Asean environment:
Wetlands for disaster
resilience
BY AMADO S. TOLENTINO, JR. ON MAY 26,
2017
THE 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami originating in
an earthquake in the sea off Sumatra in
Indonesia devastated 12 countries, including
Indonesia, Thailand and Sri Lanka. As an
immediate response, the periodic Asian
Wetlands Symposium held in 2005 (in India)
recommended, among others, to “prioritize the
natural coastal defenses through
greenbelt/coastal ‘bioshield’ development……
In connection therewith, the Sendai Framework
for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015) identified as
one of four priorities the matter of ‘investing in
disaster risk reduction for resilience’.”
Not to be missed is the Asean Agreement on
Disaster Management and Emergency
Response (ADMER), which came into force in
2009 with the intention of providing “effective
regional mechanisms to mitigate impacts of
natural disasters….through concerted national
efforts and intensified regional cooperation.”
Early this year, the Asean Institute of
International and Strategic Studies, a
consortium of Asean think tanks, concluded
that one of the key challenges to Asean is
“adapting to climate change:……Asean needs
to be prepared for the real possibility that global
mitigation efforts are not sufficient. Efforts to
adapt to the effects of climate change and
disasters will increasingly demand greater
coordination and the pooling of resources.”
In the light of scientific information that natural
disasters are projected to intensify in Asia, the
ADMER could be utilized for disaster
prevention and mitigation purposes even if the
agreement leans heavily towards disaster
preparedness and emergency response, i.e.
faster movement of relief goods, better
utilization of civilian and military response, etc.
ADMER could serve as the basis for Asean’s
active role at disaster risk reduction by
incorporating effective wetlands management
strategies for climate change resilience.
Disaster risk reduction, according to ADMER,
means “a framework of elements considered
with possibilities to minimize vulnerabilities
and disaster risks to avoid, through prevention
or, to limit through mitigation and preparedness
the adverse impacts of hazards within the broad
context of sustainable development.”
Wetlands, on the other hand are among the
world’s most valuable ecosystems, providing
so may benefits to people. As defense
fortifications, wetlands, particularly
mangroves, proved excellent defenses against
the onslaught of typhoons and tsunamis as
proven by the earthquake occurrence
mentioned above. Scientists explained that the
roots of vegetation in Asian mangroves and
other forest wetlands helped to hold the
sediments in place against the impact of strong
winds, waves and currents. Additionally,
wetlands are the “kidneys of the earth,”
purifying water and waste from both natural
and human sources. As “biological
supermarkets,” wetlands provide a wide variety
of flora and fauna. Wetlands act as natural
dams, absorbing heavy rainfalls, preventing
flood downstream; helps shoreline stabilization
and erosion reduction. Wetlands help recharge
groundwater aquifers too. Most important of
all, wetlands provide livelihood to many
people.
Aside from mangroves, wetlands include
swamps, marshes, mudflats, floodplains,
peatlands, estuaries, rivers, lakes and many
more generally described as “where water
meets land.”
ADMER is replete with provisions which could
be used by Asean countries in refuting the claim
that while emergency response is almost well
attended to from the local to the national
government level, much remains to be done in
regard to a) cooperation in developing and
putting into effect solutions to reduce disaster
impacts; b) development of strategies to
identify, prevent or reduce disaster risks and
losses; c) prevention and mitigation legislation,
regulations, policies, plans, programs and
strategies; and d) raising public awareness
about disaster prevention and mitigation.
1
In pursuit of this, Asean countries could very engagement, improvements can be made at a
well incorporate wetlands for disaster risk much faster pace so the region can have a much
reduction and build resilience in their legal needed disaster-resilient system.
agenda. For instance, the strategy of planting
mangrove saplings should be a continuing year-
round activity in the long and extensive
coastlines of countries comprising Asean.
Likewise, massive planting of high-quality and
commercially productive variety of bamboo
could be introduced in riverbanks/river basins
and lakeshores as a technique not only to
withstand environmental disturbances but also
to preserve and rehabilitate freshwater sources
and lakes and provide added source of income
to people.

Take note that Asean is not only about

economic partnership, trade liberalization and
economic integration. It is also about
environmental security. In that regard, Asean’s
environment program, conceived in the early
1980s, has metamorphosed to include an Asean
Working Group on Coastal and Marine
Environment.

Hosting Asean@50 gives President Duterte a

historic opportunity to influence the future
direction of Asean vis-à-vis disaster risk
reduction, an area where Asean lags behind in
terms of prevention and mitigation projects to
better achieve climate change resiliency.

It should be borne in mind, however, that

building a disaster-resilient Asean needs
partnerships among governments, private
sector, NGOs, LGUs, and other institutions
with clearly defined roles not only in disaster
response but also in disaster prevention and
mitigation. To begin with, a program on the
values and functions of wetlands for disaster
risk reduction and onwards to consolidating
resilience endeavors among Asean countries on
the same track could be embarked on and, in the
process, highlight also the need to scale up
adaptation to climate change. Indeed, Asean-
wide advocacy initiatives about wetlands for
disaster risk reduction would do well to
invigorate efforts in the region to give climate
change resilience the priority that the issue
deserves.

Hopefully, the recommendation is realized soon

because Asean remains vulnerable to natural
disasters. But through multi-stakeholder

2
Asean water partnership: The
great Mekong River
0 floating, recreation and tourism initiatives and
BY AMADO S. TOLENTINO, JR. ON MAY 6,
2017
THE Mekong River is the twelfth longest river
in the world at 4,173 kilometers. The
headwaters originate in the Tibetan region of
China and the river then flows through Yunan
province in China into five Asean countries:
Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and
Vietnam.
The Mekong forms the boundary between Laos
and Myanmar. It courses through Laos for
approximately 500 km before once again
becoming the boundary between Laos and
Thailand. Then the Mekong passes through the
southwest corner of Laos and flows through the
heart of Cambodia where a very unique
physical feature exists, the Tonle River and the
Tonle Sap Lake. Then it flows into Vietnam and
empties out through the Mekong Delta of
Vietnam into the South China Sea.
The Mekong River basin covers 795 km. (A
water basin, also known as a catchment basin,
is a geographical and hydrological unit
consisting of a main river and all the territories
between the water source, the spring and the
mouth of the river).
The tremendous natural resources of the
Mekong Basin have long been recognized. The
tropical climate of the region along with the
abundance of water during the wet season
supports an extremely productive and diverse
aquatic ecosystem with numerous ecologically
important wetlands. In addition, the basin states
rely upon the natural productivity of the basin’s
fisheries to help meet the subsistence needs of
many of the approximately 60 million residents
of the Mekong basin.
Common ground
While the interest of each country is different
and there are diverse upstream and downstream
issues, the Lower Mekong countries have found
a common ground on which to cooperate in
addressing issues from a basin point of view.
Cooperation in all fields of sustainable
development, utilization, management
conservation of water and other resources is
somehow evident in irrigation, hydro-power,
navigation, flood control, fisheries, timber
projects.
It was the United Nations which drew attention
to the potential for integrated development in
the lower Mekong basin as early as the 1950s.
A Mekong Committee was set up by Cambodia,
Laos, Thailand and the then Republic of South
Vietnam in 1957 “to promote, coordinate,
supervise and control the planning and
investigations of water resource development
projects.”
Political events, however, transpired to dampen
the committee’s prospects and the change of
government in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam
during the mid-1970s cast doubt on the
committee’s future. By 1991, reactivation of the
Mekong Committee began.
Circumstances, however, had changed
considerably since the mid-1970s in many
ways: a) although the region seemed to be
entering a new era of peace in the 1990s, the
governments were no longer as closely allied to
each other as they were before the mid-1970s;
b) the viability of large mainstream dams, the
quest for joint developments under the original
Mekong Committee was under question due to
the potential environmental and social impacts;
c) China was in the process of implementing a
large-scale hydropower development program
in the upper reaches of the Mekong River which
could significantly alter the downstream flow
regimes and hence, there was a need to bring
China into a more active cooperation
framework (Far Eastern Economic Review,
1992).
Basin nations’ agreement
In 1995, the Agreement on Cooperation for the
Sustainable Development of the Mekong River
Basin was signed by Cambodia, Laos, Thailand
and Vietnam and established the Mekong River
Commission. The philosophy of the agreement
is “to improve the livelihood of 60 million
people living in the Lower Mekong River
Basin. China and Myanmar which are part of
the Mekong River Basin have not signed the
agreement but were designated Asean
“dialogue partners” in 1996 and have
3
participated in various Mekong River-related
activities.

