization of local territorial units in pursuit of economic development? If those policies were at least preventive, such policies would have stopped deterioration, if not make improvements. By being incompetent and powerless, the agency had become part of the problem rather than the solution.

The LLDA ought to learn from its failures, purge unqualified appointees, and act tough. Yes, the public must be involved, more funds may be needed, and new powers delegated. But one cannot convince the public if agency officials do not take the grassroot route. The agency must be reminded that it was created for the purpose of leading the drive towards that goal and so far, it has not only failed to do so in the domestic sense; adding salt to the wound, a regional intergovernmental organization dedicated to studying fisheries in ASEAN has discredited its ability to protect our precious Laguna de bay.