Doers Collective

28/05/2026

"We need to cut trees for development" - DENR

'Development' that means cutting down trees amid the worsening climate crisis is not real development.

As extreme heat and flooding intensify, we need trees and green spaces even more to help protect the health, livelihoods, and safety of our communities. Development should be centered on people and the environment, not on their destruction.

We strongly condemn the massacre of trees under the San Miguel Corporation’s SALEX Project and urge authorities to not just suspend but PERMANENTLY CANCEL plans to cut more trees.



Photos: Nick Cobbing / Greenpeace, ABS-CBN News

25/05/2026

21/05/2026

🚨 🌿 OVER 30 YEARS OF SCIENCE AVAILABLE. WHY ARE WE STILL PLANTING BAKHAW IN THE WRONG PLACE?

Let's talk about one of the most persistent, well-funded, and photographed environmental failures in the Philippines—and why a 2024 DENR memorandum that should have changed everything is apparently still being ignored.

In January 2024, DENR finally released Memo Order 2024-54 — a long-overdue policy that essentially validated what Dr. Jurgenne Primavera and mangrove scientists have been screaming about for over 20 years.

🌿 THE BACKSTORY MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW
For more than two decades, Dr. Jurgenne Primavera, one of the world's foremost experts on Philippine mangroves, along with a dedicated community of scientists, NGOs, and coastal advocates have been raising the alarm: we are rehabilitating mangroves wrong, and it is causing more harm than good.

The problem is deceptively simple. When organizations plant mangroves, they almost universally reach for Rhizophora species — locally known as bakhaw. Why? Because it's easy. The propagules are large, visible, and convenient to plant like a stake in the ground. You don't need a nursery. You don't need much training. You can mobilize 200 volunteers, take great photos, and count your "trees planted" by sundown.

But here's what those photos don't show: bakhaw is a middle-to-landward zone species. Planting it in the seafront—on mudflats, tidal flats, seagrass beds, and seaward zones—is ecologically destructive. It smothers natural recruitment, outcompetes the correct species, damages seagrass beds, and creates monoculture plantations that are far more vulnerable to typhoons and climate stress than a naturally diverse mangrove forest.

For 20+ years, Dr. Primavera and colleagues have been training educators, government officials, LGU staff, NGO workers, and community leaders on the correct science: the right species for the right zone. For seaward zones, it's Avicennia marina (bungalon) and Sonneratia alba (pagatpat), species that are far harder to propagate, require nursery establishment, and don't make for convenient photo opportunities.

And yet, the bakhaw planting continued. Year after year. Project after project. Millions of pesos spent. Hundreds of thousands of "trees planted" that either died or caused harm.

WHAT DENR MEMO 2024-54 ACTUALLY SAYS?
🚫 Planting of Rhizophora species in seaward zones is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
🚫 Planting on mudflats/tidal flats and lower subtiddal zones is PROHIBITED.
🚫 Planting on seagrass beds is PROHIBITED.

✅ Seaward zones must use Avicennia marina (locally known as bungalon/api-api) and Sonneratia alba (pagatpat/palapat).
✅ All DENR offices near coastal areas must include mangrove species in seedling production—EXCEPT Rhizophora spp.
✅ Proper nursery establishment is REQUIRED.
✅ Species-site matching is MANDATORY.
✅ Abandoned, Unutilized, and Underdeveloped (AUU) fishponds turned over by BFAR to DENR are now PRIORITY areas for enrichment planting — not seafronts, not mudflats.
✅ Plantation care and maintenance must be sustained for at least 3 years.

This isn't a suggestion. This is a Memorandum from the DENR Secretary, addressed to all Regional Executive Directors from Region 1 to 12, CARAGA, and NCR, and to the Directors of the Biodiversity Management Bureau, Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, and Forest Management Bureau.

