FILIPINO TINY HOMES, ANYONE?

 FILIPINO TINY HOMES, ANYONE?

Perhaps I should just say that the idea of tiny homes is nothing new in the Philippines. After all, we have always had our own versions—the bahay-kubo in the rural areas and the barong-barong in our informal settlements. Long before Americans coined the term “tiny home,” Filipinos were already living small, simple, and sustainable.

And if you ask me, I will tell you that there has always been a market for tiny homes here, because the smaller a house is, the more low-income families could afford it. Let’s be honest: housing affordability has always been one of our biggest problems. Millions of Filipinos live without secure housing, while real estate prices keep climbing. Tiny homes may not be the complete solution, but they could be a strong part of the answer.

Of course, some may recall that one local developer was once jokingly accused of selling “bahay-ibon” because the units were so small. That was satire, yes, but it reflects the tension between affordability and livability. The trick is to design tiny homes that are small yet functional, sustainable yet affordable.

Are Tiny Homes Just a Fad?

Having said all that, allow me to conclude that tiny homes, as marketed in the West, are still very much a product of American culture—perhaps even a fad, like the “pet rock” craze of the 1970s. But will tiny homes succeed here in the Philippines? My answer is yes, provided we adapt the idea to our own realities. It’s a matter of defining what counts as a tiny home, and most importantly, creating the legal basis for it.

Globally, a tiny home typically ranges from 18 to 54 square meters. In the U.S., some are built on trailers and marketed as mobile homes. In the Philippines, mobility may not be the key feature; affordability and durability should be. My fearless forecast is that sooner or later, this trend will become widely acceptable, especially in urban and peri-urban areas.

Policy and Financing Must Catch Up

The problem is not the lack of interest—it’s the lack of policy. The Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) should already be thinking of how to include tiny homes in its social housing programs. Likewise, PAG-IBIG should allow its members to borrow money to build or buy tiny homes. The banks should move faster too, by offering flexible micro-mortgages.

Why is this important? Because tiny homes can help address the country’s housing backlog, which according to government estimates could hit 6.5 million units by 2030. Traditional large-scale housing projects alone won’t close that gap. We need innovations—small, affordable, modular units that can be deployed quickly.

The Filipino Twist

Here is my own twist: our version of tiny homes should be tied to the circular economy and the green economy. That means using recycled materials—like reclaimed wood, upcycled steel, or even old shipping containers. It also means using renewable resources, like bamboo and farmed wood, which are abundant in the Philippines.

In fact, we already have innovators leading the way. Startups like CUBO Modular are building prefab bamboo homes, as small as 15 sqm, that are stylish, sustainable, and suited to tropical climates. They can be built in days, not months. Tiny eco-cabins are also popping up in resorts from Siargao to Palawan, catering to tourists who want minimalist yet eco-friendly stays. If it works for Airbnb rentals, why not for permanent housing?

Cost is another factor. A DIY tiny home in the Philippines can be built for ₱150,000 to ₱800,000, depending on design and materials. Contractor-built modular units cost around ₱17,000 to ₱25,000 per sqm. Compare that with the millions required for traditional houses in gated subdivisions, and you see why tiny homes could empower more families to become homeowners.

Tiny Homes for Disaster Resilience

Here’s another angle: tiny homes could be part of disaster recovery housing. Every year, typhoons displace thousands of families. What if we had a stock of modular, quickly deployable tiny homes—ready to serve as temporary or even permanent shelters? In the U.S., inmates in West Virginia are actually building tiny homes for hurricane survivors. Why can’t we do the same here, perhaps through TESDA training programs?

A Home is Still a Home

At the end of the day, a home does not have to be big to be meaningful. A bahay-kubo may be small, but it is dignified, functional, and sustainable. If we apply the same spirit today—blending cultural tradition with modern design—tiny homes could help solve our housing crisis while promoting green living.

So, Filipino tiny homes, anyone? I think the time has come.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-20-2025

SHOULD BIODIVERSITY BECOME A CABINET CLUSTER?