A close look at the 1995 agreement reveals that

while signatory countries agreed to “cooperate
in maintaining minimum flow levels of no less
than the acceptable monthly minimum flow
rates during each month of the dry season,” the
same agreement does not require
consent/consensus/agreement of the riparians
for national projects which may affect the river
flow levels. The prior legal agreement in place
required the consent/concurrence of all riparian
countries for any national project that involved
the Mekong River. Moreover, the agreement is
silent about distribution of water to the member
states although basic principles to be applied in
developing rules for water distribution are set
forth in the agreement.

After sixty 60 years of Asean riparian country

cooperation in the utilization of the Great
Mekong River, some questions surfaced that
needed to be attended to: a) What types of
activities are or should be forbidden within the
shared Mekong River Basin?; b) Is it possible
to harmonize national laws of the riparian
countries to regulate the use of the shared
basin?; c) What does it really mean to manage
the Mekong River Basin in an integrated
manner?; d) What rights and obligations do
upstream and downstream states have?; e) How
can environmental flows be effectively
regulated within the shared Mekong River
basin?

Above all, what approach should be taken if and

when the water flow from the Mekong River’s
source markedly lessened or diminished
because of the gigantic dam projects of China
to divert the flow for its own use to open up
agricultural areas to attain food security for its
overgrown population?

The author contributed to the evolution and

progressive realization of environmental law.

4
Strategy for disaster risk
reduction
0
BY AMADO S. TOLENTINO, JR. ON
NOVEMBER 18, 2013
Climate change –induced weather disasters
have quadrupled during the last few years. The
2011 horrifying earthquake and tsunami in
Japan is one such weather disaster. The 2013
typhoon Yolanda accompanied by the terrifying
storm surge in the Philippines is another.
Tropical storms, extended drought, harder
monsoon rains, devastating floods, unexpected
landslides and earthquakes are more common
now in densely populated Asia where people
are the most endangered when natural
calamities strike. The annual cyclones in
Bangladesh, the uncommon cyclone occurrence
in Myanmar in 2008 as well as the destruction
brought by typhoons Ondoy, Sendong, and
Pablo in the Philippines drew attention to these
countries’ efforts at reducing disaster risks in
managed ways.
Disaster risk reduction (DRR) systems are now
in place in Bangladesh, Myanmar and the
Philippines with the support of international
organizations like the Red Cross and the Save
the Children and their respective governments.
DRR refers to all activities by local
communities, families, governments and NGOs
that help reduce in advance the effects of
natural disasters. The objective is to cover all
risks including the effects of climate change.
Disaster risk reduction system
The main feature of a disaster risk reduction
system is a disaster plan and prevention
program in endangered towns and villages. It
incorporates standardized warning signals,
different flags for use before and during
disasters, identification of emergency shelters,
evacuation procedures, emergency food stocks
(and replenishment), utensils for immediate use
like cooking stoves, water supply, provision of
sanitary facilities and others.
Experience with disaster emergency
management gave way to the principle of “build
back better” which means that damaged
structures are not simply replaced but improved
to make them more resilient and intact for the
onslaught of another natural calamity.
Like in other areas of environmental
management, the institutional arrangement to
cope with natural disasters involve not just one
government agency like the Department of
Social Welfare and Development but many
other environment-related agencies such as
those on local governments, health, education,
agriculture, police, public works, etc. The
Philippines’ National Disaster Risk Reduction
and Management Council (NDRRMC) follows
that direction through effective inter-agency
linkages and coordination with regional and
local governments for disaster remediation
operations.
Global level
At the international level, the UN has an
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
which aims to guide and coordinate the efforts
of a wide range of partners to achieve
substantive reduction in disaster losses and
build resilient nations and communities as an
essential condition for sustainable
development. The United Nations International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) is
the secretariat of the ISDR system and
comprises numerous organizations, states,
NGOs, financial institutions, technical bodies
and civil society which work together and share
information to reduce disaster risks.
It also serves as the focal point for the
implementation of the Hyogo Framework for
Action, a ten-year plan of action adopted in
2005 by 168 governments to protect lives and
livelihoods against disasters.
With the prominence of the field of
environmental law during the last four decades,
the enactment of a legislation on disaster risk
reduction and management is encouraged. One
such is the 2010 Philippine Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Act (R.A. 10121).
An action plan and guidelines to define the
respective roles and responsibilities of
government agencies, schools, NGOs and other
groups is in place. The challenge is to translate
into effective local community action to save
lives and reduce disaster risks and economic
losses. Above all, a safety culture in times of
disasters and emergencies should be established
5
so that people in danger areas will be well
informed and motivated to consciously
integrate the risks in their day-to-day living.

Indeed, the success of any disaster plan and

prevention program depends on the cooperation
of the local people exposed to danger. Nobody
is more familiar with the immediate
environment than the local inhabitants
themselves who are also best situated to
overcome the risks that accompany weather
disasters aided by disaster emergency
awareness and preparedness strategies and
techniques.

(Mr. Tolentino is a Filipino pioneer in the field

of environmental law and served as
environmental law consultant to UNEP. He
was Philippine Ambassador to Papua New
Guinea and Qatar).

