Sunday, November 15, 2020

CAPITALIST COUNTRIES HAVE CLIMATE DEBTS TO PAY

 By Wilson Fortaleza*

 

The Philippines’ contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission does not even reach one half of one percent of the world’s total, but Filipinos are paying a hefty price for the massive loss of lives, injuries, loss of jobs, and the physical destruction of shelters, farms, and government infrastructures.  While those who pollute the planet most, the filthy rich capitalist countries and their transnational corporations (TNCs), wallow in wealth in the safety of their highly-secured havens.

 

The grim images of every typhoon’s aftermath show not only the horrors of devastation but also the cost that come hard to imagine.  Costs are enormous, but do we have any idea how much they are in peso or in dollar terms? And who, by the way, are paying those bills and at what cost?

 

Storm leaves a price tag

 

Damage from “Ulysses” (Vamco) as of this writing remains partial. Preliminary estimates as of November 13, 2020 by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) placed damages at P4.254B ($88.29M).[1]  Damage from “Ulysses” is believed to be far-reaching than “Ondoy” (Ketsana) as the former brought more areas under water, including Cagayan, when big dams up north released waters that exceed their holding capacity.

 

There are conflicting reports in terms of the number of fatalities as government agencies issue contrasting figures.  The NDRRM counts 42 in its latest report. The police count is 53. Ondoy, which hit mostly the eastern and southern part of Metro Manila and Central Luzon, left 747 dead in 2009. Its damage to agriculture was estimated to have reached P3.1B ($64.3M).[2] Another report estimated Ondoy’s total damage to have reached $1.09B.[3]

 

“Ulysses” came just several days after two powerful typhoons, “Rolly” (Goni) and “Quinta” (Molave) hit the southern part of Luzon. News reports said the combined damage to agriculture from both is estimated to reach P4.6B ($95.46M). Total cost of damage from ‘Rolly’, the strongest as of date for 2020, was P11B ($228.27M).[4]

 

In 2016, the Philippine government has conducted an official accounting of the total damages from natural disasters that hit the country from 2006-2015. The 2016 Compendium of Philippine Environment Statistics (CPES) came up with the total of P374B ($7.76B). It includes damage to agriculture worth P225.63B ($4.67B), infrastructure P81.97B ($1.70B), and private property at P66.598B ($1.38B)[5].

 

But another study indicates that damage from the 2013 “Yolanda” (Hyan) alone, the strongest typhoon on earth ever which killed 6,300 people, injured 28,688, left 1,062 missing persons, 16,078,181 affected persons, and damaged 1,140,332 houses have reached P571.1B ($11.85B), according to the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS).[6] In a separate report the International Labor Organization (ILO) said some 6 million jobs were affected in areas hit by “Yolanda”, while another 800,000 were destroyed by typhoon “Hagupit” (Ruby) a year later.[7]

 

Who’s footing the bill?

 

The PIDS report said the Philippines, based on catastrophe modeling, faces an annual average of P133.2B losses due to tropical cyclones and P43.5B from earthquake. Now, how do we fund regular disasters which price come higher than this average as we have shown above?

 

The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund (NDRRMF), commonly known as calamity fund, and the Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Fund (LDRRMF) have been created for this purpose. Over the last 3 years, however, their allocation suffered funding cuts when they should be increasing amidst the intensifying climate crisis. The NDRMFF fund was raised to P38.9B in 2016 from P6B in 2011 but it was cut to P15.755B in 2017[8]. A P30B calamity fund was proposed for 2019 but it was cut again by Congress to P19.6B. The fund for 2020 was reduced again to P16B. The allotment for the proposed 2021 budget is P20B[9], only a billion higher than the newly-concocted P19B fund for ending the local communist insurgency.

 

Evidently, this level of funding never meets even the most immediate post-disaster needs of Filipinos, notwithstanding the bottlenecks and issues of corruption in the response process. In other words, most of the post recovery efforts come from the people themselves and, in the case of businesses where 99 percent are micro in scale, the resiliency of enterprising Pinoys.