SO WHY ARE WE STILL SEEING BAKHAW PLANTINGS IN THE SEAFRONT IN 2025 AND 2026?
More than two years have passed since this memo was signed. And yet:
❌ LGU-led mangrove planting events still feature bakhaw propagules being jabbed into mudflats.
❌ Corporate CSR and ESG "mangrove planting" photo ops still show neat rows of Rhizophora along seafronts.
❌ Some CSO-implemented projects are still procuring bakhaw because "that's what we've always done."
❌ Even some government agencies and the DENR field offices—the very implementers of this memo—have been observed continuing wrong-zone planting, setting a damaging precedent for the community groups and People's Organizations they supervise.

To DENR, a memorandum without enforcement is just paper with a letterhead. We acknowledge and thank you for Memo 2024-54. It represents hard-won progress from decades of scientific advocacy. But a memo that is not monitored, not enforced, and not resourced is ineffective policy.

We call on DENR to:
📌 Issue clear enforcement guidelines and penalties for non-compliance
📌 Conduct rapid assessments of ongoing and recently completed mangrove projects
📌 Publicly identify and correct field offices and implementing partners found to be violating the memorandum
📌 Fast-track the training of all CENROs, PENROs, and People's Organizations as mandated in the memorandum

Share this. Tag your LGU. Tag your CSR department. Tag your favorite "mangrove planting" organization. Tag your CENRO, PENRO, or PGENRO.
The science has been settled for decades. The policy is now in place. What we need now is accountability.

To access the memorandum order, click here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LTONIxbVGrrita9k-43dvMizMOHYPGhY/view?usp=sharing

09/05/2026

06/05/2026

04/05/2026

⚠️ We Are Selling the Sea: The Philippines' Unchecked Reclamation Crisis and the Scale Nobody Wants to Talk About

At least 239 proposed and ongoing reclamation projects across the country, and over 10,000 hectares of Manila Bay alone.

Across the country, billions in profits for developers. And millions of fisherfolk, coastal communities, and the ecosystems they depend on—left with nothing but broken promises and rising floodwaters.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization describes land reclamation as "an irreversible form of environmental degradation." Yet the Philippines continues to approve these projects at an unprecedented rate, with a regulatory process so fragmented that no single agency bears clear accountability for the permanent destruction of our coastal ecosystems.

Center of Marine Biodiversity Under Threat
The Philippines is globally recognized as the "center of the center of marine biodiversity." These reclamation projects threaten the very ecological foundations that make the country one of the most biodiverse nations on Earth—permanently.

Major reclamation projects across the country are based on data from the Philippine Reclamation Authority (PRA), DENR, and investigative reports. Many of these projects have undisclosed private partners, raising serious accountability concerns. PRA data reveals that for many of the approved projects, private corporate partners remain unnamed in public records. This opacity makes it nearly impossible for communities, civil society, and watchdogs to track who profits from the permanent destruction of public coastal resources.

⚠️ The Permitting Illusion: When Compliance Is Just Paperwork
Reclamation projects in the Philippines are legally required to pass through a multi-agency permitting gauntlet. In reality, this system has become a formality. Environmental Compliance Certificates are issued. Presidential proclamations are signed. And the ecosystems are buried anyway.

The Required Permitting Process
Under Executive Order No. 74 (2019) and the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System, a reclamation project must navigate the following steps:
1. PRA Application & Joint Verification (often)
2. Environmental Impact Study (EIS)
3. Genuine Public Consultations
4. Fisherfolk & Community Participation
5. DENR Environmental Compliance Certificate
6. Presidential Proclamation
7. Long-term Environmental Monitoring

Policy Gaps: Why Is Nobody Truly Accountable?
Despite an impressive legal architecture on paper, structural and institutional failures enable reclamation projects to proceed with near impunity. Here are the critical gaps:

