Imho, good governance refers to a government that is observing best practices in administering government resources and services.
However this poses a question when government attempts to impose governance on phenomena or behavior that shouldn’t be governed at all.
The framework can be presented as:
1. Default state is “free” – no regulation, no regulators to corrupt – no corruption.
2. A vested interest initiates regulation – “less free”
3. To enforce the regulation pushed by the vested interest – an enforcement agency is created.
4. Market forces realize the game being played by vested interests – and so do the regulators – the stage is set for an enabling condition
5. The vested interests make a humongous profit based on the skewed regulation – the regulators realize they are in for a ride – and connive with the the competition to the vested interests – voila …. “corruption” is initiated… and proceed to many iterations.
***
Question:
Is it the nature of men to be corrupt?
Or was it the regulation which created an artificial crime called “corruption”?
That’s how regulations lead to more corruption, more government restrictions, more taxes…
The answer therefore lies in questioning whether the legislation/regulation was warranted in the first place?
For example:
* The 60/40 restrictions
* The trade tariffs
* The FINL regulations
And if these regulations are not needed in the first place, then it stands to reason that – the answer lies not in more enforcement of these regulations – but in the abolition of said regulations.
What Can Be Done To Lower the Country’s Extremely High Power Costs That Keep Local and Foreign Investments Away
EXERCISE: OP-ED Analysis
Given this article from the Daily Tribune
http://www.tribuneonline.org/commentary/20111114com5.html
“PinoyMonkeyPride, AntiPinoy, and GetRealPhilippines are really insulting the Filipino intelligence if, like Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile and House Speaker Sonny Belmonte, they think Filipinos of all classes don’t already know that the country’s highest power costs in Asia is the very thing keeping local and foreign investments away — instead of the restriction on foreigners from owning properties and corporations in the Philippines, who, it must be said, already own the local oligarchs here.”
****
It’s one thing to be a writer, writing about business.
It’s another thing to be a businessman, speaking about business.
According to Sergio Ortiz-Luis, president of the Philippine Exporters Confederation, investors, particularly exporters, were getting tired of waiting for the government to address their perennial problems.
The exchange rate policy of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, for example, had led many local exporters to either scale down their operations or close shop altogether as the strong peso has reduced their competitiveness in the global market, Ortiz-Luis explained.
“Our exchange rate is so erratic, very much dependent on government policy.
For exporters, it’s like walking on a tightrope. They are helpless and they can’t plan properly,” he said in a phone interview.
“We should really amend the BSP’s mandate. When they make their policies regarding the exchange rate, it’s like they’re not part of the Philippines.
They don’t consider the plight of industries. The BSP shouldn’t just control inflation, but also help in the development of the country,” he added.
Speculation by foreign banks on the fate of the local currency in reference to the US dollar, he said, should not be taken that seriously. Government policy-makers should put the country’s welfare, particularly its attractiveness as an investment destination, and the survival of local exporters on top of their priority list when making policy decisions.
The constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership of land, he said, were another thing that the government should “seriously” consider addressing.
Other issues that needed resolution were high power rates and the lack of streamlined fiscal incentives.
“These are things that we should have done 30 years ago. These problems persist and remain unsolved,” he said. In an earlier interview, Ortiz-Luis said the state-owned Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp.’s pronouncement that the discounted power rates for economic zone locators would no longer be extended was a huge turnoff for exporters.
This has actually led some exporters to shut down their operations here and transfer to China, Vietnam or Indonesia.
But the Department of Energy said it was studying ways to keep the ecozone power discounts in place, either by an extension of the memorandum of agreement for the Ecozone Rate Program or the provision of discounted rates under different terms and references.
******
Food for thought:
What Can Be Done To Lower the Country’s Extremely High Power Costs That Keep Local and Foreign Investments Away
1. Who owns the companies that generate electric power?
1.1 List electric companies by Region
2. Who benefits from the high power cost?
2.1 Direct benefits – revenue;
2.2 Indirect benefits – lesser competitors against local products and firms owned by oligarchy
3. Why are there only few companies that generate electric power? -
3.1 1987 constitution
3.2 Foreign Investments negative list – not more than 25% foreign ownership for public utilities
4. What can be done to increase the number of companies that generate electric power?
4.1 Is there enough local capital?
4.2 If there is not enough local capital – what can be done to increase capital?
4.2.1 – savings – is this the most efficient way
4.2.2 – foreign capital
At which point – it might be good to illustrate the business registration process – and how investments wind up in Vietnam instead of the Philippines.
Notes: Impact of Econ Lib and Implications to the Philippine Economy
Re-invent the wheel? NAH.
As certain quarters in the Philippines seek a gradualist approach to econ lib – such an approach creates an imperfect market that does not help at all.
*** This is a work in progress and contains a compilation of references and case studies on the impact of economic liberalization in countries such as Brazil, Poland, Chile. These countries took on the “shock therapy approach”.
********
http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Download/Las/04.html
A Study on the Impact of Economic Liberalization in Brazil: 1995-2002
************
The Politics of Economic Liberalization
http://pics3441.upmf-grenoble.fr/articles/sopo/Review%20-%20The%20Politics%20of%20Economic%20Liberalization.pdf
**********
The Economic Impacts of Air Service Liberalization
http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/economics/liberalization_air_transport_study_30may06.pdf
This study quantifies the economic impacts of changes in aviation policy and examines five case studies that validate the positive impacts of liberalization on economies. In addition, an economic model has been developed that can quantify the economic benefits associated with greater air service between virtually any two markets around the globe.
The study confirms that liberalizing air travel directly benefits economies by increasing GDP, employment, travel and tourism, and exports. Increasing air travel also leads to significant gains in the quality and quantity of direct service to various communities worldwide.
InterVISTAS-ga2 Consulting
************
Democratization and Economic Liberalization in the Postcommunist World
http://cps.sagepub.com/content/40/3/254.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr
M. Steven Fish
University of California-Berkeley
Omar Choudhry
University of California-Berkeley
Abstract
How does economic liberalization affect political regime? Economic liberalization is widely regarded as inimical to democratization. The “Washington Consensus,” which generally endorses “shock therapy” and envisions a basic compatibility between economic liberalization and democratization, is widely disdained in social science. Many scholars hold that neoliberal economics depresses popular living standards and exacerbates socioeconomic inequalities, thereby compromising democratization. Focusing on the postcommunist region, this article tests this hypothesis. It examines the data that have been used to assess the relationship between economic liberalization and political democratization and presents analyses using more appropriate and differentiated techniques. The authors find that economic liberalization advances rather than undermines democratization. Using Engle-Granger analysis, they find that although economic liberalization has no discernible impact on democratization in the short term, democratization adjusts in the direction of a long-term equilibrium to which economic liberalization contributes substantially.