 SHOULD BIODIVERSITY BECOME A CABINET CLUSTER?

Once upon a time, we had the Parks and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB). The very name already suggested its limits: just parks and wildlife. Then came the change into the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB)—a much broader term that covers not just wildlife but the entire spectrum of our environmental and natural assets: forests, mountains, rivers, oceans, wetlands, skies, and everything in between.

But here’s the question: does the new name truly encompass the full scope of its mandate?

Biodiversity is not just about trees and animals. It is about life systems—how forests protect watersheds, how mangroves shield coasts, how coral reefs sustain fisheries, and how every species, no matter how small, plays a role in the health of the whole. The Philippines, being one of the world’s megadiverse countries, should treat biodiversity not as a side issue, but as a core concern of national governance.

Is BMB Strong Enough?

The BMB has impressive functions on paper. It manages protected areas under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (RA 11038). It enforces the Wildlife Act (RA 9147). It develops the Philippine Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (PBSAP 2024–2040), which now sets ambitious goals: protecting 24% of our land and 16% of our seas by 2040, aiming for “zero extinction” of key species like the Philippine eagle and the dugong.

It also oversees the Coastal and Marine Ecosystems Management Program, promotes biodiversity-friendly enterprises, and conducts research with academic partners. Recently, the DENR even announced that Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) will become part of national policy for climate adaptation.

But here’s the catch: does the BMB have enough powers like the NBI has in criminal justice? Environmental crimes are rampant—illegal logging, wildlife trafficking, destructive fishing, encroachment on protected areas. Yet one forest ranger is tasked to guard 7,000 hectares of forest, when the ideal is 1,000 hectares per ranger. Many rangers risk their lives without proper pay, equipment, or backup.

So I ask: does the BMB even have real police powers? If yes, do they have the manpower to enforce them? If no, should Congress give them that mandate? After all, what good are conservation laws if we cannot enforce them?

The Need for Inter-Agency Cooperation

Another question: Can the BMB enter into cooperation agreements with the Coast Guard, the Navy, or the Maritime Police? After all, much of our biodiversity lies in our seas. Illegal fishing and poaching are maritime crimes. Why should the BMB stand alone?

And what about cooperation with BFAR (for fisheries), UP Marine Science Institute (for research), DA and DAR (for agricultural land use), and DOST (for science-based monitoring)? Even the DILG should be on board, since LGUs are the first line of enforcement.

Does the BMB have access to the data of PSA, NEDA, NAMRIA, and PHILSAT? Biodiversity governance requires good data—maps, statistics, forecasts. Without data, we are flying blind.

Why Not a Cabinet Cluster?

We have Cabinet clusters for security, economic development, and climate change adaptation. Should we not also have a Cabinet Cluster on Biodiversity?

Think about it. Biodiversity touches everything: food security, water supply, energy, disaster risk reduction, public health, even tourism. Protecting mangroves is cheaper than building sea walls. Healthy forests prevent floods. Coral reefs bring in billions in fisheries and tourism. A Cabinet cluster would elevate biodiversity to the level of national policy priority, ensuring collaboration across agencies.

A Call for Bold Action

Let’s not forget: the Philippines is losing biodiversity fast. Deforestation continues, invasive species spread, wetlands shrink, coral reefs bleach. Every year, we lose species that may never come back. The BMB is doing what it can, but with limited manpower and budget, the task is overwhelming.

I believe the solution is threefold:

1. Strengthen the BMB’s legal mandate—give it clearer enforcement powers, backed by funding.
   
   

2. Institutionalize inter-agency cooperation—from the Coast Guard to LGUs to universities.
   
   

3. Elevate biodiversity to a Cabinet-level concern—because it is too important to be left as “just another bureau.”
   
   

The late National Scientist Dr. Angel Alcala once said, “Biodiversity is life itself.” If that is true, then should not life itself be at the center of governance?