1. Dual Role Conflict of Interest: PRA as Regulator and Proponent
The Philippine Reclamation Authority is both the primary regulator of reclamation AND an active proponent and co-developer of projects. This structural conflict means the agency reviewing compliance is the same agency that profits from project approvals.
2. EIS Public Hearings Are Legally Required but Routinely Tokenistic. Community consultations are often held in inaccessible venues, without advance notice to fisherfolk communities, in languages or formats that exclude participants. The Oceana Scorecard has documented widespread non-compliance with genuine public participation requirements.
3. No Mandatory No-Go Zones for Coastal Wetlands and Fishery Areas. The Philippines lacks a National Coastal Greenbelt that would categorically prohibit reclamation in ecologically critical areas. Legislative proposals for such a law (supported by Oceana PH) have stalled in Congress for years.
4. Opaque Private Partnerships and Undisclosed Corporate Beneficiaries. PRA data shows that many joint venture projects have unnamed private corporate partners. The public—whose foreshore and coastal waters are being permanently alienated—has no right to know who owns and profits from reclaimed public land.
5. Post-ECC Monitoring Is Virtually Non-Existent. Environmental Compliance Certificates contain conditions that proponents must fulfill during and after construction. However, DENR-EMB monitoring capacity is severely underfunded. Non-compliance with ECC conditions almost never results in project suspension or penalty.

WHAT CAN WE DO? HOW CAN CITIZENS PARTICIPATE? ✅✅✅

The Citizen Scorecard: Your Tool to Hold Power Accountable
On March 30, 2022, Oceana Philippines and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) jointly launched two complementary tools to combat regulatory capture in reclamation approvals: DILG Memorandum Circular 2022-018 and the Oceana Citizen Scorecard.

Citizen Scorecard for Reclamation Projects 🌿
The Citizen Scorecard comprises 48 indicators grouped into 4 categories that citizens can use to evaluate whether their LGU and project proponents are following the law. A project is rated as fully compliant, partially compliant, or critically non-compliant based on total points accumulated.

Category A: Location Assessment
Is the project site legally permissible? Are there protected areas, wetlands, or coral reefs nearby?
Category B: Pre-Project Consultations
Were genuine, prior, and informed public consultations conducted with affected communities?
Category C: EIA Public Participation
Did the Environmental Impact Study process include adequate public hearings and fisherfolk input?
Category D: Implementation & Monitoring
Are the environmental conditions of the ECC being monitored? Is there a grievance mechanism?

How to Use the Scorecard 🌿
Download the scorecard at ph.oceana.org (available in English, Tagalog, and Bisaya). Bring it to barangay hearings, LGU consultations, and public EIS hearings. Fill it out. Document non-compliance. Share with Oceana, DILG, and the media.

The DILG MC 2022-018 reiterates that local governments bear direct legal responsibility under the Philippine EIS Act and Local Government Code to protect municipal waters and marine habitats. Violators face administrative, civil, or criminal liability. The scorecard transforms this legal framework into a citizen-accessible monitoring instrument.

03/05/2026

False solution: Mangrove earthballing as an excuse to strip off our remaining natural barriers in the coasts.

Recently, Dr. Jurgenne Primavera, a mangrove authority in the Philippines, called on DENR Secretary, Raphael Lotilla, to repeal the agency's memorandum Interim Operational Guidance and Conditions on the Earth-balling and Relocation of Mangroves in Exceptional Circumstances, arguing it serves as a loophole for fragmenting our mangroves from anthropogenic threats.

This memorandum does not align with the existing environmental laws that protect the Philippines' remaining mangrove forests. This ecosystem is a critical source of livelihood and food for our communities. Further, mangroves sequester potential amounts of atmospheric carbon, contributing to our commitment goals in mitigating the impacts of the climate crisis.

A critical essay by Tabilog et al. (2025) highlighted that published data on the possibility of using this method to transplant individual mangroves remain scarce, with existing publications revealing no guarantee for a 100% survival rate after the transplantation procedure. Notably, a case study in Australia had a relatively small sample size compared to the large-scale relocation initiatives of mangroves in the Philippines. It underscored the high costs associated with mangrove transplantation, including facility construction and maintenance amounting to US$5,000 for 3 years.