 

For ordinary workers who earn $6 only in the daily average wage, this glorified concept of Filipino resiliency is nothing but a leveled up sacrifice in the face of ever-increasing neglect and hostility by the ruling elite. This resiliency, I hope, would later advance into a level of resistance; otherwise, the working class is locked inside this cycle of permanent sacrifice.

 

The Filipino people have been making a lot of sacrifices from climate crisis.  And government funds regularly allocated for disaster response are money taken out from the much needed social services. We should assert that funding for climate change damages must come from external sources, particularly from Annex 1 countries.[10] Officially, the country has also been committing significant emission reductions targets (70%) in climate negotiations. Yet those who are assigned to foot the bill, the highly industrialized countries, are failing in their financial obligations. 

 

Climate reparation

 

As the current climate change narrative departs from natural to man-made causes, so must the consciousness of the working class is on this issue. For what we seek is no longer which between the natural and man-made phenomenon has a greater value in the climate change debate, but who among the most responsible have the greatest price to pay for the bill for climate damage.

 

Climate scientists have closed this ‘natural’ vs ‘man-made’ debate several years back when they all pointed to industrial activities over the last 50 years or so which cause the rapid increase in GHG emissions, thus, the rise in global temperature. In short, capitalist countries which own those great carbon emitting industries owe developing countries like the Philippines billions of dollars in climate debt. And since they were responsible for the climate crisis, they earn a price to pay for the climate damage that is happening in poorer and most vulnerable countries.

 

There is mounting cry for climate justice from the South. There must be reparation from the North.

 

But victims have climate obligations, too, in ensuring reduction in carbon emissions. Workers do understand this duty as more jobs and sources of life will be destroyed as the planet keeps on warming. Moreover, we truly recognize that the only way to stop the planet from heating up further is by shifting the production and consumption processes in favour of low-carbon economic activities.

 

The Philippine labor agenda on recovery

 

COVID-19 merely compounded these pre-pandemic problems. But decoupling climate from the health crisis, which the Duterte government consciously does in terms of emergency response and recovery program, is ignoring the interconnectedness of these crises and rejecting the viability of nature and employment-based strategy for recovery in favour of market-based, business-as-usual solutions.

 

It is for this reason that workers organizations in the Philippines affiliated with the broad labor coalition Nagkaisa (United) are pushing for a labor agenda on recovery which includes demands for income and employment guarantees[11] to address the deteriorating jobs crisis. Our demand for employment guarantee contains a proposal for the creation of climate jobs in renewable energy, housing and building sector, transportation, and nature conservation.

 

We are advancing this climate jobs agenda based on the principles that recovery should not just heal but also make people more healthy and secure; that it does not simply restore lost jobs and free markets but one which creates green, decent jobs and a sustainable future.  We also campaign for a tax on wealth[12] to finance the recovery and development agenda.

 

Needless to say, that recovery from COVID-19 and the transition to a safer and better world can be made faster and viable when binding climate justice and reparation obligations replace the menial act of donations and loans coming from the rich capitalist nations. ###



*Wilson Fortaleza is a member of the Executive Committee of the Partido Manggagawa and one of the convenors of Nagkaisa Labor Coalition.

[1] https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1360146/ulysses-leaves-p4-25-b-damage-to-infra-dpwh

[5] Natural Disaster Damage at P374B in 2006-2015.” Business World. Bworldonline.com. February 5, 2018. https://www.bworldonline.com/natural-disaster-damage-p374b-2006-2015/

[6] https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1721.pdf

[7] International Labour Organization, 100 days on, Haiyan survivors need more jobs to recover [Feature]. 17 February 2014.   https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/multimedia/features/WCMS_235730/lang--en/index.htm

[8] Ibid, PIDS.

Friday, October 30, 2020

DOLE asked to recall order extending floating status


The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) is being asked by the labor group Partido Manggagawa (PM) to recall the order extending the floating status of workers to one year. The group called on the DOLE to re-submit the proposal to the deliberation of the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC) where labor, employers and government are represented.