6
Asean: Better, faster disaster
reliefs?
0
BY THE MANILA TIMES ON FEBRUARY 6,
2015
DURING the past three decades, the frequency
of natural disasters has increased globally but
the worst increase has been in the Asia-Pacific
region. Be that as it may, advances in the
science of disaster risk management point out
that there are no true natural disasters. Many
natural hazards are accelerated by human
activity and no matter how “natural” the hazard,
it is human exposure, vulnerability, resilience
and preparedness that define whether a given
event results merely in a rainy day or natural
catastrophe. In short, human behavior can be
regulated unlike the weather.
Studies of experiences about regulatory
frameworks for reducing disaster risks,
responding to disasters and recovering from
them are still in their infancy. Yet states are
increasingly turning to legal instruments at the
national, regional and international levels to
fight disasters. Are those legal instruments in
place meeting their potential to increase
cooperation on disaster risk management and
humanitarian response ?
The Asean Agreement on Disaster
Management and Emergency Response
(ADMER) signed and ratified by all ten
member states is one such legal instrument.
Agreed on as an aftermath of the 2004 Great
Tsunami which hit, among others, the coastal
zones of Indonesia and Thailand resulting in
much loss of life and property, ADMER was
already in effect (29 December 2009) when one
of the strongest typhoons ever recorded,
Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan), hit the Visayas in
the Philippines.
Some of the militaries of the Southeast Asian
countries were forced to respond to the calamity
but their voluntary efforts highlighted military
operational shortcomings in the region. In many
ways, the response was mainly on a national
basis. Some transport aircraft and ships were
sent but there was not enough multinational
cooperation. Analysts trace the situation to the
lack of trust and confidence between many
governments for which reason bilateral and
trilateral arrangements may be more effective.
Aware of the need for greater cooperation in
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief,
Thailand and Korea sponsored a Southeast
Asian Regional Forum Disaster Relief Exercise
in Thailand while Brunei Darussalam and
Singapore co-hosted in 2013 a combined
military medicine/humanitarian assistance and
disaster relief exercise with all ten Asean
members involved. Additional region-wide
exercises were held in Thailand in 2014.
Singapore, on the other hand, offered to the
Armed Forces of the Philippines its newly
launched Changi Regional Humanitarian
Assistance and Disaster Relief Co-ordination
Center to organize multi-national military
intervention in response to Typhoon Ruby
(Hagupit) which made landfall in Eastern
Samar on 6 December 2014 but was
downgraded into a tropical storm soon after its
landfall.
Take note that while defense of sovereignty is
the primary responsibility of the military, the
requirement to respond to floods, earthquakes,
tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc. is likely to
remain a secondary priority but one,
nonetheless, which is likely to increasingly
influence the modernization drive of the Asean
countries’ military over the next decades.
In that connection, Singapore procured large
multipurpose amphibious ships in 2014.
Similar efforts at modernization are being
exerted by Indonesia, the Philippines, Myanmar
and Vietnam even if, admittedly, security in the
increasing territorial disputes is the prime
mover for the heightened emphasis on the
militaries’ capacity and capability in the region.
To fulfill the military requirements related to
humanitarian search/rescue and relief
operations, procurement targets of Asean
countries like multi-role helicopters and
transport aircrafts would not require new
designs to fulfill the militaries’ secondary role.
What is necessary is inter-operability of joint
and multi-national missions with greater
command-and-control capabilities among
7
Asean’s military considering the vastness of the
region.

In the light of scientific information that natural

disasters are projected to intensify in the Asia-
Pacific region in the future, the Asean
Agreement on Disaster Management and
Emergency Response mentioned above could
serve the Asean countries well if utilized
effectively and cohesively. As an agreement on
disaster preparedness, emergency response and
rehabilitation, it is about expedited customs and
immigration clearance; faster movement of
relief goods, tools and personnel (included are
provision of food, water sanitation facilities and
temporary shelters); setting up of an Asean
disaster relief fund; better utilization of civilian
and military personnel as well as stronger
simulation exercises to test emergency
response.

Actually, an Asean Co-ordinating Centre for

Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster
Management (AHA) is functioning in Jakarta to
facilitate cross border movement of relief
efforts and coordination among member
countries in joint emergency response.

An ADMER evaluation report in 2013 noted

that many civil society organizations are
increasingly involved in advocacy work around
disaster management laws in countries such as
Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Thailand and the
Philippines.

However, there is a need to complement legal

instruments with strong research which could
help boost our understanding of the
complexities underlying risk and disaster relief
at all levels.

Ambassador Amado Tolentino, Jr. is an

independent consultant and professor of
environmental law at San Beda Alabang School
of Law.

8
Environmental refugees:
Quickly spreading
0 freshwater discharged into coastal areas while
BY AMADO S. TOLENTINO, JR. ON JUNE 15,
2015
Refugees are people who seek asylum for fear
of political, racial or religious persecution or
people who leave their homes because of war or
civil strife. This traditional notion of refugees,
however, leave out the new, growing and
quickly spreading phenomenon of
environmental refugees triggered by natural
calamities like earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic
eruptions, landslides resulting to forced
displacement of people. (When people seek
refuge within their own countries as
environmental refugees, they are commonly
referred to as internally displaced persons).
Recent scientific studies show that rising seas
will supplant encroaching desserts and other
forms of land degradation as the major threat to
habitability of many places this century. The
evacuation of 1,400 residents of Papua New
Guinea’s Carteret Islands (the world’s first
climate change refugees according to the UN)
due to rising sea levels offers a sobering vision
of the future for coastal populations.
Global warming brought about by excessive
fossil fuel use is reported to result to thermal
expansion of the oceans and melting of the
icecaps. A one meter increase in sea level will
displace millions of people in the delta regions
of the Nile and Ganges rivers, further
compounding land scarcity in Egypt and
Bangladesh. To think that world population is
projected to increase by 90 million annually all
of them in need of food, water and shelter. In
fact, as the root causes of the on-going
Southeast Asian migrant crisis unravel, it would
not be surprising if it turns out in the UNHCR
backed Bangkok Special Meeting on Irregular
Migration in the Indian Ocean of concerned
countries and other probes being carried out
that some of those ‘boat people’ are in reality
environmental refugees from Bangladesh and
Myanmar aiming for Thailand, Malaysia and
Indonesia.
The combined effects of warmer climates and
higher seas will make typhoons more frequent
and more destructive further damaging the
habitability of coastal areas. Extensive river
diversions will markedly lessen the amount of
higher sea levels will increase saltwater
intrusion thus reducing mangrove forest cover
and disrupting major fisheries within fragile
ecosystems. Endangered places that may cease
to exist include, among others, Tuvalu, Kiribati
and the Marshall Islands in the Pacific,
Maldives in the Indian Ocean as well as the
touristic string of emerald islands and islets in
the Caribbean prompting the formation of an
association of small island states working
towards solutions to their plight to counter sea
level rise before the United Nations.
Poverty and inadequate development policies
along with rapid population growth are the
roots of environmental degradation in the
developing world. Present environmental
refugees may already be the biggest single
group of displaced persons. By the middle of
this century, people forced to leave their homes
and places of livelihood because of flooding,
desertification, toxic pollution, sea level rise or
other environmental disruptions may even
constitute the largest in number among those
displaced by all other means.
Improvement in general environmental
practices particularly agricultural methods,
including soil conservation, which maintains
the capability of ecosystems to support life
known in environmental science as ‘carrying
capacity’ will help prevent migration of people.
Above all, rapid population growth must be
managed particularly in places most vulnerable
to ecological disasters.
*An environmental law pioneer, Ambassador
Amado Tolentino was a Visiting Fellow at
Hawaii’s East-West Center.
9
Sovereignty vis-a-vis environmental
security
0 or interference occurs within national
BY AMADO S. TOLENTINO, JR. ON JUNE 23,
2013
The benefit of a changing approach to the
concept of sovereignty over natural resources
extends to environmental or ecological security
as it relates to facilitating conflict resolution to
prevent or resolve armed conflict or hostilities
or threats therefrom between and among States.
In this, the due regard principle in customary
law comes to the fore. Nature is civilian in
character but it is easy to transform civilian to
military objective. An example is the reported
pollution of the Danube River during the
Kosovo war resulting from alleged bombing of
industrial facilities.
From time to time, military conflicts over water
rights was a national security issue between
India and Pakistan over the Indus; Ethiopia and
Egypt over the Nile; Turkey and Syria over the
Euphrates; Botswana and Namibia over
Okavango; Israel and Palestine over the Jordan
River.
Water in those areas cross political boundaries
with the concomitant boundary issue. The
situation, however, creates a natural
interdependence between the States in sharing
the water resource drawing people to work
together on the water resource availability
aspect even when countries were officially at
war.
In reality, environmental security problems are
solved not only within the confines of national
boundaries. Often, they involve transborder
areas, e.g. transboundary deep or shallow
underground aquifers, international rivers,
other shared watercourses. Actually,
governance of groundwater remains weak,
perhaps partly because of reliance on the old
concept of sovereignty.
There are no standards for developing
boundaries for groundwater systems rendering
effective governance problematic. Governance
models are moving towards public-private
partnership for environmental management and
utilization and groundwater as part of the global
commons. And, when the environmental harm
boundaries, they give rise to internally
displaced persons as what happened to victims
of water conflicts or of natural disasters like
earthquakes, tsunamis and floods. Ultimately,
their displacement bring them across national
boundaries as environmental refugees.
Ecological security must be recognized as an
inseparable component of the concept of
sovereignty to attain international security.
States must recognize their joint responsibility
for the protection of the transnational
environment. Opportunities for the shift of
political attention and natural resources from
the military domain to the environmental
domain should be pursued, i.e. strengthening
confidence through cooperation in
environmental and other non-military areas.
The issue of environmental security occurs
whenever sovereignty issue pose a threat like
potential disputes over exploitation of natural
resources. Case in point is the rich in marine
and mineral resources but object of overlapping
ownership claims of the Spratly islands in the
West Philippine Sea among the Philippines,
Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam
and Taiwan where more arguments favor
cooperation to preserve/conserve the ecological
wealth of the area than tackling head-on the
territorial sovereignty issue. Apart from the
long-standing suggestion for an Asean Area of
Cooperation in the Spratlys, there are
possibilities for the provision of internationally
protected area status in the area through
multilateral cooperative options available.
Indeed, the notion of ecogeographical regimes
is a useful one in demarcating areas within
which natural resources can be taken to be
relatively homogenous and, consequently, the
concept of sovereignty duly re-adjusted. The
International Commission for the Protection of
the Rhine, the two international commissions
for the environmental protection and
sustainable utilization of the Baltic Sea, and the
comparable mechanism for cooperation among
most of the littoral states are examples of this.
In short, there is a continuing need for
international and inter-regional cooperation
that must be able to transcend the rights of
10
sovereignty now vested in States. The principle
of shared responsibility for the protection of the
environment must be fully accepted.