Given these contexts, the Global Mangrove Alliance Philippines has shown full opposition in this move. Their petition urges DENR to withdraw or substantially revise the memorandum; to remove the infrastructure project exemption allowing earthballing and relocation; and to uphold science-based protcols for the protection of mangroves under the precautionary principle.

It is high time to protect and conserve our mangroves that protect us from extreme weather events. At a time of climate crisis, nature-based solutions should be applied and integrated with the active involvement of the communities, governments, scientists, advocates, youth, and the public for sustainability and intergenerational equity.

Dr. Primavera's open letter to DENR: https://www.facebook.com/jurgenne.primavera/posts/pfbid0CXYT3bKcaux7ecp6guEN6xtGbjWGowcugLvtgSzDjmwmx5V2Cx8ueomTnYgrsRUhl

Global Mangrove Alliance Philippines petition: https://www.change.org/p/urge-denr-to-revise-or-withdraw-harmful-mangrove-memorandum?recruiter=1035439102&recruited_by_id=ab8d95d0-3c29-11ea-924e-e791867df87e&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=petition_dashboard&utm_medium=copylink&utm_content=cl_sharecopy_491051351_en-US%3A8&share_id=sHmfgMN9Y8

Tabilog et al. (2025): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392465489_Ecological_and_Legal_Implications_of_the_Proposed_Development_in_a_Ramsar_Site_in_Metro_Manila_Philippines

03/05/2026

01/05/2026

🚨 THE DENR IS CALLING IT "EXCEPTIONAL." SCIENTISTS CALL IT WHAT IT IS: A DEATH SENTENCE FOR MANGROVES.

In October 2025, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) quietly issued a memorandum allowing the earth-balling and relocation of mangroves to make way for infrastructure "flagship projects"—as long as proponents claim all other options are exhausted.

Let's be honest about what this means. Earth-balling is when a mature tree is dug up with its root system and soil intact, then moved to another site. For most trees, this is risky. For mangroves—with their intricate, interdependent root systems built over decades—it is almost certainly fatal.

🔬 THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR!
• A study by Wang and Wang (2007) found only a 20–25% survival rate for earth-balled mangroves just 10 months after relocation.
• A DENR-ERDB study found an average survival rate of just 10% for earth-balled mangroves.
• Abbott and Mahorasy (2014) showed that only seedlings with stem widths under 5 cm survive earth-balling, but mangroves targeted by developers typically have stems 5 to 30cm wide.
• Wodehouse and Rayment (2019) found that earth-balling severs the integrated soil-water-vegetation connection that mangroves spend years building.
• The IUCN Mangrove Specialist Group itself has noted limited scientific support for mature mangrove transplantation due to physiological stress and the logistical impossibility of moving large trees in muddy coastal zones.
• In 2019, DENR Region 6 stopped earthballing along the Iloilo River because the trees were dying.
• In Cebu, earth-balled mangroves permitted under a DPWH road-widening project were reportedly left to die or collected for firewood.

⚠️ THE DANGEROUS LOOPHOLE
The memo's definition of "exceptional circumstances" is dangerously vague. Any government-endorsed infrastructure project can qualify. This doesn't protect mangroves—it opens the floodgates to remove them.

The Global Mangrove Alliance Philippines, the Zoological Society of London's Dr. Jurgenne Primavera (one of the world's foremost mangrove scientists and a NAST Academician), Wetlands International Philippines, and thousands of Filipinos have already raised the alarm. Over 8,000 people have signed the petition to repeal this memo.

🌊 WHO PAYS THE PRICE?
Not the infrastructure companies. Not the DENR officials who signed this memo. It will be the fisherfolk whose catch disappears when nursery habitats are destroyed. The coastal families who lose their storm buffer. The children who inherit a coastline stripped of its first line of defense against typhoons. The Philippines has an average of 20 tropical cyclones per year, and mangroves are among our most critical natural shields.

The Philippines holds one of the largest mangrove areas in Asia. We cannot afford to trade them away for short-term infrastructure gains dressed up as an "exceptional" necessity.