 

“We appeal to Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello to recall DO 215. DOLE orders should be subject to tripartite agreement and not be unilateral decisions of government,” asserted Renato Magtubo, PM national chair.

 

He wondered why the DOLE pushed through with extending the floating status of workers when labor groups were firm in their opposition to the proposal when it was tabled in an NTIPC meeting.

 

PM countered the position of Labor Undersecretary Benjo Benavidez that extending the floating status is a measure to protect workers. “DO 215 is pro-employer as it allows them to evade payment of separation benefits to workers who are now more than six months on forced leave,” insisted Magtubo.

 

According to PM, thousands of workers have already filed complaints for constructive dismissal because their employers have not reinstated them since the lockdown started in March. “Who will benefit from the dismissal of these cases because of DO 215? Thus the DOLE is being disingenuous when it says that DO 215 is protective of workers,” Magtubo stated.

 

He also answered DOLE’s claim that the Labor Code is silent on the floating status of workers: “Article 310 provides that workers are deemed not terminated—meaning employees are put on forced leave or floating status—when the operations of a company are suspended, which is the scenario at present. But Article 301 explicitly mandates that such suspension cannot exceed six months—and for good reason more than half a year is too long for workers to suffer on no work, no pay.”

 

He recalled that the DOLE earlier floated the deferment of the 13th month pay but backtracked because of outrage over the proposal. PM is calling on workers to similarly express opposition to DO 215.

 

Magtubo maintained that “DO 215 is another example of DOLE’s social distancing from workers in the time of covid. Earlier DOLE released a series of orders and advisories such as DO 213 that suspended complaints and inspections and LA 17 that allowed diminution of wages and benefits. All these disadvantaged workers impacted by the lockdown and opened them to abuse by employers. Labor’s challenge finally led to DO 213’s repeal by DO 214 which permitted the operation of the dispute resolution mechanisms for workers.” 

October 30, 2020

Thursday, October 29, 2020

Employers can evade separation pay via extension of floating status—labor group

 

The militant group Partido Manggagawa (PM) countered the position of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) that DO 215 extending the floating status of workers to one year is a measure to protect workers. “DO 215 is pro-employer as it allows them to evade payment of separation benefits to workers who are now more than six months on forced leave,” insisted Rene Magtubo, PM national chair.

 

PM is calling on the DOLE to recall DO 215 and submit the proposal to the deliberation of the National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council where labor, employers and government are represented. “We appeal to Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello to recall DO 215. DOLE orders should be subject to tripartite agreement and not be unilateral decisions of government,” Magtubo asserted.

 

He answered DOLE’s claim that the Labor Code is silent on the floating status of workers: “Article 310 provides that workers are deemed not terminated—meaning employees are put on forced leave or floating status—when the operations of a company are suspended, which is the scenario at present. But Article 301 explicitly mandates that such suspension cannot exceed six months—and for good reason more than half a year is too long for workers to suffer on no work, no pay.”

 

PM avers that thousands of workers have already filed complaints for constructive dismissal because their employers have not reinstated them since the lockdown started in March. “Who will benefit from the dismissal of these cases because of DO 215? Thus the DOLE is being disingenuous when it says that DO 215 is protective of workers,” Magtubo stated.

 

He recalled that the DOLE earlier floated the deferment of the 13th month pay but backtracked because of outrage over the proposal. PM is calling on workers to similarly express opposition to DO 215.

 

Magtubo maintained that “DO 215 is another example of DOLE’s social distancing from workers in the time of covid. Earlier DOLE released a series of orders and advisories such as DO 213 that suspended complaints and inspections and LA 17 that allowed diminution of wages and benefits. All these disadvantaged workers impacted by the lockdown and opened them to abuse by employers. Labor’s challenge finally led to DO 213’s repeal by DO 214 which permitted the operation of the dispute resolution mechanisms for workers.”