It is also a fact that politico-military and

environmental security are linked in terms of
opportunity costs. Political attention and
material resources spent in the military sector
could be used to strengthen environmental
security. A revised concept of sovereignty is an
opportunity to shift attention and resources
from the military sector to the environment
sector. It could further elaboration of
confidence and security building measures in
both the military and civilian sectors by the
adoption of less offensive military postures in
defense of the environment. Hopefully, after the
most recent posturings, the demilitarized zone
(DMZ) between North and South Korea would
still be headed towards this direction via the
proposal to make the area an international peace
and nature park for, among others, the
preservation of biodiversity found therein.

Environmental security should be equitable for

all States, cultures and generations.
Environmental conscience, search for common
gains, and multilateral cooperation should
replace attitudes and policies of confrontation
with the insurance of recognition of the concept
of sovereignty over natural resources. The
removal of confrontation between States is an
important precondition for the removal of
confrontation between humankind and the
natural environment considering the
fundamental necessity of securing the long-
term availability of natural resources.

The pursuit of environmental security could

become a major agent of change in international
affairs, promoting an international order more
compatible with human needs. Common
sovereignty over natural resources should be
recognized and given priority in the resolution
of conflicts and hostilities among States.

*The author was Philippine Ambassador to

Papua New Guinea and Qatar; Delegate to the
1971 Constitutional Convention; and first
Director, Environmental Management
Bureau

11
Asean environmental outbreaks, and even death from rising
temperatures; (d) energy production and
security concerns transportation disruptions of varying lengths
1 and magnitudes; (e) increased demand for
BY AMADO S. TOLENTINO, JR. ON OCTOBER disaster and humanitarian reliefs and limited
3, 2015 environment for military operations, e.g.
The effects of extreme weather events caused military installations near coastlines threatened
by climate change are now felt all over the by heavy rains in stormy situations and coastal
world – warmer temperature causing erosion; (f) intensified heat waves presenting
desertification and inadequate food supply; low challenges to outdoor training and personnel
lying areas inundated by rising seas; drought efficiency.
sparked conflicts over water supply as
downriver inhabitants safeguard their share. As
a further consequence, food producing areas
become uninhabitable leading to disease, mass
Environmental disasters could even be taken
migration and conflict. Worst of all, the scarcity
advantage of for terrorism. Indeed, the impacts
of oil and mineral resources raises tensions
of global warming are becoming ever more
between powers that import those commodities.
evident and humankind must rise to the
All these could undermine a country’s capacity
challenge.
to carry out its key function of providing
security to its people.
In the light of security concerns brought about
by global warming, what is the role of Asean
The security implications of the earth’s
militaries in a resource-stressed environment
environmental degradation are forcing
due to climate disruption? Take note that
governments and militaries to review their
energy supply and other imported resources by
long-term defense strategies. Defense planning
Asean countries are overly dependent on
is increasingly being shaped by climate and
sealanes, the Strait of Malacca in particular,
resource considerations.
between Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore.
That alone is enough to have Asean countries
Asean countries have experienced super re-examine and re-think their maritime
typhoons and super droughts; storm surges and priorities to have resource protection a core
tsunamis which destroyed coastal function of its navies.
infrastructures and properties including
flooding of roads, airports, military camps and
The greater need, however, is for strengthening
destroyed hospitals and health centers which
the Asean military capabilities in anticipation of
brought about displaced people and population
impending climate wars. This means more
migration. (Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions
soldiers with different training and weapons
are not influenced by the weather). The latest
defense and security systems designed to
occurrence was the horrendous floods brought
operate effectively across the full range of
about by a heavy monsoon season in Myanmar
foreseeable future environments altered by a
which deluged 12 out of the country’s 14
warmer climate – resource war (oil and
regions. Rice growing areas were very much
minerals), water wars (diminished water for
affected as flood water drains through the vast
agriculture and water supply shortage for
Irrawaddy river delta. The army helped the
domestic use) and migratory wars.
residents cope with the situation as the
government embraced foreign assistance.
With climate change, the demand for rapid
military deployments in response and recovery
Security implications of severe climate change
efforts in disastrous environmental
in the Asean countries include, but is not
circumstances is likely to increase too and this
limited to, (a) huge movements of people from
is a good time for Asean to plan out to protect
uninhabitable areas; (b) conflicts over basic
its future security, i.e. improving infrastructures
resources like water and food exacerbating
including military installations located in or
water scarcity and increase in food costs and
near coastlines taking into account advances in
food shortage; (c) greater incidence of
engineering design, techniques and
malnutrition, risks of infectious disease

12
technologies. After all, it is better to work with
nature rather than against it.