********
An Examination of Economic Liberalization Impact on Foreign Direct Investment
in Selected Developing Countries
http://www.ipedr.net/vol1/9-B00013.pdf
IV. CONCLUSIONS
Capital is a driver of economic growth and development
in all theories of growth. Based on this, one of the most
important apprehensions is for policy makers to absorb
adequate capital for financing projects. Then, absorbing FDI
is not avoidable for developing countries because of their
saving resource shortage compared with the capital needs.
For this, they employ some economic reforms including
economic liberalization in order to create suitable ground for
FDI inflows.
The purpose of present paper is to examine economic
liberalization impact on FDI in selected developing
countries. For this, first we summarize some ideas about the
potential determinants of FDI when choosing a particular
host country. A review of the main hypothesis and the
relevant literature suggests that the degree of economic
freedom in the host country could be a crucial determinant of
FDI decisions. Next, we use pooled data and panel technique
for countries including Brazil, Mexico, China, India, Egypt,
Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey and Iran during
1995-2005. Results verify the hypothesis of present research.
In other words, in case of more liberalizing economy, more
FDI is absorbed by the developing countries. This result is
not surprising since economic liberalization moves the
economy toward market economy and brings about optimum
utilization of resources.
Based on other results, inflation has a negative and
significant effect on the FDI of the developing countries.
This result is expectable regarding that inflation rate is
among indices indicating economic stability of a country and
its increase has negative effect on FDI flows in to the
country. Coefficient of market size is estimated near zero
that indicates that it is less important than the main
determinant factors such as economic liberalization and
infrastructures in absorbing FDI for the considered countries.
Also, infrastructures have an important role in absorbing
FDI. Specifically, infrastructures such as roads, ports and
information systems enhance FDI inflows, as it is expected.
Result about wage indicates no significance for its
coefficient. It seems that the mentioned variables are more
important determinants than wage in view of MNEs.
Results obtained from this study have several policy
implications for the future. Specifically, if developing
countries are attempting to attract FDI, it would be more
efficient to focus on economic liberalization and to develop
their infrastructure rather than just reducing wage. Also,
regarding negative and significant effect of inflation on FDI,
these countries should provide a stable environment to
facilitate inflow of foreign direct investment
APPROACHES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_therapy_%28economics%29
****
SHOCK THERAPY: WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM POLAND
http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/index.php/2010/11/shock-therapy-what-we-can-learn-from-poland/
****
EARLY BENEFICIARIES:
* Foreign retirees who are already in the Philippines
* Foreign Companies/Individuals that are already in the Philippines who were forced into joint ventures by the constitution.
* The huge pool of underemployed nurses and medical professionals that can be absorbed by a medical tourism industry.
* A huge pool of engineers that can be tapped for R&D BPO.
A Work In Progress:
Comparison of 2011 Index of Economic Freedom World Rank, Form of Government and Internal Governance System.
Economic Freedom of All Parliamentary Countries
Comment: Economic Freedom is spread out.
Economic Freedom of All Federal Countries
Comment: Economic Freedom is spread out.
Economic of All Federal Parliamentary Countries
Comment: Economic Freedom is spread out.
Comment: Economic Freedom is spread out in the Top 20.
Discussion:
1. Economic freedom is distributed across all Parliamentary Countries.
2. Economic freedom is distributed across all Federal Countries.
3. Economic freedom is distributed across all Federal Parliamentary Countries. There are more Federal Parliamentary countries with limited economic freedom.
4. The Economic freedom Index is not affected by Form of Government and Internal System of Governance.
Recommendation:
Focus on getting Economic Policy which provides the most economic freedom
Note: Hong Kong is No. 1 – it’s not parliamentary nor is it federal – it’s Asian and also faced colonial occupation.
Sens Belmonte and Enrile are on the right track in focusing on the economic amendments to the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Coming Full Circle
It has been more than a year since I started blogging.
Like any other endeavor in my life – blogging has a purpose. In my case, what started as a trivial stab at the pinoy cultural dysfunction, on my free time has taken me on a journey that took a hard look at the news, the politics, the economy – and my life experiences in the Philippines.
And so I come full circle to the question of who really is the Anti-pinoy?
Let’s turn this around – is there really such a distinct biological species thing as a “Filipino” or is the word a “social construct” of a biological entity called homo sapiens sapiens who happens find himself in the 7,200 Philippine islands?
I recall that in 1883, Friedrich Nietzsche published a book called Also Sprach Zarathustra in which he elaborated his ethical ideal, the Übermensch – a person who rejected the norms of society, living by his own moral code. The name came from the concept about ordinary humanity believing there would be no morals or reasons to live if there was no Other to define morality and reason. Transcending this illusion makes one an “over-man”
The question then is the anti-pinoy in reality – the Filipino as Übermensch?
Should one’s individual personality be defined by a vague amorphous definition of a “Filipino”? Is there even a value to fit the mold of the typical “Filipino”? What is the definition of a “Filpino”? Does it even matter to one purpose in life? Is your happiness defined by being as “Filipino” or advocating for an idealized “Filipino”?
Or is it about – improving one’s lot in life in the pursuit of personal happiness under the rule of law, economic freedom, and personal liberty? Does one necessarily have to be “Filipino” in order to find purpose in life?
I say that there’s more to life than being “Filipino”.
- Above all – more than being “Filipino” – the buck starts and stops with the individual – know thyself, learn to love thyself, and bring out the best in you.
When all are striving to be their best selves – Do you think we’ll have a crappy society? That makes too much sense to the Filipino – and is too much to ask from Juan de la Cruz.
What the pinoy wants is to have the “best government” as one that takes care of him from cradle to grave, with free lunch, and absolves him/her from any wrongdoing. The Filipino masses are averse to competition. They would rather take comfort in serfdom to the local oligarchy rather than step up and become free men. They would rather have patrons who dispense condoms, hospitalizations, concerts, sardines, trips – at the expense of someone else other than us.
The Filipino masses would rather go overseas and live the life of slave (to escape the life of a slave in the Philippines) – than open up the economy and be an active participant in a new world order – one that is transcended by nationality or ideology – the global economy, the global supply chain – while strengthening the local economy through sound market-driven fundamentals.
