Nature and Value; Nature versus Value

It’s one thing to talk about “natural capital” in a dry, air-conditioned plenary session in Iloilo City; it’s another thing entirely to explain that ledger to a farmer in Sibalom whose “capital” is the water flowing into his rice field.

Recently, Environment Secretary Raphael P.M. Lotilla stood before the business community at “SustainAbility 2026” and made a case for the PENCAS Act (Republic Act 11995). The logic is clean: we put a price tag on nature so we can make “data-driven” decisions. But as a debate rages in Lotilla’s own home province of Antique over a proposed 7,000-hectare mineral reservation, that clean logic starts to look a lot like a ledger for liquidation.

The problem with treating nature as an asset class is the risk of moral hazard. Once you put a price on it, you’ve implicitly agreed that it can be sold if the price is right. Lotilla argues we need to see if one activity is “more advantageous to society” than another. But how do you quantify the “value” of the Sibalom Natural Park against the massive potential of copper, gold, and chromite? If a mining firm shows that their yield is worth billions more than the “ecosystem services” of the trees, does the watershed simply get deleted?

It’s especially jarring when you look at the sheer scale of extraction already in play. Semirara Mining and Power Corp. is pushing a PHP 291 billion expansion plan. In that context, sustainability feels less like a vision and more like a smokescreen. You can’t talk about “evolving science” while simultaneously exploring 7,000 hectares of upland watershed that serves as the province’s “rice granary.”

However, to be fair to the Secretary, PENCAS – if implemented with teeth – could actually be the environmentalist’s best friend. For decades, the “value” of our forests was zero on the national balance sheet, making them easy to destroy. By quantifying things like water filtration and flood protection, the law finally makes the cost of environmental destruction visible to the bean counters in Manila.

The real solution isn’t to ditch the data, but to ensure the math isn’t rigged. We need a three-pronged approach:

1. Baseline Protection:We must acknowledge that some areas, like the Sibalom Natural Park, are “non-negotiable capital.” You don’t sell the foundation of your house to buy a better TV; similarly, we shouldn’t “account” for the destruction of a primary watershed.
2. Radical Transparency:Under Section 11 of the PENCAS Act, citizens have the right to access these accounts. The Amlig Antique Alliance and local farmers should have a seat at the table when these valuations are being calculated, not just when the final “cost-benefit” report is released.
3. Local Reinvestment:If mining exploration proceeds, the PHP 489 million road projects and other infrastructure should be decoupled from the mining corridor. Development must serve the community first, not just facilitate the haul of minerals.

Lotilla is right: we need “constructive suggestions.” Here’s one: stop treating the Sibalom watershed as a variable in a mining equation. Use the PENCAS Act to prove exactly how much we lose if we touch it. Some things are worth more than the minerals underneath them.