Definitely, strategies like Asean military to

military cooperation and enhanced
collaboration that boost capability and
effectiveness will play an increasingly
significant role in helping its most vulnerable
members prepare as best they can for a changed
warmer world. Whatever the result will be,
humankind must adapt to global warming.

(Ambassador Amado Tolentino served as

Coordinator, Asean Nature Conservation
(now Asean Group on Nature Conservation
and Biodiversity).

13
Asean: Changed security
environment
1 tremendously,
BY AMADO S. TOLENTINO, JR. ON
DECEMBER 18, 2015
NEW thinking about defense and security
environment during the last few years pervades
countries around the world. This was brought
about by, to mention a few, the emergence of a
terrorist quasi-state in the Middle East; home-
grown terrorist attacks prompting governments
to be on extreme alert; mass immigration to
Europe; the proliferation of advanced defense
technologies; internal displacement of people
due to armed conflicts; the phenomenon of
environmental refugees including climate
migrants as a consequence of natural
disasters; popularity of cyber warfare, which
gave way to various levels of internal
uncertainty and a new perception about
security concerns.
In the Asean region, tension prevails as rivals
jostle over territories in the West Philippine Sea
which has enormous geo-strategic and
economic significance. This climate of conflict
has security implications which forced
governments to re-think their long-term
defense strategies. In fact, some analysts opined
that defense planning is increasingly being
shaped by climate and resource considerations
too. Take note that majority of the Asean
countries are vulnerable to extreme climate
disturbances due to global warming and disaster
relief had come to be accepted as the military’s
secondary role.
The changed defense and security environment
in the Asean countries has led to ‘procurement
drives’to ensure stability. Singapore highlights
its island defense capabilities centered on
automation and mobility enhancements. The
Singapore Armed Forces recently acquired
protected mobility vehicles which enhances
ballistic protection for troops and incorporates
a host of safety measures. Earlier, the country
significantly boosted its sea power by
commissioning six new frigates.
The Philippines, as part of its long awaited
military modernization program, recently
received new aircrafts including jet fighters and
helicopters from South Korea. Medium lift
transport and surveillance aircrafts were also
acquired from Spain while heavy landing craft
vessels will be acquired from Australia.
Meanwhile, as Vietnam’s economy improves
reforms to further
professionalize the Vietnam People’s Army are
under way. Its procurements include, among
others, fighter aircrafts, submarines, coastal
radar system, maritime patrol helicopters and
fast patrol vessels for the Vietnam Coast Guard.
Brunei Darrusalam’s off-shore patrol vessels
from Germany considerably enhanced its naval
operational capabilities. To improve training,
its Navy is building a center of excellence for
seamanship warfare, weapons handling,
firefighting and damage control,
communications and engineering training.
Indonesia, on the other hand, identified its need
for a complementary submarine fleet that can
fill in the gaps of their new ocean-going
submarines. Note that Indonesia maintains a
submarine base in Sulawesi Island.
Malaysia, which established its own
Malaysian Maritime
Enforcement Agency in 2005, took delivery of
its first Scorpene submarines in 2009 while
Thailand, the first to possess Southeast Asia’s
aircraft carrier has been exploring submarine
procurement.
The rapid expansion of Myanmar’s Navy
backed up by an ambitious program of
indigenous shipbuilding is well noted in the
region. Myanmar’s military or Tatmadaw,
however, was drawn into its largest and
costliest military campaign against insurgents
in the Kokang region of northeaster Shan State.
The Kokang campaign marked the first time the
Tatmadaw undertook combined arms
operations involving mechanized infantry,
artillery, armor and air power under combat
conditions.
Those acquisitions of military hardware were
made prior to Washington’s announcement of a
US $250 million plan to bolster naval
capabilities of the Philippines, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Vietnam and Japan and before
Singapore agreed to the first deployment in the
14
city state of a US P8Poseidon spy plane, the
most advance surveillance aircraft of the US,
and long before the arrival in Subic Bay of USS
Tucson, a high endurance submarine with
advanced stealth capabilities.

A rising China turning closer to Russia with US

as Pacific hegemon are obviously contributory
to the changed defense and security
environment in the countries of Southeast Asia.

Be that as it may, the most pressing priority for

Asean countries in the changed security
environment is to improve their intelligence-
gathering capabilities. Procurement of
munitions alone would not suffice to meet the
countries’ security needs. There ought to have
improvement in the region’s intelligence
sharing and coordinating capabilities. More
than any other time, the new era of “intel-
centric” warfare using innovative information,
communications and computer technologies
demands the ability to assess, analyze and
decisively act in an emerging situation of
critical importance. In short, military
equipment and weapons advantage should be
backed by an effective intelligence capability.

Ambassador Amado Tolentino served as a

member of the Experts Group on
Environmental Law of the World Commission
on Environment and Development. He lectures
at San Beda Alabang School of Law.