The Filipino has yet to learn the value of taking care of oneself because he has been made to believe that his only purpose in life is to become “a man for others”.
In doing so – the Filipino has lost the sense that before he can become a “man for others” – he must first become a man – a thinking individual who is fully aware of himself, his individuality, that before defining “others” – he must first define himself. What has been lost in translation is that the Filipino defines himself in terms of others, of his family, of his society – and not on his own terms. In doing so, the Filipino kills himself – his individuality – during the daily grind – trying so hard to conform to a dysfunctional society.
The Filipinos asked for it – they got it – keep on eating pagpag; watching wowowee; being ass wipes, helpers, drug mules, commercial sex workers. Tough luck – lovers of the welfare state will be eating craposis till kingdom come. Am not in the business of helping people who don’t want to help themselves.
Till such time my countrymen wake up from their stupor – there’s more to life than writing about morons. I am so out of the Philippines – and have no regrets – perhaps that I should have left the Philippines earlier and enjoy life where ever the road takes me – or where I choose to create a road, a path, a trail. To hew a path not for anyone else – but because it brings personal joy and happiness.
Au revoir, sayonara, hasta la vista bitches. To life writ large – it’s good to be back.
The Philippine government relaunched it’s National Renewal Energy Program – to solve the power shortage, supposedly. Philstar reported that:
MANILA, Philippines (Xinhua) – President Benigno S. Aquino III formally launched today the National Renewable Energy Program (NREP) that is expected to solve power shortage especially in rural areas.
The NREP contains a framework for action, existing and future measures, instruments and policies to promote the use of renewable energy. It will also serve as a roadmap to make renewable energy more viable.
In his speech keynoting the event, the President underscored the importance of renewable energy saying it not only empowers cities, machines and entire industries but also “fuels our movement towards the rebuilding of this nation.”
“Renewable energy will fuel our future,” Aquino said.
The Aquino Myth: Lower Cost of Electricity
Aquino added that through renewable energy, the government can supply the electricity needs of the people at a lower cost and not at the expense of the environment. Really?
The Reality: Continuing High Cost of Electricity
There will not be enough electricity from renewables; Cost of Renewables electricity will remain high
Prices from renewables will remain high. In a previous blog titled “Electric Rates: Another Shocker of a Hike“, it was pointed out during a hearing of the House Committee on Energy that “Present and new players in the power sector are lobbying for higher renewable energy rates so they could earn billions in net profits.”
Snap Out of the Delusion
Given the 60/40 restrictions, the renewables will follow the way of the traditional fossil-based and hydro-based energy sectors – consolidation into business interests owned by the big players – Lopez, Aboitiz, Ayala, Pangilinan, and Cojuangco.
Expecting new results from the same old protectionist policy? Don’t bet on it.
China
China to neighbors: Stop oil search in Spratlys – (As of 6/9/2011)
MANILA, Philippines—(UPDATE) China warned Asian neighbors Thursday to stop searching for oil near the disputed Spratly Islands and vowed to assert its sovereignty over the potentially petroleum-rich territory in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) despite rival claims.
China and the Philippines have swapped diplomatic protests over the islands, with Filipino officials accusing Chinese forces of intruding into Manila-claimed areas six times since February and of firing shots in at least one incident. Beijing denied the allegation Thursday and said it would use violence only when attacked.
Philippines
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/3845/palace-reiterates-peaceful-resolution-to-spratlys-row-but-dangles-us-card
MANILA, Philippines – Malacañang has reiterated its commitment to the resolution of the Spratlys dispute with China and other claimants “in the most diplomatic and most peaceful way possible” but did not discount the possibility of US involvement if the situation would worsen.
“Hopefully, it doesn’t get to that point because, again, we are committed to the resolution of the issue in the most diplomatic and the most peaceful way possible,” Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Abigail Valte said on radio Saturday.
Vietnam
Vietnam plans live-fire drill after China dispute
(June 10, 2011)
HANOI, Vietnam—A squabble over territory in the South China Sea escalated Friday when Vietnam announced a live ammunition drill in an apparent response to China’s demand that the Vietnamese halt all oil exploration in the area.
The heated verbal clash between the two communist neighbors comes amid a similar spat between China and Philippines earlier in the week over another disputed area of the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea), where several countries are eyeing potentially rich oil and gas reserves.
Vietnam said Friday its Navy would carry out two exercises totaling nine hours Monday in an area off the country’s central Quang Nam province. The announcement posted on the state-owned Northern Maritime Safety Corp.’s website warned boats and ships to stay out of the area. It was the first time Vietnam has issued such an alert about conducting maritime drills.
It came a day after China and Vietnam traded diplomatic punches, with each demanding that the other stay out of waters they claim. The two countries have a long history of maritime scraps in disputed parts of the South China Sea near the Spratly and Paracel islands, but the recent row has sparked an unusually hostile response from Hanoi.
On Thursday, China accused Vietnam of illegally entering its waters and endangering its fishermen’s lives. Hours earlier, Vietnam had slammed China for interfering with its seismic survey off the country’s central coast, saying the Chinese fishing boat supported by two patrol vessels had damaged an exploration cable on a survey boat hired by state-owned PetroVietnam.
Vietnam said it was the second time China had hindered the operation of an oil and gas exploration boat in two weeks, adding that its actions were “completely premeditated” and accusing it of flaring regional tensions in the West Philippine Sea.
USA
US Destroyer sent to South China Sea amid tension in Spratlys
(June 11, 2011)
The United States has sent one of the most formidable warships, the USS Chung-Hoon, a guided-missile destroyer to the South China Sea and Sulu sea amid tensions between China, Vietnam and the Philippines over the disputed Spratly Islands.
“Yahoo Online News said that USS Chung-Hoon, a guided-missile destroyer, has been sent on an independent deployment to the South China as well as to the Sulu Sea early this week to assert right of free passage in the region,” Philstar.com reports.
“The ship will be sailing through waters that the US considers international waters to assert right of free passage and to demonstrate the international community does not accept national claims to the contrary,” the report said.
US destroyer sent to South China Sea
By Jaime Laude (The Philippine Star) Updated June 11, 2011 12:00 A
The US embassy said the Chung-Hoon is one of the US Navy ships invited to participate in the annual Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercise between the Philippines and the US navies.
