senseneres

Sunday, April 12, 2026

WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL RESILIENCE?

When I first encountered the phrase environmental resilience, I pictured a rubber ball bouncing back after being dropped. But it’s not quite that simple. In ecological science, resilience means much more: the capacity of natural systems—ecosystems, landscapes, even human-nature communities—to absorb disturbances, adapt to change and recover from shocks without collapsing into something entirely different.

To put it plainly: it’s about nature being able to bounce back. Even more, it is about nature being able to reorganise itself, shift when needed, yet still deliver the services we and other species depend on.

But here’s the nub: originally, environmental resilience was considered a natural attribute of the Earth. Forests recover. Wetlands rebound. Coral reefs regrow. Yet at a time when climate change, pollution, habitat loss and urban sprawl are pushing our systems ever closer to breaking-points, human intervention is increasingly required.

Why should we care?

In my view, resilience matters deeply. If the environment around us cannot bounce back when we run into big trouble — storms, floods, droughts, heatwaves, even pandemics of pests or diseases — then the whole system starts to wobble. And when that happens, not only nature suffers, but we do too: our agriculture, our fisheries, our clean water, our safety from disasters. The scientific community concurs: resilience matters for biodiversity, ecosystem services, livelihoods and adaptation to climate extremes.

Here is how I like to unpack it:

Absorptive capacity: Can the system take a hit—storm, fire, flood—without major damage?
Adaptive capacity: Can it adjust when conditions change—temperature shifts, new pests, new human uses?
Restorative capacity: If it is damaged, can it regenerate and recover?

Real-life examples that speak volumes

Let me quote some vivid cases to ground this:

Mangrove forests along coasts act like giant shock absorbers. They mitigate storm surges, hold back erosion, and regenerate after typhoons.
Urban green spaces may sound mundane, but in cities they reduce the “heat island” effect, improve air quality, and support biodiversity—even though humans built the city around them.
Farms practicing agroecology, with crop diversity and soil-health focus, are more resilient to droughts or pest outbreaks than monocultures.
Watershed restoration efforts give cities and rural areas better flood control and clean water—again, working with nature rather than just building concrete walls.

These aren’t just anecdotal: the underlying science confirms that systems with more species, more redundancy (many species performing similar ecological roles), and stronger adaptive capacity are more resilient. Yet caution: a 2022 study found that resilience in forests—tropical, dry and temperate—has been declining rather than improving, likely because of water stress and climate variability. If resilience is slipping, we’re on thin ice.

Human help: Do we need it?

Yes — and here’s where my opinions surface. Ideally, nature would do its thing unaided. But with the cumulative and rapid changes humanity is imposing—deforestation, pollution, fragmentation of landscapes, climate acceleration—we can’t just sit back and pray.

So what should we do?

First: stop further destruction. I believe strongly that even doing nothing harmful is a huge help. In my local neighborhood there’s an empty lot untouched for ten years that’s turned into a “mini-forest” on its own. Nature shows us that given a chance, it will bounce back.
Second: repair damage where we’ve caused it. My mountaineering days with the UP Mountaineers taught me the motto: “Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.” If we’ve messed up nature, Christian teaching tells us that repentance includes repair. Could we apply that to our natural world? I say: yes, we must.
Third: intervene thoughtfully, when nature’s recovery is blocked or too slow. This might mean reforestation, restoring wetlands, creating corridors so species can move, and building green infrastructure in cities. Human–nature collaboration.
Fourth: think systemically. Resilience isn’t one-off; it’s built through diversity, connectivity, redundancy, flexible governance.

My message to you and to all of us

If you cannot undo the damage you’ve done to nature, then at least stop doing more damage. That’s something we all can do. If you walk in the woods or climb a mountain and practice “leave nothing but footprints”, you are participating in environmental resilience.

I also ask: What if we considered ourselves stewards rather than conquerors of the land? What if our default action was not to build, pave, cut, extract—but instead to protect, allow, give nature space? That lot growing its mini-forest near me is proof enough.