15
Asean: Defense evolves in
uncertainties
1
BY AMADO S. TOLENTINO, JR. ON JULY 22,
2016
MEDIA campaigns by the global defense
industry accelerated during the last few years.
Military defense technology
exhibition/exposition with seminars,
conferences and free demonstrations of the
latest in arms capability increased in number
and frequency. Among Asean countries,
Singapore and Indonesia are known to have
hosted such events.
Defense procurement drives
Easily noticeable are the Asean countries’
almost simultaneous procurement drives to
ensure maritime security. Under the military
upgrade and modernization program of former
President Aquino, the Philippines acquired
patrol frigates, fast transport and support
vessels, helicopters and fighter jets. BRP
Tarlac, launched in early 2016, is the first of
two landing platform dock style vessels for the
Philippine Navy. Indonesia is constructing a
submarine base on Sulawesi Island and plans to
buy Russian-made diesel electric submarines as
well as an amphibious jet-powered aircraft with
particular ability in firefighting and coastal
search and rescue.
Singapore, which has the region’s only
submarine rescue capacity, boosted its sea
power with the delivery of Independence, the
lead ship of its Navy’s Littoral Mission Vessel
program, an effort aimed at developing the
country’s latest and most advanced surface
warfare platforms. Malaysia received its first
Scorpene submarines while Thailand, the first
to possess Southeast Asia’s aircraft carrier,
purchased a Saab Grippen fighter aircraft
capable of tactical data links.
The arrival in Brunei Darussalam of German-
made offshore patrol vessels considerably
enhanced its Navy’s operational capabilities.
Vietnam’s procurements include fighter
aircrafts, submarines, coastal radar system,
maritime patrol helicopters, and fast patrol
vessels for the Vietnam Coast Guard.
Sea drills
With the acquisition of modern military
weapons and equipment, naval exercises
between and among Asean countries
significantly increased, too. These are exercises
designed to improve professionalism, develop
exchange experiences and draw lessons from
fellow navies. The activities evolved out of the
Indonesia-Singapore, Malaysia-Singapore, and
Malaysia-Thailand bilateral naval exercise
agreements. In addition, some Asean countries
maintain defense engagement activities with
the US (US-Philippines “Balikatan”), Australia
and New Zealand. Of late, “Balikatan”
(Shoulder-to-Shoulder) was not only about
maritime security but humanitarian assistance
and disaster response as well.
To those military exercises should be
mentioned the fact that China, with claims to
most of the South China Sea, does routine sea
drills in the area with the most recent one
described as featuring air control operations
with live missiles. China and Malaysia had a
joined military exercise in the same way that the
US also had its naval engagement activity in
Vietnam. Japan is into joint military exercises
with the US and the Philippines.
China vis-à-vis Asean
As tension mounts in the region, reports say
China uses fishing fleets with armed escorts to
bolster its maritime claims and even trains
Chinese fishermen militarily for readiness in
case of checks and intercepts by coast guards
and navies of claimant countries in the disputed
South China Sea
To deter China and to reassure its allies, the US
undertook last month drills in the Philippine
waters “close to the disputed waters,” making
use of its awesome USS John Stennis and USS
Ronald Reagan. While at sea, the strike gap
conducted maritime surveillance, defensive or
combat training, long-range strikes,
coordinated maneuvers, and other exercises.
The US Navy explained, “As a Pacific nation
and Pacific leader, the US has a national interest
in maintaining security … peaceful resolution
of disputes … adherence to freedom of
navigation and over-flight throughout the
shared domains.”
16
Interestingly, the China Shipbuilding Corp.
proposed the construction of an “Underwater
Great Wall” consisting of a network of ship and
sub-surface sensors that could significantly
erode the undersea warfare advantage held by
the US. Specific components of the surveillance
system will include underwater security
equipment as well as marine oil and gas
exploration devices.
Asean’s united front toward China?
So far, as a regional bloc, Asean has not
presented a united front toward China on the
South China Sea issue. While the Philippines
and Vietnam have come into direct
confrontation with China, the Mekong River
riparian countries Laos and Cambodia prefer to
side with China. Indonesia and Singapore have
been a bit outspoken compared to Malaysia,
Thailand and Brunei Darussalam, which chose
cautiously to take the middle stand. This
situation enabled China to expand its sway over
much of the South China Sea despite
overlapping claims. Add to that the “Asean
way” of non-interference into their respective
internal affairs.
The expectation was Asean would make a clear
joint statement after the promulgation of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration’s decision in
the case brought by the Philippines against
China. None is in the offing. Perhaps, it will not
make a joint statement at all as it seems the
arbitration decision even further raised regional
tensions undermining the Asean objective of
regional integration.
Asean’s changed security environment
There is now a new perception about security
concerns in the Asean due to the proliferation
of advanced defense technologies, recent
terrorist attacks around the world, the
phenomenon of environmental refugees as a
consequence of natural disasters, to mention a
few. In connection therewith, the security
implications of overlapping claims over parts of
the South China Sea have forced Asean
governments to rethink their long-term defense
strategies.
Be that as it may, defense planning these days
is increasingly being shaped by climate and
resource considerations. Take note that
majority of Asean countries are vulnerable to
extreme climate disturbances due to global
warming and disaster relief, which had come to
be accepted as the military’s secondary role.
The most pressing priority for Asean countries
in the changed security environment is to
improve their intelligence-gathering
capabilities. Procurement of munitions alone
would not suffice. There ought to have
improvement in the region’s intelligence
sharing and coordinating capabilities. The era
of computer technologies demands the ability to
assess, analyze and decisively act in an
emerging situation of critical importance. In
short, military equipment and weapons should
be backed up by an effective intelligence
capability.
Asean environmental security concerns
Apart from security concerns as mentioned
above, the effects of extreme weather events
caused by climate change are more evident in
Asean countries. Security implications of
severe climate change in the region include but
not limited to: (1) huge movements of people
from areas of natural disasters and internal
armed fights; (2) conflicts over basic resources
like water and food, exacerbating water scarcity
and increasing food costs and food shortage; (3)
greater incidence of malnutrition, risks of
infectious diseases outbreaks; (4) increased
demand for disaster and humanitarian relief;
and (5) intensified heat waves presenting
challenges to the military’s outdoor training and
personnel efficiency.
In the light of security concerns brought about
by global warming, what is the role of Asean
militaries in a resource stressed environment
due to climate disruption? For one, energy
supply and other imported resources by Asean
countries are overly dependent on sea lanes,
specifically the Strait of Malacca straddling
Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. That alone
is enough to have Asean countries reexamine
their maritime priorities to have resource
protection a core function of their navies.
With climate change, the demand for rapid and
coordinated military deployment in response
and recovery efforts in disastrous
17
environmental circumstances is likely to
increase, and this is a good time for Asean to
plan out and protect its future security, i.e.,
improving infrastructures, including military
installations located in or near coastlines—
taking into account advances in engineering
design techniques and technologies. Indeed, it
is better to work with nature rather than against
it.
‘Asean Agreement on Disaster
Management and Emergency Response’
Despite procurement drives and sea drills,
Asean countries are hopeful the increased
tensions resulting from the arbitral decision
could be successfully managed to avoid actual
armed conflict. Emerging lately from Asean
leaderships are possibilities for dialogue push,
reduction of threats and even the practicality of
joint management for equitable utilization of
the resources found in the disputed parts of
South China Sea, i.e., minerals, fisheries, etc.
Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio suggests
declaration of the disputed waters as an
international marine park and protected area.
Defense preparations by Asean countries on
account of the South China Sea issue will not
be put to naught, considering the worldwide
acceptance of the military’s secondary role—
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
There is much room in AADMER’s identified
priorities like environmental emergencies, early
warning and monitoring and climate change
adaptation. Specifically, the Asean military
would be most useful in enhancing disaster
preparedness for effective response and to
“Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation
and reconstruction.
Asean’s defense should shape or reshape itself
to meet the challenges in and opportunities for
humanitarian assistance vis-à-vis the region’s
new security and environmental concerns. After
all, Asean is also about convergence in
cooperation and conflict as well as disastrous
weather events.
The author is a professor, diplomat and pioneer
in the field of environmental law. He writes
independently, notably about Asean
environmental law.

The year 2009 saw the enactment of the Asean

Agreement on Disaster Management and
Emergency Response (AADMER), with the
objective to “… provide effective mechanisms
to achieve substantial reduction of disaster
losses in lives and in the social, economic and
environmental assets … and to respond to
disaster emergencies through concerted
national efforts and intensified regional and
international cooperation.” Pursuant thereto, an
Asean Coordinating Center for Humanitarian
Assistance (AHA) on disaster management was
set up in Jakarta to assist Asean member states
in preparing for and responding to disasters.

The vulnerability of Asean countries to natural

disasters has been extensively discussed in
various forums and documented scientifically.
In fact, Asean countries already experienced
horrendous floods brought about by heavy
monsoon season, super typhoons, storm surges
and tsunamis, which resulted in loss of lives and
damaged infrastructures and properties; and,
although not influenced by climate change,
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, which gave
way to internally displaced people.