“More details (on CARAT) would be released when appropriate,” US embassy spokesman Rebecca Thompson said.
CARAT exercise is held yearly as part of a mutual defense agreement between the Philippines and the US.
Earlier, US Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr. assured the Philippines of support against threats to its security.
Similar Cases: Territorial Claims in the Arctic
Under international law, no country currently owns the North Pole or the region of the Arctic Ocean surrounding it. The five surrounding Arctic states, Russia, the United States, Canada, Norway and Denmark (via Greenland), are limited to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) adjacent to their coasts.[1]
Upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a country has a ten year period to make claims to an extended continental shelf which, if validated, gives it exclusive rights to resources on or below the seabed of that extended shelf area.[2] Due to this, Norway (ratified the convention in 1996[3]), Russia (ratified in 1997[3]), Canada (ratified in 2003[3]) and Denmark (ratified in 2004[3]) launched projects to provide a basis for seabed claims on extended continental shelves beyond their exclusive economic zones. The United States has signed, but not yet ratified this treaty, although George W. Bush asked the United States Senate to pass a resolution of ratification on May 15, 2007[4] and on October 31, 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to send the ratification vote to the full US Senate.[5]
Reagan’s Opposition to Law of the Sea Treaty
National Security Issues
Under the Treaty, a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are established. This sets a definitive limit on the oceanic area over which a country may claim jurisdiction. However, innocent passage–including non-wartime activities of military ships–is protected. Even without the Treaty, these boundaries, and the precedent of safe passage, are protected under multiple independent treaties, as well as traditional international maritime law. Additionally, given the United States’ naval superiority, few countries would attempt to deny safe passage. However, under the Treaty, intelligenceand submarine maneuvers in territorial waters would be restricted and regulated.
Environmental and Economic Issues
Former President Reagan refused to sign the Treaty in 1982 due to its innate conflict with basic free-market principles (e.g., private property, free enterprise, and competition). Twelve years later, the Clinton Administration submitted to the U.S. Senate a revised version of the Treaty. This revised version allegedly corrected many of the original objections to the Treaty, but still failed to receive Senate ratification: Therefore, the United States’ provisional participation expired in 1998. The Treaty still requires adherence to policies that regulate deep-sea mining, as well as forcing participants to adopt laws and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution. Additionally, under the Treaty, a corporation cannot bring suit, but must rely upon its country of origin to address the corporation’s concerns before the U.N. agency.
Reagan’s Objections
Former President Reagan’s first objection to the Treaty was the Principle of the “Common Heritage of Mankind,” which dictates that oceanic resources should be shared among all mankind and cannot be claimed by any one nation or people. In order to achieve this goal, the Treaty creates the International Seabed Authority (“Authority”) to regulate and exploit mineral resources. It requires a company to submit an application fee of $500,000 (now $250,000), as well as a bonus site for the Authority to utilize for its own mining efforts. Additionally, the corporation must pay an annual fee of $1 million, as well as a percentage of its profits (increasing annually up to 7%), and must agree to share mining and navigational technology–thereby ensuring that opportunities aren’t restricted to more technologically advanced countries. The decision to grant or to withhold mining permits is decided by the Authority, which consists disproportionately of underdeveloped countries. Technology-sharing is no longer mandatory, however, there are remaining “principles” to guide its use and distribution. Additionally, the Council has been restructured so that the United States has a permanent seat, and developed countries can create a blocking vote.
Secondly, former President Reagan believed that the Treaty would restrict the world’s supply of minerals. The Treaty was originally designed to limit the exploitation of heavy minerals in order to protect the mineral sales of land-locked, developing nations. This is no longer a severe limitation, because production limits to preserve land-based mining have been removed.
The third–and still valid–objection is that mandatory dispute resolution restricts autonomy. Either a U.N. court or tribunal must mandate maritime Issues involving fisheries, marine environmental protection, and preservation, research, and navigation. A country may opt out if the dispute involves maritime boundaries, military, or limited law enforcement activities. Submitting to external jurisdiction creates an uncomfortable precedent. Furthermore, it weakens the U.S. argument of autonomy when it refuses to submit to the International Criminal Court. Additionally, a country must petition to be excluded from mandatory jurisdiction requirements.
Other Models – Joint Utilization: Iceland, Norway, and Russia
This Protocol entered into force 1999-07-15.
The Government of Iceland, Government of Norway and the Government of the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the Parties;
Determined to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable utilisation of the fish stocks concerned in their entire area of distribution, and committed to the principle of responsible fishing;
Having regard to the importance of close co-operation between the Parties;
Having regard to the relevant provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks;
Committed to promoting and conducting marine scientific research and to basing their respective management measures for the relevant stocks on the best scientific advice;
Recognising that a considerable part of the living marine resources of the northern Norwegian and Barents Seas represents a single regulated biological stock system;
Have agreed as follows:
Article 1
The Parties agree to enhance co-operation of mutual benefit in the field of fisheries and for this purpose to establish by this Agreement principles and procedures for such cooperation based on a precautionary approach and in accordance with international law.
Article 2
The Parties may agree on a reciprocal basis to exchange annual quotas in their respective exclusive economic zones, and to grant vessels of the other Parties access to fish quotas in their respective exclusive economic zones, taking fully into account the biological situation and the development of the stocks concerned, as well as the interests of the national fisheries.
Article 3
Details of the quota exchanges, based on management decisions taken by the coastal states, provisions for access to fishing by the Parties referred to in Article 2, as well as provisions on other matters referred to in Article 8, which the Parties may agree on, shall be regulated in protocols under this Agreement between the Governments of Iceland and Norway, and the Governments of the Russian Federation and Iceland, providing a reasonable balance in their bilateral fisheries relations.
The Parties shall make every effort to agree on the protocols.
Article 4
The Parties agree that total catches from a stock taken under the protocols referred to in Article 3 by vessels flying their flags, wherever they are taken, shall not exceed the total quotas for that stock as set out in the protocols referred to in Article 3. This provision is without prejudice to any agreement between private entities, concluded in accordance with national rules and regulations of the Parties, that may include additional fishing possibilities.
The quotas referred to in Article 2 shall be taken in the exclusive economic zones and the Parties will refrain from any claims for additional fishing possibilities on that stock.
Article 5
The Parties will ensure that fishing vessels flying their flag comply with the conservation and management measures as well as national rules and regulations established for the operation of fishing activities referred to in Article 2. Adequate advance notice shall be provided of such measures, rules and regulations.