So I ask again: Should biodiversity become a Cabinet cluster?

For me, the answer is yes.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-19-2025 

SEE THE WONDERS OF THE POMATO PLANT

 SEE THE WONDERS OF THE POMATO PLANT

Have you ever heard of a tomato plant on top that grows potatoes in its roots? Yes, you heard that right. It is called a Pomato—a plant that gives you cherry tomatoes above ground and potatoes below ground. Imagine harvesting two crops from just one plant. Isn’t that a wonder of science and ingenuity?

The Pomato is not a freak of nature. It does not grow in the wild. Rather, it is created by grafting—a method where the stem of a tomato plant is joined with the rootstock of a potato plant. Since both belong to the nightshade family (Solanaceae), they are naturally compatible. Once the graft heals, the tomato leaves provide food for the potato roots.

To be clear, this is not a genetically modified organism (GMO). It is simply clever horticulture. In fact, similar grafting techniques have been practiced for centuries in fruit trees. What’s new here is that instead of getting one kind of fruit, you get two very different staple crops in one pot.

Now here’s the good news: Pomatoes can be grown in pots, making them an excellent crop for urban agriculture and even for vertical farming. For those living in cramped apartments in Metro Manila or Cebu, you could grow a Pomato on your balcony. Tomatoes can even be raised in aquaponic systems, opening up more ways to cultivate food in limited spaces.

Why Pomato Matters for the Philippines

I have long advocated that we should diversify our staple foods. We are too dependent on rice. Every year, the government struggles with rice supply, importing hundreds of thousands of metric tons to cover shortages. This dependence makes us vulnerable to climate change, global price shocks, and even geopolitics.

What if we looked seriously at alternatives? Potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava, and taro are all potential substitutes. If we could popularize the Pomato, we would not only introduce potatoes as an everyday staple but also ensure that tomatoes—one of the most versatile cooking ingredients—are readily available. Think about it: even without rice, you could still enjoy french fries, mashed potatoes, or baked potatoes alongside your favorite ulam.

The Benefits and the Caveats

Pomato plants offer dual harvests: tomatoes in the summer and potatoes in the early autumn. They save space and resources, which is especially valuable in urban settings. They also serve as a great educational tool—imagine teaching schoolchildren about plant grafting and food sustainability using a single Pomato pot.

But there are trade-offs. Since the plant is splitting its energy between two crops, yields of both tomatoes and potatoes may be lower compared to growing each separately. The plant is also a heavy feeder, needing more water and fertilizer to keep both crops healthy. And because the Pomato is a grafted plant, it cannot be grown from true seeds—you either need to graft it yourself or buy it pre-grafted.

The encouraging news is that Pomato plants (sometimes marketed as “TomTato” or “Ketchup ‘n’ Fries” plants) are already available commercially, even in the Philippines through online sellers. Alternatively, gardeners can graft their own by combining locally available tomato and potato varieties.

A Question of Policy and Practice

Here’s my suggestion: why not let the Department of Agriculture (DA) or the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) support urban Pomato pilot projects? Barangays could distribute Pomato plants to households as part of food security programs. Schools could adopt them for gardening projects. Even overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) returning home might bring this idea to their local communities.

I can already imagine vertical farms in Quezon City or rooftop gardens in Makati filled with Pomato plants, supplying both potatoes and tomatoes to local markets. A single innovation like this could nudge us toward greater food independence.

Beyond Rice: A National Conversation

Let me emphasize this point again: we need to reduce our obsession with rice. For centuries, Filipinos have enjoyed root crops as staples. Cassava kept families alive during wartime. Camote (sweet potato) and gabi (taro) remain part of our culinary tradition. Why not revive and modernize these habits? With science and creativity, we can even create hybrids like the Pomato to help meet our nutritional needs.

At the end of the day, the Pomato is more than a quirky plant—it is a symbol of possibility. It challenges us to rethink how we grow food, what we eat, and how we can design a food system that is more resilient and sustainable.