SO, WHAT NOW? In response to growing public and expert outcry, the DENR announced it would review the memorandum and form a technical working group. Good. Then let the review be transparent, science-led, and inclusive—not just of the agencies and proponents who signed off on this in the first place.

But as of today, no revised policy has been issued, and no timeline has been committed to. The science cannot wait for bureaucratic convenience—and neither can our coastlines.

HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO RIGHT NOW!!!
1️⃣ Check the petition → change.org/p/urge-the-denr-to-revise-or-repeal-harmful-mangrove-memorandum
2️⃣ SHARE THIS POST — tag your local government officials, your representative, your senator, and your coastal LGU. The review must hear from communities, not just agencies.
3️⃣ WRITE directly to DENR Secretary Juan Miguel Cuna at the Office of the Secretary. Demand: (a) full transparency of the ERDB study results; (b) mandatory, meaningful consultation with mangrove experts and coastal communities before any revised policy is issued.
4️⃣ ASK YOUR LGU — Has your municipality or city received any application for mangrove earth-balling under this memo? Demand disclosure. You have the right to know.
5️⃣ FOLLOW and amplify the call of the Global Mangrove Alliance Philippines
6️⃣ IF YOU ARE A SCIENTIST, ACADEMIC, OR PROFESSIONAL—Add your voice. A joint scientific statement carries weight. Contact GMA Philippines to coordinate.

Sources and further read:
(1) https://philippines.wetlands.org/gmap-statement-repeal-new-denr-memo-allowing-mangrove-earth-balling-and-relocation-for-infrastructure-projects/
(2) https://www.change.org/p/urge-the-denr-to-revise-or-repeal-harmful-mangrove-memorandum?recruited_by_id=4c7b08a0-11f4-11f1-8c35-e14d7c42ef68&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=petition_dashboard&utm_medium=copylink&share_id=RshCFSZBRj
(3) https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/981206/denr-memo-mangrove-relocation/story/
(4) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392465489_Ecological_and_Legal_Implications_of_the_Proposed_Development_in_a_Ramsar_Site_in_Metro_Manila_Philippines

27/04/2026

⚠️ TWO PEATLANDS. TWO FIRES. ONE COUNTRY, AND STILL NO NATIONAL PEATLANDS LAW?

In April 2026, both of the Philippines' confirmed major peatlands faced fire in the same month. We cannot keep calling this bad luck. This is a policy failure.

At Leyte Sab-a Basin, firefighters from BFP Sta. Fe, Palo, Pastrana, and Alangalang — with our LGUs in Sta. Fe and Alangalang, DPEATFA, Wild Wild Pigs, and communities of Brgy. Divisoria—battled a surface fire for four hours. The peat underneath was not reached.

At Agusan Marsh Peatland in Talacogon, a new wave of peatland fires ravaged the Talacogon Peatland from March 29 to April 9, 2026, with BFP firefighters struggling to even reach the blaze due to remote terrain and cobra snakes in the peatland.

🔥 KNOW THE DIFFERENCE — IT MATTERS
The Leyte fire was a surface fire. Visible. Fightable. Contained—barely. A peat fire is something else entirely. It burns underground, invisibly, for weeks. Even when rain appears to extinguish it, flames can still smolder beneath the surface. Fire departments are simply not trained to handle peat fires, and once it reaches the peat, the damage is irreversible. You cannot replant thousands of years of accumulated carbon.
In Leyte, the fire stopped before it reached the peat. In Agusan, it didn't. The margin between a close call and a catastrophe is dangerously thin.

⚠️ WHAT IS CAUSING THIS?
Slash-and-burn farming, drainage systems linked to agriculture, and vegetation burning to aid fishing all weaken peat soil, making it highly susceptible to ignition even from minor sparks. A single fire causes huge devastation, accelerated carbon emissions, and serious health risks for local communities. These aren't random accidents. They are the predictable result of poverty, absent policy, and decades of treating peatlands as wastelands.

