ARE WE READY FOR WETLANDS RENATURALIZATION?

ARE WE READY FOR WETLANDS RENATURALIZATION?

Just when I was getting comfortable with the term rewilding, here comes another — denaturalization. Both feel new in our conversation, but they are not new words. Other countries have long since embraced them. Why, then, do these ideas still feel so distant from our own awareness? Perhaps because behind these words lie concepts so deep and transformative, we’re only now starting to grasp them.

Most of us understand reforestation — planting trees where forests once stood — and its opposite, deforestation. But how many truly understand afforestation? Afforestation is not restoring what was lost; rather, it’s planting trees where no forest existed before. That distinction may seem subtle, but it matters. It shapes how we restore land, how we value ecosystems, and how we mitigate climate change.

Returning to wetlands: what does denaturalization mean in that context, and what can we do about it?

My first thought is we need to map where wetlands used to be — those lost long ago — and identify where they could be restored. This is not only a technical task, but a political and legal one. In theory, many fishponds on public lands are merely concessions; if the public interest demands it, their rights might be revoked. But for former alienable and disposable (A&D) lands already titled to private owners — can the state still reclaim them? Perhaps through eminent domain, especially when public safety (flood risk) is at stake.

Yes, restoring wetlands would cost money. But what’s the price of inaction? The loss of human life, property, and ecological resilience? And if the state steps in, fair compensation is part of the bargain.

There is strong momentum abroad. In Europe, for instance, the EU Nature Restoration Law — recently adopted — requires member states to restore at least 20 percent of their land and sea by 2030, and all degraded ecosystems by 2050.

Specifically for peatlands and wetlands: the law mandates that 50 percent of drained moors be restored by 2050, with one-third of them rewetted

Why is this so important? Well, moors make up only about 3 percent of Europe’s land, but they store twice as much carbon per hectare as forests. That’s not a minor detail — it is the kind of leverage nature offers in the climate fight.

And the benefits? We have real-world proof. A recent RMIT University study found that in just one year, restored floodplain wetlands cut carbon emissions by 39 percent — and did so without triggering a methane surge common to peatland restoration.
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 a 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 RA 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 EU 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.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/06-30-2026