So, the next time someone asks what’s for dinner, you could say: “French fries and tomato salad.” And all of it could come from just one plant sitting in a pot by your window.

Now, wouldn’t that be something?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-18-2025 

NEW HOPE FOR USING INSECTS, BACTERIA AND FUNGI TO BREAK DOWN PLASTIC WASTE

NEW HOPE FOR USING INSECTS, BACTERIA AND FUNGI TO BREAK DOWN PLASTIC WASTE

I have no doubt that in the final analysis, it will be science that will provide the solutions to most of our socio-economic problems. But even if the solutions are already there, I also have no doubt that it will be politics that will get in the way of science. If not politics, it will be greed—or more specifically, corporate greed—that will block the way.

Take plastic waste as an example. It would seem that we are losing the battle. Everywhere we look—in the streets, in rivers, in the ocean, and even in the food chain—we see traces of plastic. Globally, only about 9% of all plastic ever produced has been properly recycled, according to the Geneva Environment Network. The rest is either incinerated, landfilled, or dumped into the environment, where it can linger for centuries.

Yet with the latest scientific breakthroughs, there is new hope that we could still win this war. Around the world, researchers are studying how insects, bacteria, and fungi have evolved enzymes that can break down even the toughest plastics—polyethylene, polystyrene, polypropylene, PVC, and more. Some of these microbes live in the guts of humble mealworms, superworms, and waxworms. What these creatures digest naturally could someday be scaled up for industrial recycling.

In the United States, researchers like Mark Blenner at the University of Delaware are experimenting with the microbes found in mealworm stomachs. These microbes secrete enzymes that chop up plastics into smaller chemical pieces, which can then be reused. A startup called Plasticentropy has even identified enzymes from wax caterpillars—nicknamed “Demetra” and “Ceres”—that can dissolve thin plastic in just hours. In Kenya, scientists are exploring how local worm species might be harnessed for community-level waste management.

Imagine this for a moment: instead of shipping mountains of plastic waste to dumpsites, every local government unit (LGU) in the Philippines could have its own biological recycling center. This is not rocket science. It’s a no-brainer. We just need to apply it.

This is where government agencies like the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) should step in. They should jointly spearhead the adoption of this technology, and not just in Metro Manila or the big cities. The real goal should be to bring this innovation down to the LGU level. Barangays could eventually manage their own plastic waste with localized, biological solutions.

Of course, politics will come into play. Will big waste haulers and corporations that profit from landfills allow this technology to spread? Will plastic manufacturers resist efforts to make plastics truly biodegradable? These are real obstacles. But if we don’t act, the Philippines will continue drowning in plastic. A 2021 study by the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy named the Philippines as the single largest contributor of plastic waste into the ocean—responsible for more than a third of global ocean plastic leakage.

We should also identify and support our own Filipino scientists who may already be studying this field. Surely, among the bright minds at UP, Ateneo, La Salle, and our state universities, there are microbiologists and bioengineers working on microbial solutions to plastic waste. Let us give them the funding, laboratories, and incentives they need to turn research into reality.

Perhaps the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) or DEPDEV could do some studies on the economic impact of this technology. Just think of the possibilities: less money wasted on landfill operations, fewer health costs from polluted air and water, and new industries based on bio-recycling. This could also create jobs for LGUs and communities who would manage these micro-bioreactors.

But let us also temper our excitement with caution. As some environmentalists warn, these technologies are not silver bullets. They should not become an excuse to keep producing plastic at the same rate—or worse, at an even greater scale. We must still focus on reducing plastic use, banning unnecessary single-use plastics, and promoting alternatives.

Still, I believe that this is a battle worth fighting, and science is giving us the weapons to fight it. Worms, bacteria, and fungi may not look like warriors, but in their microscopic way, they could help humanity reclaim the environment from the plague of plastic. The question is—will we let politics and greed stand in the way, or will we finally act on this new hope?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-17-2025