18
Maritime convulsions in the
‘Asean’ seas
0 reclamation in the Spratlys which “has eroded
BY AMADO S. TOLENTINO, JR. ON MAY 25,
2015
“The sea belongs to nobody -but interests
clash over its uses.”
AT no other time in history do some Asean
countries face several maritime challenges than
during this second decade of the 21st century.
All because of the uses of the South China
(West Philippine) Sea and its resources – major
shipping routes, important fishing grounds and
abundant oil and gas reserves. But over and
above those maritime pursuits is the question of
territorial (land, water and air space) ownership
as developed in law.
“The South China Sea is a marginal sea that is
part of the Pacific Ocean, encompassing an area
from Singapore and Malacca Straits to the Strait
of Taiwan of around 3,500,000 square
kilometers.” Center of dispute is the Spratly
Islands area. China’s unilaterally declared
“nine-dash line” ownership of 90% of the South
China (West Philippine) Sea overlaps with the
competing claims of some Asean countries –
Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, the Philippines
and Vietnam. Non-Asean claimant is Taiwan.
Similarly claimed by China is Natuna Islands at
the southern tip of the South China (West
Philippine) Sea which is within Indonesia’s
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and sits on
Indonesia’s maritime borders with Brunei
Darussalam, Malaysia and Vietnam. Likewise,
China’s recent announcement of a fishing ban
to all fishing activities in Hoang Sa (Paracel)
archipelago was strongly objected to by
Vietnam. Vietnam says it has sufficient legal
and historical foundations testifying to its
sovereignty over Hoang Sa and the sovereign
rights and jurisdiction over its waters, EEZ and
continental shelf in line with the UN Law of the
Sea.
Scarborough Shoal which is well within the
Philippine EEZ is contested too. (Japan is into
a bitter territorial dispute with China over the
Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea).
At the recently concluded Summit of Heads of
States held in Malaysia, Asean leaders
expressed their concern at China’s massive
trust and confidence and may undermine,
peace, security and stability in the South China
Sea.” Asean foreign ministers were instructed
to urgently address the matter constructively via
frameworks “such as Asean-China relations.”
The Asean Chairman’s statement also (ii)
reasserted “the importance of freedom of
navigation in and over-flight in the South China
(West Philippine) Sea; (ii) called for the full
implementation of the Declaration of the
Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea;” and
(iii) demanded that the parties concerned should
resolve their differences in accordance with
international law including the Law of the Sea
treaty.
The rising tension in the disputed waters
prompted the US to warn against militarization
of the territorial disputes. Lately, satellite
imagery showed the extensive reclamation
activities for a land mass that could support an
airstrip, apron, harbor, etc. which China defined
as being within its “sovereign” territory. The
US navy sent a littoral combat ship on its first
patrol and used a P8-A Poseidon, the most
advanced surveillance aircraft in the US
arsenal, over the contested area.
Prior to this development, the US had its 6th
Naval Engagement Activity in Vietnam.
Likewise, the Philippines and US militaries
recently held its largest “Balikatan” exercises in
years with nearly 12,000 troops participating
(double the number that participated in 2014).
Coincidentally, IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly,a
leading provider of defense and security insight
and information, noted that the rest of the Asean
countries are modernizing their respective
navies as part of a wider Southeast Asian trend
towards greater maritime capabilities.
Singapore has the most potent military in
Southeast Asia. Myanmar, on the other hand,
embarked on an ambitious program of
indigenous shipbuilding backed up by naval
exercises on its own.
The territorial sovereignty issue in the South
China (West Philippine) Sea had become an
19
external sovereignty or regional security issue
with environmental security threats revolving
around exploitation of natural resources
alongside strategic ones, i.e. potential military
uses of the islands.
In all these maritime rivalries, ecological
security ought to be recognized as an
inseparable component of the concept of
sovereignty to attain regional security.
Contending states must recognize their joint
responsibility for the protection of the
transnational environment.
For the rich in marine and mineral resources but
object of overlapping ownership claims Spratly
islands group, some arguments favor
cooperation to preserve/conserve the ecological
wealth of the area rather than tackling head-on
the sovereignty issue. In this regard, serious
thought should be given to the long-standing
suggestion for an ASEAN Area of Cooperation
in the Spratlys as well as the possibilities for the
designation of an internationally protected area
status, i.e. Marine Peace Park, through
multilateral cooperative options available.
These could further elaboration of confidence
and security building measures in both the
military and civilian sectors by the adoption of
less offensive military postures in defense of
the environment.
The removal of confrontation between states is
an important precondition for the removal of
confrontation between humankind and the
natural environment considering the
fundamental necessity of securing the long-
term availability of natural resources.
The pursuit of environmental security could
become a major agent of change in international
affairs, promoting an international order more
compatible with human needs. Common
sovereignty over natural resources should be
recognized and given priority in the resolution
of conflicts and hostilities among States.
*Ambassador Amado Tolentino served as
Coordinator of UNEPs Coordinating Body for
the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA).
Asean: Waves of naval expectations
1 greater responsibility for their own maritime
BY AMADO S. TOLENTINO, JR. ON MAY 9,
2014
The geography of Asean as a regional grouping
of nations is noticeably maritime. For
archipelagos i.e., Indonesia and the Philippines,
the sea is an integral component of their
respective national profile. Brunei Darussalam,
Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam
depend to a great extent on the sea for their
trade interests. Even the less maritime-based
Myanmar and Cambodia and landlocked Lao
PDR rely on the sea for national income.
Naturally, many issues confronting the Asean
have a maritime dimension. Among these are
piracy, smuggling, human trafficking, illegal
fishing and territorial security. These issues
brought to fore the unequal levels of naval
capabilities in the region. Singapore has the
most sophisticated navy especially at maritime
surveillance and modern war-fighting
capability. The other countries are only capable
of operating within their own coastlines.
Naval cooperation, however, is present under
bilateral and sub-regional arrangements. It
consists of coordinated patrols and combined
exercises like the Malacca Strait Patrols among
Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore to counter
piracy and armed robbery at sea. There are also
combined multi-national exercises to improve
professionalism, develop exchange experiences
and draw lessons from fellow navies. Examples
are the Indonesia-Singapore, Malaysia-
Singapore and Malaysia-Thailand bilateral
naval exercises. In addition, some Asean
countries maintain defence engagement
activities/exercises with the US, UK, Australia
and New Zealand. The on-going annual joint
Philippines-US military maneuvers called
Balikatan 2014 is not only about maritime
security but humanitarian assistance and
disaster response as well possibly on account of
the experience last year of Asean member
countries coming to the rescue and relief of
Typhoon Yolanda victims in the Philippines
later than expected.
Be that as it may, IHS Jane’s Defence
International, a leading provider of defence and
security insight and information, mentioned in
one of its reports the Asean resolve to take
security. This is evidenced by, among others,
20
the Philippine Navy’s modernization plan
which includes acquisition of two new anti-
submarine helicopters, two frigates and four
patrol frigates along with a number of patrol
craft and fast transport and support vessels.
Also included are multi-purpose attack crafts
with missile launch capabilities to patrol its
territorial waters. Myanmar has acquired eight
Chinese frigates under its development of naval
industrial capabilities program in conjunction
with China . Vietnam is acquiring submarines
from Russia. The first boat Hanoi was already
handed to the People’s Army of Vietnam Navy
and a second one Ho Chi Minh City is on track
for delivery.
defence industrial complex; and collaborative
defence research and development. In all this,
there is a strong imperative for more efficiency,
more coordination and more cooperation
among the Asean navies to create the assurance
about the region’s self-defence readiness.
FROM THE PHILIPPINE AMBASSADORS’
FOUNDATION INC. (PAFI)
Mr. Tolentino is a professor and diplomat who
also does freelance journalism. His special
interests are climate justice and
environmental diplomacy.