Article 6
The Parties shall work together to investigate possibilities and take measures, when relevant, to discourage any of their nationals from being party to arrangements by which they register a fishing vessel under the flag of another state for the purpose of engaging in fishing activities that undermine the effectiveness of this Agreement and of the management measures referred to in Article 5.
***
Initial Impressions:
Short-Term:
- The Philippines needs to accelerate its defense modernization program – that’s IF – it has the money.
- Diplomacy – ASEAN+Japan+USA+Aus+NZ / UN Security Council
- Pass legislation on borders
- Reduce dependence on oil
- US Mutual Defense Treaty
- Diplomacy – Bilateral Talks with China
- Diplomacy – Bilateral Talks with Vietnam
- Diplomacy – Intra ASEAN Dialog
Identify exclusive economic zones based on Laws of Sea Treaty (if applicable)
Long-Term:
- Take the cue from Taiwan – Get wealthy and get armed to the teeth
- More trade in renewables with China
- Establsh a protocol for oil extraction similar to the Norway, Iceland, Russia Fisheries Agreement.
To be continued
China
China to neighbors: Stop oil search in Spratlys – (As of 6/9/2011)
MANILA, Philippines—(UPDATE) China warned Asian neighbors Thursday to stop searching for oil near the disputed Spratly Islands and vowed to assert its sovereignty over the potentially petroleum-rich territory in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) despite rival claims.
China and the Philippines have swapped diplomatic protests over the islands, with Filipino officials accusing Chinese forces of intruding into Manila-claimed areas six times since February and of firing shots in at least one incident. Beijing denied the allegation Thursday and said it would use violence only when attacked.
Philippines
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/3845/palace-reiterates-peaceful-resolution-to-spratlys-row-but-dangles-us-card
MANILA, Philippines – Malacañang has reiterated its commitment to the resolution of the Spratlys dispute with China and other claimants “in the most diplomatic and most peaceful way possible” but did not discount the possibility of US involvement if the situation would worsen.
“Hopefully, it doesn’t get to that point because, again, we are committed to the resolution of the issue in the most diplomatic and the most peaceful way possible,” Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Abigail Valte said on radio Saturday.
Vietnam
Vietnam plans live-fire drill after China dispute
(June 10, 2011)
HANOI, Vietnam—A squabble over territory in the South China Sea escalated Friday when Vietnam announced a live ammunition drill in an apparent response to China’s demand that the Vietnamese halt all oil exploration in the area.
The heated verbal clash between the two communist neighbors comes amid a similar spat between China and Philippines earlier in the week over another disputed area of the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea), where several countries are eyeing potentially rich oil and gas reserves.
Vietnam said Friday its Navy would carry out two exercises totaling nine hours Monday in an area off the country’s central Quang Nam province. The announcement posted on the state-owned Northern Maritime Safety Corp.’s website warned boats and ships to stay out of the area. It was the first time Vietnam has issued such an alert about conducting maritime drills.
It came a day after China and Vietnam traded diplomatic punches, with each demanding that the other stay out of waters they claim. The two countries have a long history of maritime scraps in disputed parts of the South China Sea near the Spratly and Paracel islands, but the recent row has sparked an unusually hostile response from Hanoi.
On Thursday, China accused Vietnam of illegally entering its waters and endangering its fishermen’s lives. Hours earlier, Vietnam had slammed China for interfering with its seismic survey off the country’s central coast, saying the Chinese fishing boat supported by two patrol vessels had damaged an exploration cable on a survey boat hired by state-owned PetroVietnam.
Vietnam said it was the second time China had hindered the operation of an oil and gas exploration boat in two weeks, adding that its actions were “completely premeditated” and accusing it of flaring regional tensions in the West Philippine Sea.
USA
US Destroyer sent to South China Sea amid tension in Spratlys
(June 11, 2011)
The United States has sent one of the most formidable warships, the USS Chung-Hoon, a guided-missile destroyer to the South China Sea and Sulu sea amid tensions between China, Vietnam and the Philippines over the disputed Spratly Islands.
“Yahoo Online News said that USS Chung-Hoon, a guided-missile destroyer, has been sent on an independent deployment to the South China as well as to the Sulu Sea early this week to assert right of free passage in the region,” Philstar.com reports.
“The ship will be sailing through waters that the US considers international waters to assert right of free passage and to demonstrate the international community does not accept national claims to the contrary,” the report said.
US destroyer sent to South China Sea
By Jaime Laude (The Philippine Star) Updated June 11, 2011 12:00 A
The US embassy said the Chung-Hoon is one of the US Navy ships invited to participate in the annual Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercise between the Philippines and the US navies.
“More details (on CARAT) would be released when appropriate,” US embassy spokesman Rebecca Thompson said.
CARAT exercise is held yearly as part of a mutual defense agreement between the Philippines and the US.
Earlier, US Ambassador Harry Thomas Jr. assured the Philippines of support against threats to its security.
Similar Cases: Territorial Claims in the Arctic
Under international law, no country currently owns the North Pole or the region of the Arctic Ocean surrounding it. The five surrounding Arctic states, Russia, the United States, Canada, Norway and Denmark (via Greenland), are limited to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) adjacent to their coasts.[1]
Upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a country has a ten year period to make claims to an extended continental shelf which, if validated, gives it exclusive rights to resources on or below the seabed of that extended shelf area.[2] Due to this, Norway (ratified the convention in 1996[3]), Russia (ratified in 1997[3]), Canada (ratified in 2003[3]) and Denmark (ratified in 2004[3]) launched projects to provide a basis for seabed claims on extended continental shelves beyond their exclusive economic zones. The United States has signed, but not yet ratified this treaty, although George W. Bush asked the United States Senate to pass a resolution of ratification on May 15, 2007[4] and on October 31, 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17-4 to send the ratification vote to the full US Senate.[5]
Reagan’s Opposition to Law of the Sea Treaty
National Security Issues
Under the Treaty, a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are established. This sets a definitive limit on the oceanic area over which a country may claim jurisdiction. However, innocent passage–including non-wartime activities of military ships–is protected. Even without the Treaty, these boundaries, and the precedent of safe passage, are protected under multiple independent treaties, as well as traditional international maritime law. Additionally, given the United States’ naval superiority, few countries would attempt to deny safe passage. However, under the Treaty, intelligenceand submarine maneuvers in territorial waters would be restricted and regulated.