⚠️ WHY ARE PEAT FIRES SO CATASTROPHIC—AND DIFFERENT FROM ORDINARY FIRES?
This is where the science gets uncomfortable.
A peat fire is not like a house fire or a forest fire. You cannot simply douse it with water and call it done. Once peat dries out, carbon is released into the air and triggers peat fires, which can spread rapidly and become extremely difficult to control (IIRR).

Peat burns underground. It smolders beneath the surface, invisible, reigniting weeks or even months later. In one documented incident, the fire went on for weeks, and fire departments are simply not trained to handle peat fires. Our brave BFP teams are heroes, but they are being asked to fight an underground inferno with surface-level tools. That is a systemic failure — not a firefighting failure.

⚠️ WHAT IS AT STAKE?
The carbon consequences are staggering. A peatland stores twice as much carbon as all the world's forests combined—when kept wet. The Caimpugan Peatland in Agusan alone stores an estimated 22.9 million metric tons of carbon. Leyte Sab-a is the country's second-largest peatland and a critical flood buffer for typhoon-battered communities (IIRR).
When peat burns, just one hectare releases an average of 55 metric tons of CO₂—the equivalent of over 6,000 gallons of gasoline (EU-ASEAN). Multiply that across hundreds of hectares burning underground for days. That carbon does not come back.

Draining the peatland by building water canals for agriculture may lead to the oxidation of peat, making it more vulnerable to peat fires, and burning peatlands turns what was once a carbon storage site into a carbon emitter.

⚠️ WHEN PEATLAND BURNS, WHAT HAPPENS?
• Carbon is released, accelerating the very climate crisis that produces stronger typhoons threatening Leyte communities.
• Biodiversity is lost. Peat fires destroy the natural habitat of various species in the peatland.
• Flooding worsens. The peatland's ability to hold water is essential in flood mitigation—it acts as a sponge during the rainy season and lets water seep out during the dry season. This ability becomes even more critical as the Philippines experiences more and stronger typhoons. Destroy the peatland, and you destroy Leyte's natural flood buffer.
• Air quality deteriorates. Peat smoke contains toxic particulate matter and greenhouse gases at concentrations far more dangerous than conventional fire smoke — posing serious respiratory health risks to surrounding communities.
• Local food security collapses.

🔊WHY DO WE NEED THE NATIONAL PEATLANDS POLICY?
There has been no single Philippine legislation that advances wetland conservation and its wise use. While there are already existing laws that contain provisions directly or indirectly promoting wetland conservation, not one deals specifically with wetlands.

The Philippines is one of the most climate-vulnerable nations on earth. We are ranked consistently among the top countries most exposed to typhoons, flooding, and climate-related disasters. And yet we are voluntarily torching our own natural defenses.
Every year without a National Peatlands Policy is another peat fire season without legal protection, without proper funding for rewetting and restoration, without clear penalties for drainage and burning, and without a mandated emergency response protocol that accounts for the unique nature of underground peat fires.

WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN — A CALL TO ACTION ✅✅✅
For our lawmakers: Pass the National Peatlands Conservation Bill and the Leyte Sab-a Peatland Conservation and Sustainable Development Bill in the 20th Congress. For all of us: No open burning. No drainage. No encroachment. The peat must stay wet.

The National Peatlands Policy Bill would mandate LGU-level peatland mapping, mainstream peatland protection across all government agencies, and provide the legal backbone for fire prevention, rewetting, and community-based stewardship. We have the bill. We need the urgency of passing this bill into law.

Read the proposed National Peatlands Conservation Bill:
(1)https://docs.congress.hrep.online/legisdocs/basic_20/HB03684.pdf
(2)https://docs.congress.hrep.online/legisdocs/basic_20/HB03696.pdf
(3)https://docs.congress.hrep.online/legisdocs/basic_20/HB03918.pdf
(4)https://docs.congress.hrep.online/legisdocs/basic_20/HB06495.pdf
(5)http://docs.congress.hrep.online/legisdocs/basic_20/HB02776.pdf

25/04/2026