Singapore has much significantly improved

capabilities through deliveries of Swedish and
German-made submarines and patrol vessels. It
also announced a 2014 defense budget of $9.93
billion, a 3.2 percent increase over spending in
2013. (It should also be mentioned that
Singapore has the region’s only submarine
rescue capacity).

In Brunei Darussalam, the arrival of German-

made off-shore patrol vessels considerably
enhanced the navy’s operational capabilities.
To improve training, the navy is building a
centre of excellence, due to become operational
in 2015, for seamanship warfare, weapons
handling, firefighting and damage control,
communications and engineering training.
Indonesia, on the other hand, is constructing a
submarine base in Sulawesi Island and plans to
procure up to 12 boats to augment its submarine
force. It also announced it would purchase
submarines from South Korea. Submarines,
after all, are the most cost effective way of
denying maritime territory to a hostile armada.
In fact, not every navy requires an ocean-going
submarine. Asean waters are mostly
archipelagic and shallow. Littoral patrol
submarines will do to conduct intelligence
gathering, act as a deterrent against maritime
incursions and bolster confidence.

However, a lot still has to be done. Among

these are a review of each state’s
responsiveness to defend itself against any and
all threats to national security; effective
capability pooling; development of an Asean

21
Asean sea region Sea of
constraint or sea of
environmental cooperation
0 ownership of almost all of the resource-rich
BY AMADO S. TOLENTINO, JR. ON MARCH
11, 2017
IN 1974, the United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP) spearheaded a Regional Seas
Program. It is an effort to involve countries
bordering the seas to meet the challenges of
environmental degradation in the sea, coastal
area and inland, and to link sustainable marine
resource management with development. To
that end, an action plan and legal framework are
expected to be built up.
For Southeast Asia, the regional seas identified
for the purpose of the program was the “East
Asian Seas,” referring to the Asean seas in the
South China Sea. |
UNEP’s role is not only as a funding agency but
to coordinate activities, ensuring an integrated
approach and taking care that the
interdisciplinary character of environmental
problems is not neglected. At the same time,
environmental law (national legislation and
bilateral, regional and global agreements) was
thought of to provide a firm commitment from
States to maintain the environmental quality of
the shared seas. Efforts to achieve this may
include the promotion of harmonization of
national legislations, the encouragement of the
adoption of regional agreements to foster
cooperation as well as in the implementation of
existing international agreements.
Sadly, while numerous inter-governmental
meetings resulted in the adoption by the Asean
member countries at the time (Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand)
of an Action Plan for the Protection and
Development of the Marine Environment and
Coastal Areas of the East Asian Seas Region, it
became evident by 1990 that the adoption of a
legal framework (draft Convention for the
Protection and Development of the Marine and
Coastal Areas of the East Asian Seas Region)
would not materialize due to, among others,
overlaps of competing claims of some Asian
countries in the Spratly islands area of the South
China Sea.
After 25 years, the situation has worsened,
brought about by China’s assertion of
waters of the South China Sea despite rival
claims from Asian countries. Time and again,
China has reiterated its “indisputable
sovereignty” claim over the Spratly islands and
its adjacent waters. It is even of the view that
freedom of navigation and overflight for
military aircraft does not apply to the South
China Sea because of its claimed ownership of
the area.
The US does not recognize China’s claim. Its
military aircraft have repeatedly flown over,
and its ships repeatedly sailed in, the South
China Sea, passing through islets where China
has built runways and set up military outposts.
Clearly, the US is out to assert its right to
navigation in the South China Sea through
which thousands of commercial vessels pass
carrying some $5 trillion worth of goods a year.
The US aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson, with
its supporting ships and planes, has moved into
the area. Sovereignty and freedom of
navigation are about to clash in the South China
Sea.
Actually, the South China Sea serves as a
constraint on naval and maritime cooperation in
Southeast Asia. Differences over threat
perceptions relative to China have been at the
root of increasing Asean disunity on security
issues. Enmity between Cambodia and the
Philippines at the 2012 Asean Ministerial
Meeting in Phnom Penh was emblematic of a
deeper emerging divide between continental
and maritime states comprising Asean.
In this regard, Cambodia is generally oriented
towards China, with Vietnam being the major
exception. The situation limits Asean solidarity
with respect to territorial claimants in the South
China Sea.
Clearly, the four Asean claimants to the
disputed island territory in the South China Sea
(Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Vietnam, which are all claimants with China
and Taiwan) are also divided among themselves
such that none has recognized the sovereignty
claims of the others in the region. Add to that
the aggravating territorial dispute over Sabah
22
between Malaysia and the Philippines which further the elaboration of confidence- and
spilled into a violent incursion in 2013. security-building measures in both the military
and civilian sectors by the adoption of less
The situation described above further limits the offensive military postures in defense of the
opportunity for Asean claimants to agree on environment.
common positions vis-à-vis the South China
Sea. Ambassador Amado Tolentino served as
Coordinator, UNEPs Coordinating Body for the
Be that as it may, the South China Sea also has Seas of East Asia (COBSEA). He is currently
some unifying potential within Asean. For one, the national focal point of the International
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Center for Comparative Environmental Law
stipulates that littoral states around semi- (Limoges, France) which enjoys special
enclosed seas should cooperate on natural consultative status with the United Nations
resource conservation and environmental Economic and Social Council (UN ECOSOC).
protection. In this, the Gulf of Thailand littoral
states have been successful in setting aside
boundary disputes to pursue joint development.
Cambodia and Thailand manifested sincere
cooperation despite tensions over their disputed
land territory near the Preah Vihar temple
complex (ultimately decided by the
International Court of Justice in favor of
Cambodia). Likewise, Vietnam and Malaysia’s
joint submission of their extended continental
shelf claim to the relevant UN committee in
2009, demonstrate oneness between Asean
claimants.

Asean’s effectiveness as a vehicle for

cooperation will eventually be tested by the
progress in concluding a legally binding Code
of Conduct with China over the South China
Sea. The 2002 Asean Declaration on a Code of
Conduct with China was non-binding and
ultimately failed to reduce tensions over the
disputed sea. At this point, it is not clear if the
Code of Conduct’s terms will improve on those
of the Declaration or if it will restrain the rival
claimants’ activities in the region. Nor is it clear
how the desired legally binding Code will be
enforced.
Be that as it may, for the Spratly island group,
rich in marine and mineral resources but the
object of overlapping ownership claims, there is
the argument in favor of cooperation to
preserve/conserve the ecological wealth of the
area. In this connection, it is time that serious
thought be given to the longstanding
recommendation for an Asean Area of
Cooperation in the Spratlys as well as the
possibilities for the designation of an
internationally protected area status, i.e.
International Marine Peace Park, through
multilateral options available. These could

23