Environmental and Economic IssuesFormer President Reagan refused to sign the Treaty in 1982 due to its innate conflict with basic free-market principles (e.g., private property, free enterprise, and competition). Twelve years later, the Clinton Administration submitted to the U.S. Senate a revised version of the Treaty. This revised version allegedly corrected many of the original objections to the Treaty, but still failed to receive Senate ratification: Therefore, the United States’ provisional participation expired in 1998. The Treaty still requires adherence to policies that regulate deep-sea mining, as well as forcing participants to adopt laws and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution. Additionally, under the Treaty, a corporation cannot bring suit, but must rely upon its country of origin to address the corporation’s concerns before the U.N. agency.
Reagan’s ObjectionsFormer President Reagan’s first objection to the Treaty was the Principle of the “Common Heritage of Mankind,” which dictates that oceanic resources should be shared among all mankind and cannot be claimed by any one nation or people. In order to achieve this goal, the Treaty creates the International Seabed Authority (“Authority”) to regulate and exploit mineral resources. It requires a company to submit an application fee of $500,000 (now $250,000), as well as a bonus site for the Authority to utilize for its own mining efforts. Additionally, the corporation must pay an annual fee of $1 million, as well as a percentage of its profits (increasing annually up to 7%), and must agree to share mining and navigational technology–thereby ensuring that opportunities aren’t restricted to more technologically advanced countries. The decision to grant or to withhold mining permits is decided by the Authority, which consists disproportionately of underdeveloped countries. Technology-sharing is no longer mandatory, however, there are remaining “principles” to guide its use and distribution. Additionally, the Council has been restructured so that the United States has a permanent seat, and developed countries can create a blocking vote.
Secondly, former President Reagan believed that the Treaty would restrict the world’s supply of minerals. The Treaty was originally designed to limit the exploitation of heavy minerals in order to protect the mineral sales of land-locked, developing nations. This is no longer a severe limitation, because production limits to preserve land-based mining have been removed.
The third–and still valid–objection is that mandatory dispute resolution restricts autonomy. Either a U.N. court or tribunal must mandate maritime Issues involving fisheries, marine environmental protection, and preservation, research, and navigation. A country may opt out if the dispute involves maritime boundaries, military, or limited law enforcement activities. Submitting to external jurisdiction creates an uncomfortable precedent. Furthermore, it weakens the U.S. argument of autonomy when it refuses to submit to the International Criminal Court. Additionally, a country must petition to be excluded from mandatory jurisdiction requirements.
Other Models – Joint Utilization: Iceland, Norway, and Russia
This Protocol entered into force 1999-07-15.
The Government of Iceland, Government of Norway and the Government of the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the Parties;
Determined to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable utilisation of the fish stocks concerned in their entire area of distribution, and committed to the principle of responsible fishing;
Having regard to the importance of close co-operation between the Parties;
Having regard to the relevant provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks;
Committed to promoting and conducting marine scientific research and to basing their respective management measures for the relevant stocks on the best scientific advice;
Recognising that a considerable part of the living marine resources of the northern Norwegian and Barents Seas represents a single regulated biological stock system;
Have agreed as follows:
Article 1The Parties agree to enhance co-operation of mutual benefit in the field of fisheries and for this purpose to establish by this Agreement principles and procedures for such cooperation based on a precautionary approach and in accordance with international law.
Article 2The Parties may agree on a reciprocal basis to exchange annual quotas in their respective exclusive economic zones, and to grant vessels of the other Parties access to fish quotas in their respective exclusive economic zones, taking fully into account the biological situation and the development of the stocks concerned, as well as the interests of the national fisheries.
Article 3Details of the quota exchanges, based on management decisions taken by the coastal states, provisions for access to fishing by the Parties referred to in Article 2, as well as provisions on other matters referred to in Article 8, which the Parties may agree on, shall be regulated in protocols under this Agreement between the Governments of Iceland and Norway, and the Governments of the Russian Federation and Iceland, providing a reasonable balance in their bilateral fisheries relations.
The Parties shall make every effort to agree on the protocols.
Article 4The Parties agree that total catches from a stock taken under the protocols referred to in Article 3 by vessels flying their flags, wherever they are taken, shall not exceed the total quotas for that stock as set out in the protocols referred to in Article 3. This provision is without prejudice to any agreement between private entities, concluded in accordance with national rules and regulations of the Parties, that may include additional fishing possibilities.
The quotas referred to in Article 2 shall be taken in the exclusive economic zones and the Parties will refrain from any claims for additional fishing possibilities on that stock.
Article 5The Parties will ensure that fishing vessels flying their flag comply with the conservation and management measures as well as national rules and regulations established for the operation of fishing activities referred to in Article 2. Adequate advance notice shall be provided of such measures, rules and regulations.
Article 6The Parties shall work together to investigate possibilities and take measures, when relevant, to discourage any of their nationals from being party to arrangements by which they register a fishing vessel under the flag of another state for the purpose of engaging in fishing activities that undermine the effectiveness of this Agreement and of the management measures referred to in Article 5.
***
Initial Impressions:
Short-Term:
- The Philippines needs to accelerate its defense modernization program – that’s IF – it has the money.
- Diplomacy – ASEAN+Japan+USA+Aus+NZ / UN Security Council
- Pass legislation on borders
- Reduce dependence on oil
- US Mutual Defense Treaty
- Diplomacy – Bilateral Talks with China
- Diplomacy – Bilateral Talks with Vietnam
- Diplomacy – Intra ASEAN Dialog
Identify exclusive economic zones based on Laws of Sea Treaty (if applicable)
Long-Term:
- Take the cue from Taiwan – Get wealthy and get armed to the teeth
- More trade in renewables with China
- Establsh a protocol for oil extraction similar to the Norway, Iceland, Russia Fisheries Agreement.
To be continued
WORK IN PROGRESS:
Fish Kills in Taal
Government to revitalize hard-hit fish industry
MANILA, Philippines (Xinhua) – The government will assist fish pen owners by providing them milkfish (bangus) fingerlings in a bid to revitalize the hard-hit fish industry in the provinces of Batangas and Pangasinan, a senior government official said today.
Presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said mitigating measures are now in place to restore the quality of water in the provinces concerned.
“The national government will be assisting fish pen owners by providing bangus fingerlings for the restocking of bangus. But this can only be done when the water quality is restored, and can be maintained, to allow fingerlings to develop properly,” he said.
Lacierda called on for a stronger partnership between the national and local authorities to address the impact of the fish kill and to prevent the incident from recurring.