We should not leave resilience to chance. We should aid, encourage, facilitate. Because when ecosystems collapse—or shift into undesirable states—they may never come back the same. It might be less green, less diverse, less rich in life.

In the end, environmental resilience is not just a scientific term. It is a moral, communal, ecological imperative. We owe it to every living thing, and to our children.

Let that empty lot near us remind us: when given space, nature can heal itself. Let our motto remind us: when we enter Nature, may we leave only footprints, not scars.

Because if we truly believe the environment should bounce back “no matter what it takes,” then perhaps we should help it—just a little. And when we cannot help, at least we must not hinder.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/04-13-2026

Saturday, April 11, 2026

SKILLS TRAINING FOR LOCAL DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

After all my years as a Management Information Systems (MIS) manager, I have concluded that there are always three components of a good system: hardware, software and manpower. I have also learned that hardware and software are relatively easy to procure — but finding good Information and Communications Technology (ICT) people is a different matter altogether.

One irony about good ICT people is that the good ones always get “pirated” — snatched away by better-paying firms, cities or even abroad — while the “not so good” people get left behind. That is actually one problem facing the MIS people of local government units (LGUs). It’s so difficult to recruit good ICT professionals. And if you do find them, their salary expectations are often so high that they may approach or even surpass those of department heads.

Then there is the problem of turnover again. As soon as they acquire good experience and build up a decent resume, they move to cities for better jobs or even go abroad and become overseas Filipino workers (OFWs). Because of this, it is very common to see MIS staff in LGUs who are “square pegs in round holes” — meaning they are not genuine ICT professionals, yet are hired into ICT roles. Many are put into positions not meant for them, and they in turn are asked to perform ICT-related tasks. The result? Chaos. The MIS department suffers.

This situation becomes even more acute when the demand for ICT skills rises — as it has been doing — because LGUs don’t only seek automation and digitization, they are reaching into more advanced innovations: blockchain, artificial intelligence, data governance, and so on. To paraphrase, at risk of sounding simplistic: the solution is to train more people in ICT skills so that no matter how fast turnover happens, the MIS departments can keep up with the demand.

From an economic perspective, it is a simple matter of supply and demand. As long as there is a better supply of well-trained ICT people, it matters less how high the demand goes. Recognizing that need, I teamed up with an ICT company and a TESDA-accredited training institute, to help train many ICT practitioners at the LGU level. The goal: to bolster the manpower base of LGUs, and thereby improve system quality and digital service delivery.

We will begin with courses in foundational courses, but depending on LGU needs, we can expand to other digital transformation modules, including cybersecurity. That is why I am helping the company Sciontech to enter into a joint venture with Clear Vocation Institute — to deliver training for LGU ICT staff and enlarge the pool of competent digital-public officers.

Why this matters

Some recent data underline why this push is timely:

The Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) is targeting an increase of some 8 million digital-jobs by 2028, which would bring the total employed in the digital economy to about 19.3 million Filipinos.
A World Bank report found that in the Philippines only 25.8% of youth and adults have the basic ICT skill of sending email with file attachments, and fewer than 1 in 10 can use spreadsheets with simple formulas or create electronic presentations.
The DICT-led Tech4ED program is building learning hubs in underserved communities: for example, San Carlos City in Negros Occidental established 17 Tech4ED centers since 2015, producing thousands of graduates in basic and intermediate digital skills.
The National ICT Month initiative notes that local leaders, ICT offices in LGUs and citizens need capacity-building in digital literacy, e-governance and advanced ICT — not just technologies but skilled users and operators.

A legislative push is underway: for instance, Senate Bill 1943 proposed that each LGU must have an ICT officer with legitimate ICT credentials — which speaks right to the heart of the manpower shortage issue.

