RESTORING LAHAR AREAS

RESTORING LAHAR AREAS

It’s been 34 years since Mt. Pinatubo erupted in June 1991—an eruption that didn’t just change geography, but lives, industry, culture, land. Yet, ask most Filipinos (or our elected officials) what long-term progress has been made in restoring those lahar-shrouded lands, and you might hear uneasy silence. Are we simply too slow? Do we not care enough? Or is environmental restoration something we understand only in theory, not in culture or daily practice?

---

What has actually been done?

There have been some efforts. For example:

• The Mount Pinatubo Hazard Urgent Mitigation Project (PHUMP) was launched to restore the Sacobia-Bamban river basin (Pampanga/Tarlac), rehabilitate major roads, and recover agricultural land covered in lahar.
  
  

• Centuries of wear from rainstorms, flooding, and clogged lahar channels have been mitigated by constructing a “megadike” around critical areas (like San Fernando in Pampanga), as part of anti-lahar and flood control infrastructure.
  
  

• In the town of Bacolor, Pampanga, farms buried and rendered barren by lahar are now becoming fertile again. The National Irrigation Administration (NIA) has allocated P60 million to build a new irrigation system covering several barangays, for 566 hectares of land.
  
  

• Also, there are laws: the Bacolor Rehabilitation Council Law (2008) gave institutional structure (and funding hope) to protect, dredge, and restore lahar-rendered areas around the town.
  
  

So yes, there is action. But is it enough?

---

Where we fall short

Here are my observations, and I think many will agree:

1. Scale versus urgency mismatch
   PHUMP and other projects are vital, but what I’ve seen is that we often move with caution, delay, or stop-gap measures, instead of bold, comprehensive, multi-decade planning. Restoring hundreds of hectares, re-establishing entire river basins, bringing back biodiversity—the scale required is massive, yet our response tends to be piecemeal.
   
   

2. Fragmented responsibilities, finger pointing
   NGAs, LGUs, DENR, DPWH, NIA—there are so many parties. Sometimes overlapping mandates, sometimes unclear jurisdiction. When disasters or delays happen, blame tends to bounce around. Who’s responsible for soil remediation? Who handles funding? Who monitors? Without clarity, accountability suffers.
   
   

3. Cultural and economic priorities
   Restoration doesn’t immediately translate to profit. Politicians often focus on infrastructure, roads, bridges, visibility, short-term deliverables that show in campaign promises. Restoration is slower, more intangible: soil regeneration, ecosystems, forests. These are harder to sell to voters in three-year terms.
   
   

4. Knowledge, science, and community integration
   Some lahar areas are now being studied more carefully (soil dynamics, native species, etc.), but many are not. Local communities often are not deeply engaged, or do not have full access to scientific/technical support or funding. Restoration that doesn’t involve those who live on lahar-affected land may fail or be unsustainable.
   
   

---

Recent developments: Private sector & NGOs stepping up

In all this, there is hope, and this is where I think our best lessons are:

• De La Salle Philippines via the Lasallian Institute for the Environment (LIFE) is building a 24.4-hectare botanical garden in Alviera, Porac, Pampanga. Native species (cycads, bamboo, ferns) will be grown; part of the site will be left to self-restore (natural seed dispersal, insect pollination etc.). This is not just planting trees—it’s teaching ecosystems to heal themselves. (I’ve volunteered with LIFE in Laguna, and their work is serious, meticulous, grounded in science and community values.)
  
  

• In Bacolor, the shift from barren lahar land to productive farmland (with proper irrigation) demonstrates that even heavily degraded land can bounce back, given the right support.
  
  

---

Questions & suggestions

Because I believe solving things begins with asking hard questions:

• Was there ever a long-term, legally binding plan for restoring lahar-affected areas after the 1991 eruption that survived administrations? If yes, why has its implementation been so slow? If not, how do we create one now that is resilient to changes in leadership?
  
  

• How much funding is actually allocated vs. needed? For example, P60 million for irrigation is good. But how many similar projects are needed to restore all the lahar-buried farmland across Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales, etc.?
  
  

• Can we build restoration into disaster risk reduction and climate resilience frameworks, rather than treat it as a separate environment issue? For instance, anti-lahar infrastructure could be combined with reforestation, watershed protection, livelihood development, native species plantations, etc.
  
  

• What about incentives for local communities and farmers? If restoring lahar land can generate income—via agroforestry, native plants, ecotourism, botanical gardens—could that be turned into models that LGUs support actively (e.g. grants, technical support, land tenure security)?
  
  

• Monitoring and public accountability: Are there transparent reports on how much lahar restoration has been done, its ecological results (soil health, biodiversity), social results (livelihoods), and what remains undone?
  
  

---

What should happen now

Here are some suggestions, in my opinion, if we really want to do more than pay lip-service:

• The national government should adopt a Lahar Restoration Master Plan (30-year horizon) with clear targets, budgets, and roles for NGAs, LGUs, private sector, and communities.
  
  

• Mandate and fund restoration science centers in lahar-affected provinces, where local universities, NGOs, and communities collaborate on plant nurseries, species trials, soil remediation, etc.
  