“A triple dilemma at present: the disposal of tons of fish kill; the interdiction of fish kill so that it won’t be sold in public markets; and the revitalization of the industry and the restoration of public confidence in bangus products, requires all concerned to work together and not at cross-purposes,” said Lacierda.
He said the Department of Agriculture (DA) is assisting the national government in enforcing mitigating measures such as lending pumps to aerate the water in Taal Lake in Batangas.
Thousands of tons of fish died in the two provinces due to the changing temperature of water.
Background on Lake Ecosystems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_ecosystem
Lentic refers to standing or still water. It is derived from the Latin lentus, which means sluggish. Lentic ecosystems can be compared with lotic ecosystems, which involve flowing terrestrial waters such as rivers and streams. Together, these two fields form the more general study area of freshwater or aquatic ecology.
The general distinction between pools/ponds and lakes is vague, but Brown[1] states that ponds and pools have their entire bottom surfaces exposed to light, while lakes do not. In addition, some lakes become seasonally stratified (discussed in more detail below.) Ponds and pools have two regions: the pelagic open water zone, and the benthic zone, which comprises the bottom and shore regions. Since lakes have deep bottom regions not exposed to light, these systems have an additional zone, the profundal.[3] These three areas can have very different abiotic conditions and, hence, host species that are specifically adapted to live there
Aeration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_aeration
Water aeration is often required in water bodies that suffer from anoxic conditions, usually caused by adjacent human activities such as sewage discharges, agricultural run-off, or over-baiting a fishing lake. Aeration can be achieved through the infusion of air into the bottom of the lake, lagoon or pond or by surface agitation from a fountain or spray-like device to allow for oxygen exchange at the surface and the release of noxious gasses such as carbon dioxide, methane or hydrogen sulfide.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a major contributor to water quality. Not only do fish and other aquatic animals need it, but oxygen breathing aerobic bacteria decompose organic matter. When oxygen concentrations become low, anoxic conditions may develop which can decrease the ability of the water body to support life.
Aeration speeds up this process of oxidizing organic and mineral pollution. In fact, if there is sufficient aeration, the fish will be able to survive, where before they suddenly died. By pumping compressed air out to the bottom of a lake, lagoon or pond with the use of a diffuser, the rising air bubbles and the friction caused in the water will bring bottom water to the surface where it is exposed to the atmosphere. Large volumes of water thus release noxious gases to the atmosphere, water picks up oxygen while circulating at the surface.[citation needed]
Natural bacteria are stimulated by aeration and circulation and they will feed on muck, organics and the food that normally feeds algae blooms or aquatic plants growth. Using aeration and bacteria is often a safe and sound form of pollution removal.
The need to change consumption patterns
Aeration only address the impact of the reduced oxygen – it does not address the situation which led to the reduction in dissolved oxygen in the first place.
Root Causes
BOLINAO, Pangasinan, Philippines—In an aquarium no bigger than a foot-high box, five goldfish will survive without an aerator when their caretaker provides them a pinch of feed twice a day and a regular change of water.
But try putting 20 goldfish in that same aquarium, feed them a cup of feed daily, do not change its water for weeks and turn off its aerator. Then, pour in cold water. Chances are, the goldfish will die.
This was how Dr. Westly Rosario, chief of the National Integrated Fisheries Technology Development Center (NIFTDC) in Dagupan City, explained how “bangus” (milkfish) cultured in pens and cages in the Kakiputan Channel in Bolinao and Anda towns were decimated recently.
Dr. Edgardo Gomez, professor emeritus of the University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute, said: “[The fishkill was the result of] environmental degradation, with the [structures] exceeding the carrying capacity of the water due to heavy fish stocking and excess feeding.”
Rosario said fish cages and pens in the Kakiputan Channel were stocked beyond the carrying capacity of the water. He said a square meter of fish cage there contained 50 pieces of bangus, exceeding the recommended stocking capacity of 25 pieces.
Worse, the tidal flow in the 2.7-km channel had been obstructed by fish traps laid upstream of the Tambac Bay, as well as by fishery structures at the Catubig area leading to the Lingayen Gulf.
Scientists have been warning authorities that fishery structures, which mushroomed along the Kakiputan Channel in the last 10 years, would endanger the marine ecosystem there.
Measures
Extensive use of GIS technology.
Market-driven measures -
- fees on waste – more waste, more fees.
- incentives/deductions on green programs
Civic Engagement/Outsourcing
- Water quality monitoring
Product Labeling Standards to include Source/Origin information(Address/city/province) Date, and Batch.
Review of Water Use Policy, Waste Management Policy, Licensing Process
Find other sources of revenue and job creation.
Epilogue
We can’t keep on handing out fingerlings if they will die as soon as they are released. That’s a total waste of money.
After having a career outside my college degree, I often forget that in preparation for Med School, I took up the natural sciences - and that by training and education, I am a biologist. And so after having wandered around the globe as investments promoter, network administrator, web designer, business planner, landscaper, chauffeur, waiter, dishwasher, chief of staff of a US Congressional candidate, supply chain analyst and designer, and more recently a process improvement practitioner in the tradition of lean six sigma and kaizen culture, I have come full circle as I revisit the topics of population, reproductive health, carrying capacity being one of our core subjects.
Of course along with this comes the rigorous academic training on the scientific method.
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[3]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
Scientific methodology has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years.[6] There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. As William Whewell (1794–1866) noted in his History of Inductive Science (1837) and in Philosophy of Inductive Science (1840), “invention, sagacity, genius” are required at every step in scientific method. It is not enough to base scientific method on experience alone;[7] multiple steps are needed in scientific method, ranging from our experience to our imagination, back and forth.
****
In the 20th century, a hypothetico-deductive model[8] for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[9]This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of steps 1 and 4.[10] Galileo 1638 also showed the importance of step 4 (also called Experiment) in Two New Sciences.[11] One possible sequence in this model would be 1, 2, 3, 4. If the outcome of 4 holds, and 3 is not yet disproven, you may continue with 3, 4, 1, and so forth; but if the outcome of 4 shows 3 to be false, you will have to go back to 2 and try to invent a new 2, deduce a new 3, look for 4, and so forth.