My comments and suggestions

Training is necessary but not sufficient: It’s not just about giving people tickets for a course. We must ensure that the training is relevant, that the graduates are employed in real ICT roles in LGUs, and that they are integrated into teams which respect their value. Too often, training graduates still get stuck in mis-allocated jobs or end up leaving anyway.
Competitive remuneration and career paths: If we train people only for them to exit for better offers, the cycle continues. LGUs need to devise retention strategies: clear career paths, market-competitive salaries (within LGU budgets), project-based incentives, recognition of ICT specialists, so they don’t feel they’re doing “extra” work without reward.
Standardizing hiring and roles in LGUs: The absence of credible hiring standards means that ICT roles in LGUs are sometimes filled by generalists or non-ICT persons. The proposed SB 1943 is a good move. LGUs should adopt hiring frameworks: require ICT degree or certification, define job descriptions clearly, and ensure the incumbent is a true ICT professional.
Modular skills frameworks: For LGUs, I suggest adopting a modular training framework (for example):

Governance & Ethics: transparency, accountability in ICT use, for LGU officials and barangay captains
Digital Transformation: e-governance, data systems, cybersecurity, for IT staff and planning officers
Community Engagement: participatory planning, feedback systems, for CSOs and youth leaders
Circular Design & Livelihood: linking digital tools to local livelihood initiatives (e-commerce, waste-to-resource) for local artisans and cooperatives
The advantage: this allows LGUs to pick and choose modules according to their specific needs and local context.

Partnerships matter: The public-private-academia partnership is key. The DICT + ILO + Japan collaboration for the first Digital Transformation Centre in Pampanga is a good example. LGUs should be encouraged to partner with accredited training providers — TESDA schools, ICT companies, civil service bodies — to scale skills training locally.
Measure outcomes: Skills training must produce measurable outcomes: number of trained ICT officers in LGUs, reduction in turnover, improved system uptime, lower manual processes, faster permit processing, etc. If the MIS department of an LGU still cannot fill roles or the staff keeps leaving after six months, we have to re-examine the model.
Leverage the national momentum: We are already seeing national-level efforts: the Philippine-Singapore tie-up to improve the digital leadership competencies of 10,000 civil servants. LGUs should tap into such programs, not reinvent the wheel.

In short: if LGUs are serious about digital transformation (and they should be), then focusing on hardware and software alone is insufficient. As I’ve observed over decades: you can buy the latest server or license the smartest software, but if your manpower is not trained, stable and professional, you will have systems that don’t deliver. Training large numbers of competent ICT people in the LGU environment is not optional — it is foundational.

If nothing else, the data show we cannot afford to lag in digital skills. The Philippines has long been behind in basic ICT skills among youth and adults. Unless we invest now in building a resilient, local ICT manpower base — for our cities, municipalities, barangays — we risk having “digital systems” that are really just digital versions of manual chaos.

So yes: let’s train more, train better, make roles real, keep talent local — and then the hardware, software and manpower will actually work in harmony.

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

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/04-12-2026

Friday, April 10, 2026

RECLAMATION DISGUISED AS FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT

Let’s be frank: something smells fishy in our flood-control machinery. We’re told a grand “flood control” project is underway along the shores of Laguna de Bay. But when the protective veil is lifted, the reality appears to be land reclamation—benefitting private interests more than the public, and threatening the environment more than protecting it.

According to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), what has been presented as a flood-control initiative along the C6 Road in Laguna de Bay is actually reclamation within the lake. Satellite imagery reportedly reveals new land-fill activity. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the local regulator Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) confirmed that no reclamation permits have been issued since April 2025—yet construction continues. The DENR’s Undersecretary Carlos Primo David even flagged the misrepresentation, warning the so-called flood control project could worsen flooding in lakeside communities.

At first glance this reads like yet another “ghost project” scandal—which we’ve seen before. But it’s even more insidious: rather than a ghost (non-existent) project, this is a “false” project where the title given (“flood control”) masks a completely different reality (real estate reclamation). The proponents may claim they’re protecting us from floods—but in truth, they may be building land for future sale. That’s a double-win for private hands: get funding for “public infrastructure,” reclaim land, then monetize it. Meanwhile, the environment and the public pay the price.