  

• Use projects like the LIFE botanical garden as model replicable units—small but well-done labs of restoration that can be scaled or adapted to barangay‐level or municipality level.
  
  

• Provide conditional grants to LGUs: funds that are released only if certain environmental restoration benchmarks are met (soil cover, species planted, community engagement). This encourages performance rather than just announcements.
  
  

• Incorporate restoration into climate adaptation budgets: recognizing that restored landscapes buffer floods, reduce sediment flows, improve water absorption, etc.
  
  

---

Final thoughts

Restoration of lahar areas is more than ecological repair—it’s about justice. For farmers whose land was covered in ash, for communities whose rivers and homes were threatened, for future generations who will inherit what we leave behind.

It may be too late to undo all the damage from Pinatubo’s eruption in one lifetime—but far from too late to make restoration real, visible, accountable, and meaningful. If LIFE’s work in Porac can bloom, if Bacolor’s fields can yield rice again, then maybe we’ll prove that restoration is in our culture, if only we choose to let it be.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

09088877282/02-19-2026

FINDING AND PLANTING LOCALLY ADAPTED SEEDS

 FINDING AND PLANTING LOCALLY ADAPTED SEEDS

In an ideal world, our farmers would plant only locally adapted seeds—the ones that have evolved and thrived in our specific soils, climates, and micro-ecosystems. These are the seeds that have learned, through time, how to live in harmony with the rain, the wind, and the sun of their own homeland.

But in the real world, our farmers are often forced to plant whatever seeds are available—many of which come from foreign suppliers or hybrid systems that demand expensive fertilizers and chemicals. They know, deep inside, that these “imported” seeds may not give the yields they hope for, but what choice do they have when local seeds are hard to find, or when they’re told that the foreign varieties are “superior”?

The Real Problem: Information and Influence

As I see it, the root of this issue is not just about supply and cost—it’s about information and influence.
If our farmers truly knew that locally adapted seeds could perform better under their natural conditions—without the heavy dependence on imported inputs—they might never have abandoned them in the first place.

Sadly, many have been, for lack of a better term, “seed-brainwashed.” Over decades, commercial marketing and institutional policies have convinced them that imported hybrid seeds are the only way to achieve higher yields. In the process, traditional seed varieties—our heirloom rice, native corn, and local vegetables—were sidelined, and with them, much of our biodiversity and food sovereignty.

Isn’t it time to ask: What does it take to help our farmers break free from these foreign influences?

Seed Sovereignty is Food Independence

Around the world, the movement for seed sovereignty is gaining strength. The idea is simple but powerful: communities should control their own seeds, save them, share them, and replant them.

In the Philippines, organizations such as MASIPAG (Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura) and Global Seed Savers Philippines have been doing excellent work in helping farmers reclaim this right. They promote the saving and sharing of locally adapted and heirloom seeds—a quiet revolution in the name of resilience.

It’s not just about nostalgia for old varieties. Locally adapted seeds are often more resistant to pests, diseases, and extreme weather, because they’ve co-evolved with local conditions for generations. In a time of climate change, that makes them our first line of defense against hunger.

Where to Find Local Seeds Today

Fortunately, several initiatives are now helping bring these seeds back to our communities:

• The “Sow, Grow, Share” Seed Library Initiative of the Ilocos Norte Agricultural College (INAC) and Energy Development Corporation (EDC) have built a community-based seed library that promotes biodiversity and food security.
  
  

• The Department of Agriculture (DA), through Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 2021, is encouraging the local production of hybrid rice seeds to enhance climate resilience.
  
  

• Allied Botanical Corporation, a Filipino company, distributes regionally adapted vegetable seeds nationwide.
  
  

• And many LGUs, barangay agriculture offices, and state universities—like UP Los Baños and Visayas State University—run small seed banks or trial plots for native crops.
  
  

These are positive developments, but we need to go further. Every barangay should have its own community seed bank, supported by cooperatives and linked through an inter-barangay exchange network.

A Barangay-Level Model for Seed Sovereignty

Here’s a simple framework that can work anywhere:

1. Seed Mapping: Identify which traditional seeds used to grow well in your locality. Talk to elders, farmers, and local cooks.
   
   

2. Seed Trials: Plant small batches in different microclimates—near rivers, uplands, shaded areas—to see which ones thrive best.
   
   

3. Seed Bank: Build a modest storage area using low-cost climate control to keep seeds viable for the next season.
   
   

4. Education and Training: Conduct workshops on seed saving, drying, and proper labeling.
   
   

5. Legal Protection: Explore how to protect indigenous seed names and varieties under intellectual property frameworks.
   
   

Technology Can Help Too

Digital tools could play a big role in connecting local seed networks. A national seed registry website could list available local varieties, locations of seed banks, and farmer testimonials. The Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) could easily host such a platform, integrating it into the national e-agriculture strategy.

Imagine a simple web-based app that lets a farmer in Nueva Ecija find locally adapted mung bean seeds from Ilocos, or a barangay in Samar exchange heirloom rice with a cooperative in Bukidnon. That’s technology serving sustainability—not replacing it.