In 1877,[63] Charles Sanders Peirce (pronounced /?p?rs/ “purse”) (1839–1914) characterized inquiry in general not as the pursuit of truth per se but as the struggle to move from irritating, inhibitory doubts born of surprises, disagreements, and the like, and to reach a secure belief, belief being that on which one is prepared to act. He framed scientific inquiry as part of a broader spectrum and as spurred, like inquiry generally, by actual doubt, not mere verbal or hyperbolic doubt, which he held to be fruitless.[64] He outlined four methods of settling opinion, ordered from least to most successful:
The method of tenacity (policy of sticking to initial belief) — which brings comforts and decisiveness but leads to trying to ignore contrary information and others’ views as if truth were intrinsically private, not public. It goes against the social impulse and easily falters since one may well notice when another’s opinion is as good as one’s own initial opinion. Its successes can shine but tend to be transitory.
The method of authority — which overcomes disagreements but sometimes brutally. Its successes can be majestic and long-lived, but it cannot operate thoroughly enough to suppress doubts indefinitely, especially when people learn of other societies present and past.
The method of congruity or the a priori or the dilettante or “what is agreeable to reason” — which promotes conformity less brutally but depends on taste and fashion in paradigms and can go in circles over time, along with barren disputation. It is more intellectual and respectable but, like the first two methods, sustains capricious and accidental beliefs, destining some minds to doubts.
The scientific method — the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.Peirce held that slow, stumbling ratiocination can be dangerously inferior to instinct and traditional sentiment in practical matters, and that the scientific method is best suited to theoretical research,[65] which in turn should not be trammeled by the other methods and practical ends; reason’s “first rule” is that, in order to learn, one must desire to learn and, as a corollary, must not block the way of inquiry.[66] The scientific method excels the others by being deliberately designed to arrive — eventually — at the most secure beliefs, upon which the most successful practices can be based. Starting from the idea that people seek not truth per se but instead to subdue irritating, inhibitory doubt, Peirce showed how, through the struggle, some can come to submit to truth for the sake of belief’s integrity, seek as truth the guidance of potential practice correctly to its given goal, and wed themselves to the scientific method.
In the following sections, I review the existing scientific studies on population and reproductive health in an effort to get clarity – about the RH Bill – and its goals and objectives. The long and short of it is that RH bill advocates have fallen into a fallacy that only government procurement and distribution of contraceptives will reduce fertility rate, thereby reducing population size, and since there are less people sharing resources – then there will be less hunger.
Is this belief true? What do the latest empirical studies show us?
INCREASING POPULATION DESPITE REDUCTION IN FERTILITY RATE
http:www.worldwatch.orgnode5645
The seeming contradiction between smaller-than-ever families and near-record births is easily explained. The number of women of childbearing age keeps growing and global life expectancy at birth continues to rise. These two trends explain why population continues growing despite declines in family size. There were 1.7 billion women aged 15 to 49 in late 2007, compared with 856 million in 1970. The average human being born today can expect to live 67 years, a full decade longer than the average newborn could expect in 1970.
Fertility rates that were consistently below two children per woman would eventually lead to a shrinkage of national populations in the absence of counterbalancing immigration. It can take decades for low fertility to halt growth, however, in populations with large proportions of young people due to high fertility in the past.
Life expectancy worldwide varies from a high of 83 years in Japan to a low of 40 years in Swaziland, the country with the highest prevalence of HIV infection
Among the most direct influences on fertility is access to and use of contraception. More than 700 million women, half of those aged 15 to 49 in developing countries, are at risk of unintended pregnancy, due to either improper use of contraception or—for an estimated 137 million women—no use of contraception at all.9 At the same time, spending on family planning by governments worldwide has been stagnant in recent years—and has remained at a fraction of what governments agreed is needed to assure all women and couples access to services and contraceptives.10
*********** WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM TRENDS – FEMALE STATUS and FERTILITY
A trend that may be more hopeful for the future of world population is the gradual improvement worldwide of women’s health and their economic, educational, and political status relative to men.
For the past two years the World Economic Forum (WEF) has assembled a global index of the closing of this gender gap.
The 2007 index showed slight improvements over 2006 in every category except health.
A comparison of the percent of the overall gender gap that had closed and the fertility rates of 128 countries indicated a clear correlation between high female status and low fertility.
*******
COST OF CONTRACEPTIVES
One of the core arguments by the RH advocates is that “free” contraceptives are needed to be given to “the poor” because contraceptives are expensive. Remember the “don’t give fish, teach how to fish” thingie? Obviously the RH advocates would rather give the contraceptive instead of teaching people how to be able afford the cost of contraceptives. Da Pinoy‘s penchant for choosing the path of least resistance does not come as a surprise – what else is new.
How Much Does Birth Control Cost?
Method
Effectiveness
Cost Per Year Birth Control Pills 95 percent $160 to $600 Birth Control Patch 95 percent $160 to $600 Cervical Cap 77 to 83 percent $35 to $60 Condoms 8 5 percent $150 Diaphragm 85 percent $60 Fertility-Awareness 75 to 88 percent Free IUDs 99 percent $100 (varies) Shot (Depo-Provera) 99 percent $220 to $460 Sterilization 99 percent $30 to $200 (varies) Vaginal Ring (NuvaRing) 95 percent $160 to $600 Vaginal Sponge 68 to 84 percent $500 Abstinence 100 percent “FREE” http:money.usnews.commoneyblogsalpha-consumer20100827how-much-does-birth-control-cost
—
Here’s a “FREE CONTRACEPTIVE” – Abstain from sex, you lecherous dog! If you can’t afford it – don’t boink.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
Here’s the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
“ARTICLE III, BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. “
****
In Section 3, Guiding Principles of the RH Bill – it states:
“i. Protection and promotion of gender equality, women empowerment and human rights, including reproductive health rights, are imperative;”
When it comes to constitutionality, the question to be asked from the RH Bill advocates is this – Please cite the constitutional provision which states that there is such a thing as “reproductive health rights” – THERE’S NONE.
In effect, the RH Bill is guided by the principle of a a non-existent legal “right” which is not provided for in the constitution. – THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.
For the “reproductive health rights” to become constitutional rights that are constitutionally protected – one needs.. voila… CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.
CONCLUSION:
On all counts the RH Bill advocates have right intentions, but are wrong on the science, and wrong on the economics – but “free contraceptives” does make good politics.
What else is new with Da Pinoy’s penchant for coming up with irrelevant solutions.
Other Articles on Population
Poverty is not caused by overpopulation.
Population Growth, Birth Rate, Death Rate, Life Expectancy of Filipinos and the RH Bill