October 29, 2020

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Labor group slams new DOLE order extending forced leave


The militant labor group Partido Manggagawa (PM) today slammed a new order from the Department of Labor and Employment that effectively extends the floating status of workers beyond the maximum of six months provided for in the Labor Code. DO 215 entitled “Rule Amending Section 12 Rule 1, Rules Implementing Book VI of the Labor Code on Suspension of the Employment Relationship” was signed on October 23, 2020 by Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello.

 

“Extension of the floating status of workers beyond the six months maximum through a DO is illegal as it is tantamount to executive legislation. The water cannot rise above its source,” declared Rene Magtubo, PM national chair.

 

Magtubo cited that Article 301 of the Labor Code does not provide for an extension of the six month maximum of forced leave or floating status: “When Employment Not Deemed Terminated—The bona fide suspension of operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate the employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.”

 

The PM leader revealed that the labor coalition Nagkaisa labor groups is coordinating for a campaign for the repeal of the “blatantly pro-employer” DO 215 and to file a legal challenge at the Supreme Court.

 

“DO 215 is deceptively presented by the DOLE as an amendment to the existing implementing rules and regulations when in truth it revises the clear mandates of Article 301 of the Labor Code. In a tripartite dialogue, labor groups had expressed the opposition to the proposal on the grounds that it contravenes existing law and that it opens workers to employer abuse,” Magtubo elaborated.

 

He added that “This is another instance of DOLE’s social distancing from workers in the time of covid. Earlier DOLE released a series of orders and advisories such as DO 213 that suspended complaints and inspections and LA 17 that allowed diminution of wages and benefits. All these disadvantaged workers impacted by the lockdown. Labor’s challenge finally led to DO 213’s repeal by DO 214 which permitted the operation of the dispute resolution mechanisms for workers.” 

October 27, 2020

Monday, October 26, 2020

Youth groups slam Parlade, support red-tagged celebrities


Youth groups slammed the red-tagging by Lt. Gen Antonio Parlade, commander of the AFP Southern Luzon Command, who threatened and harassed celebrities advocating for human rights. Liza Soberano was warned by Parlade after participating as a guest in a militant women group’s online forum. Aside from Soberano, Parlade also red-tagged Miss Universe 2018 Catriona Gray and Angel Locsin, whose sister was alleged as an underground activist in Quezon.

 

“We are all Liza, Catriona and Angel. Advocating for women's rights is not an act of terrorism nor a sign of being a member of a terrorist group. Speaking up for the rights of the marginalized and exploited is a right protected by the Constitution. It is impunity when death threats can be thrown at celebrities and activists on the basis of mere suspicion,” said Christine Pangan, Youth Claim Spokesperson. Youth Claim is a youth organization in Cebu composed of college students and community youth who stand for social justice.

 

Meanwhile Jonel Lalvador of Partido Manggagawa-Kabataan, stated that “Parlade's redtagging of Liza Soberano, Catriona Gray and Angel Locsin is the best argument against the Anti-Terror Law and exposes the abuses it will spawn.” PM-Kabataan is the youth wing of the militant labor group.

 

One of the most controversial provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Law is the arrest of suspects without warrant and for mere suspicion, and detention for as long as 24 days. “Activism is not terrorism. It is clear that both are different but the current administration is blurring the distinction. Under the Anti-Terror Law, it is very alarming that activists can easily be red-tagged. Activists use their voice and act upon their goal to bring positive change so Parlade should stop conflating activism with terrorism. Stop red-tagging human rights organizations, religious groups, unions and the mainstream media,” said Pangan.

 

“We have this so-called freedom of expression and there is nothing wrong with it especially when you advocate for a greater good. We support women and everyone who speak out their minds, defend their rights and fight for the betterment of all. The pervasiveness of red-tagging will only worsen the Philippine government's human rights and violations. Now, that we have seen how military has red-tagged public figures, I hope we all realized how life-threatening it is especially to those people who lack money, fandom and legal connections to protect them,” asserted Labrador.

 

Pangan insisted that “The flimsy basis of Parlade to accuse Liza Soberano applies to all of us. We must be heard without being labeled terrorists.”


October 26, 2020