Victims #1: The environment
Every square meters of lake-bed or shallow water reclaimed is lost to nature. The lake is more than a body of water: it performs ecosystem services, houses fisheries, provides a cooling and irrigation source, and offers recreation. The LLDA lists lakeshore fisheries (about 13,000 fishermen rely on Laguna de Bay, producing about 80,000–90,000 metric tons of fish per year) as one of the lake’s primary uses. Reclamation threatens that. The lake has also long served as a flood-detention basin—a critical role under stress as siltation, development and changing rainfall patterns shrink its capacity to absorb runoff. Indeed one technical study shows that the lake’s capacity has dropped, making what used to be floods every 5–7 years now happening annually.

Victims #2: The lakeside communities
If the project is truly flood-control, then heavy rain and runoff should lessen in affected towns. But if instead it is reclamation that reduces the lake’s free volume, we’re inviting disaster: flood‐waters have less place to go and are more likely to inundate shallow areas—or persist for longer. According to a 2018 JICA study on the basin, when water levels exceed the 12 meter datum, inundation depths in residential areas can reach 1.5 to 2 meters, lasting months in some cases. The communities—fisherfolk, barangay households, small businesses—stand to lose first.

Why this matters
We are not dumpster-diving for gossip. This is about governance and accountability. The mis-labelling of infrastructure projects erodes transparency. When flood-control budgets are used for land-grab reclamation, the public cannot trust what is being done in its name. And the stakes are high: one report shows that 15 contractors have cornered about ₱100 billion worth of “flood control” contracts since 2022. Moreover, the science is clear: the catchment area of Laguna de Bay is about 4,522 km² with the lake itself about 871 km² and average depth a mere 2.8 m. Each reclamation hectare chips away at that containment and storage capacity, making floods worse, not better.

Questions we should demand answers to

Who is behind this “flood control” project—what private interests, what government-connected companies?
What is the detailed scope and design of the project: how much area is being reclaimed, what permits were submitted (if any) and who signed them?
Has there been a proper Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or hydrologic modelling to show the flood‐risk before/after the project?
Are lakeside communities informed, consulted, compensated if at all? Fisherfolk made to move? Is restoration of ecology in the plan?
Finally, do we have independent monitoring of the lake’s water levels, siltation trends, flooding incidents—and is that data made public?

Suggestions for action
The following modular response can be pursued by LGUs (local government units), civil society organizations (CSOs), watchdog groups and the public:

Transparency Audit: Review flood-control budgets, procurement records, land and fill permits, and overlay with satellite imagery (Google Earth, Sentinel) to detect where actual land filling is happening.
Community Briefings: Lakeshore barangays must be educated on their rights, the real risks, and what to watch out for (e.g., loss of shoreline, unexpected flooding after the project).
Legal Mobilization: File complaints with LLDA/DENR, ask for investigations of permit irregularities, challenge projects that lack proper EIA, invoke citizen suit provisions under Philippine environmental law.
Policy Advocacy: Push for stronger oversight of “flood control” projects—not just approving engineering drawings—but ensuring the project is scientifically sound, ecologically safe, socially just. Congress and oversight committees need to treat these like infrastructure + environment. For example, include in future budgets specific funding for lake dredging, siltation removal, and restoration rather than reclamation disguised as flood control.

The agenda may be clear: sell the idea of flood-control, get the money, reclaim the land, monetize it — all while the lake shrinks, the flood threat grows, and the poor fishers and barangays bear the cost. But the twist is this: once more honest actors—within government, CSOs, media—are inspecting the ledger and the aerial imagery, we may be entering a phase where these practices are exposed. The question is: will we allow them to continue unchecked, or will we hold the system accountable? The lake, the communities and the future will judge.