Our Way Back to Food Independence

The path to food independence starts with the seed. If we continue to depend on imported or genetically modified seeds, we will always be tied to foreign supply chains and input systems. But if we rebuild our local seed diversity, we reclaim not just our food security, but also our cultural identity and economic freedom.

It is not too late. We still have farmers who remember the taste and resilience of native crops. We still have NGOs, scientists, and cooperatives working quietly in the background. What we need now is policy support, local action, and national pride.

Because every time a Filipino farmer plants a locally adapted seed, he is not just growing food—he is growing freedom.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

09088877282/02-18-2026

A BETTER WAY TO MANAGE OUR PUBLIC BUS SYSTEMS

 A BETTER WAY TO MANAGE OUR PUBLIC BUS SYSTEMS

When I lived in New York, I noticed something remarkable about their bus system. Every bus, no matter the color or company, seemed to move with precision — arriving at designated stops at predictable times. The buses were owned by different operators, yet they all appeared to belong to a single, unified network.

It turns out, the City of New York builds the bus stops and runs the computerized scheduling system, while allowing multiple private bus companies to operate under one coordinated framework. Passengers do not care who owns which bus; what matters to them is that the buses arrive on time, the fares are standard, and the routes are reliable.

The Global Standard: Unified Branding, Private Operations

Many world cities have adopted this model of public branding, private operations — a clear division of roles that keeps the system efficient and accountable.

In London, for example, all buses carry the familiar red Transport for London (TfL) branding, even though they are run by multiple private operators under strict performance-based contracts. The government sets the routes, fares, and schedules; the companies handle the driving, maintenance, and customer service.

In Singapore, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) also uses a Bus Contracting Model. Private operators like SBS Transit and SMRT bid for routes but operate under a unified schedule and branding. This model keeps service quality high while keeping costs competitive through open bidding.

Even Las Vegas and Los Angeles contract out most of their bus operations to private companies while maintaining a common public identity. The same happens in Hong Kong, where several franchised bus companies operate under a shared government-supervised framework.

This system works because of division of labor — the government focuses on regulation, infrastructure, and coordination, while the private sector focuses on operations, efficiency, and innovation.

Our Situation: The “Free-for-All” Model

In contrast, the bus system in the Philippines, especially in Metro Manila, is still operating in what I would call a “free-for-all” mode. Every bus company runs its own schedule, stops wherever it wants, and competes for passengers on the street.

As a result, commuters never know when the next bus will arrive or where it will stop. Schedules are unpredictable, boarding areas are chaotic, and traffic congestion is made worse by buses loading and unloading anywhere they please.

We have, quite literally, a public transportation system without public management.

A Modular Way Forward

It doesn’t take rocket science to fix this — just organization and coordination. The same buses can run on the same roads, but in a systematic and predictable way.

Here’s one simple proposal:

• DPWH (Department of Public Works and Highways) should build and maintain standardized bus stops and shelters.
  
  

• DOTr (Department of Transportation) should regulate the routes, schedules, and operators.
  
  

• DICT (Department of Information and Communications Technology) should handle the computerized scheduling system and real-time tracking.
  
  

This division of labor plays to each agency’s strength. The DPWH already has the expertise in building public infrastructure. The DOTr already manages transport operations and franchising. The DICT can easily deploy smart systems for scheduling, digital payments, and passenger information.

Such a setup does not require huge capital investments — just coordination, digitalization, and political will.

Bus Stops and Behavior

The lack of standardized bus stops also shapes commuter behavior. Because passengers can hail buses anywhere, drivers are forced to stop anywhere. This creates inefficiency and danger. Once fixed stops are built and strictly enforced, the system will begin to regulate itself.

In Seoul, for example, bus stops are spaced consistently and linked to digital signs that tell passengers how many minutes before the next bus arrives. This predictability encourages discipline and confidence among commuters.

Human Side of the System

Equally important is the human side — the drivers. Under the current system, most bus drivers are paid on a boundary basis, meaning they must meet a daily quota before earning anything for themselves. This encourages reckless driving, racing, and overloading.

Under a unified system, the hiring and training of drivers could be standardized. Drivers can receive fixed salaries, benefits, and regular hours, while operators are rewarded for safety, punctuality, and passenger satisfaction.

The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) could be tasked to review the labor practices of bus operators to ensure compliance with professional standards.

Digital Transformation for Commuters

Imagine if Metro Manila had a bus app similar to London’s TfL Go or Singapore’s MyTransport.SG, showing commuters exactly when the next bus would arrive. With the DICT’s expertise, this could easily be developed and integrated into the national e-government platform.

Technology is not the problem. The problem is the fragmentation of authority and the lack of coordination between agencies.

Final Thoughts

What I am proposing is not new, not expensive, and not complicated. It is simply a matter of learning from global best practices and applying them in a local, sensible way.

We can have the same buses on the same roads — but moving on time, on schedule, and in service to the public. It’s not too much to ask.

Our people deserve a transport system that respects their time and dignity. A little order, a little coordination, and a little compassion can go a long way toward making that happen.

Because when buses move better, cities live better.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

09088877282/02-17-2026