Driving Forces of the Philippine Environment: A Crisis of Alignment and an Opportunity for Transformation

by Alan S. Cajes 

The environmental crisis confronting the Philippines is often framed as a problem of weak awareness, insufficient concern, or inadequate technical knowledge. This framing is misleading. The country does not suffer from environmental ignorance. Filipinos are deeply familiar with floods, storms, degraded coasts, declining fisheries, polluted air, and thinning forests. What the nation faces is a crisis of alignment—a deep and persistent mismatch between the way its political, economic, social, technological, ecological, and legal systems operate and the way natural systems function and respond to pressure. Across these domains, institutions operate according to logics that are internally rational yet collectively destructive. Political cycles are short; ecosystems recover slowly. Economic metrics count income but ignore depletion. Social necessity pushes people into fragile spaces. Technology advances faster than institutions can absorb it. Ecological buffers degrade faster than policy processes can keep up. Legal commitments outpace enforcement capacity. Environmental decline emerges not from a single failure, but from the friction between systems that never fully synchronize.

---

Click to read

Balicasag Island Marine Turtles 101

 by Alan S. Cajes

The fotos are owned by alonaboholdiversclub, nationalgeographic, and wordwilfie.

This week, I had the opportunity to take part in a field study on the Balicasag Island Tourism System with the Assessment Team, which is composed of provincial, municipal, barangay, and CENRO specialists. The activity is part of the Governance for Climate and Disaster Resilience (Gov-CDR) project, funded by Global Affairs Canada, implemented in the Philippines by Alinea, with the Advocates for Development Management and Sustainability (ADMS) as the risk lead local resource partner. I am grateful for the overwhelming support from the LGUs, especially the community stakeholders. I’m putting together some Q&A about the marine turtles on the island to satisfy my own curiosity, and I’m sharing these for anyone with similar interests. 

Question 1: Why are marine turtles important to Balicasag Island?

Answer: Marine turtles are not just animals we see while snorkeling—they are ecosystem caretakers. Green turtles keep seagrass healthy, which supports fish, protects shorelines, and stores carbon. Hawksbill turtles help keep coral reefs alive by controlling sponges that smother corals. If turtles disappear, reefs weaken, seagrass dies, fish decline, and tourism suffers. 

Q2: What turtle species are commonly seen in Balicasag?

A: Green Sea Turtle – feeds mainly on seagrass (most common). Hawksbill Turtle – feeds on sponges in coral reefs (less common but very important). Both are endangered and protected by law. 

Q3: Do turtles lay eggs on Balicasag Island?

A: There is evidence that turtles lay eggs on the island. However, Balicasag is also recognized as a feeding and resting area. This still critical because turtles need healthy feeding grounds to a) Gain energy, b) Survive long migrations, and c) Lay eggs successfully elsewhere. If Balicasag becomes unhealthy, turtles may never reach their nesting beaches. 

Q4: How does plastic pollution harm turtles?

A: Plastic hurts turtles in many ways:

·  They eat plastic, thinking it’s food, leading stomach blockage and then to slow death.

·  They get tangled in plastic ropes, nets, and packaging.

·  Plastic damages seagrass and reefs, destroying turtle food.

·  Plastics carry toxins that weaken turtles and reduce reproduction.

·  Plastic pollution makes turtles less able to survive climate stress. 

Q5: Why is plastic a climate problem too?

A: Because plastic:

·  Worsens the effects of storms and flooding (it spreads everywhere after typhoons)

·  Weakens ecosystems that protect us from storm surge

·  Makes recovery after disasters slower and more expensive

·  Plastic is a climate risk multiplier. 

Q6: What is Crown-of-Thorns Starfish (COTS), and why is it a problem?

A: COTS are starfish that eat live coral. When they become too many (outbreaks), they can:

·  Destroy large areas of reef

·  Reduce fish and turtle habitat

·  Make reefs less attractive for tourism

·  They don’t attack turtles directly—but they destroy the turtles’ environment. 

Q7: How do COTS outbreaks happen?

A: They increase when:

·  Water becomes nutrient-rich (from waste, sewage, runoff)

·  Reefs are weakened by heat stress and bleaching

·  Natural predators are removed due to overfishing 

Q8: Who eats COTS in nature?

A: Natural predators include:

·  Giant Triton Snail (very important but rare)

·  Large reef fish (wrasse, triggerfish, pufferfish)

When these predators are protected, COTS outbreaks are less severe. 

Q9: How does protecting turtles help people too?

A: Protecting turtles means:

· More fish and healthier reefs

· Stronger protection from waves and storms

· Stable tourism income (especially for youth and women)

· Cleaner seas and safer snorkeling

Healthy turtles = healthy community.

Q10: What can we do to protect turtles?

A: You can make a real difference by:

· Reducing plastic

o   Refuse single-use plastics

o   Bring reusable bottles and containers

o   Help with cleanups (especially after storms)

· Being responsible in the sea

o   Don’t touch turtles

o   Keep distance (no chasing or blocking)

o   Avoid standing on corals or seagrass

· Supporting reef health

o   Respect no-take zones

o   Report COTS sightings to authorities

o   Support reef and seagrass restoration

· Speaking up

o   Educate tourists and peers

o   Support women-led and youth-led conservation groups

o   Participate in barangay and island planning activities 

Q11: Why are turtles called “climate guardians”?

A: Because turtles help protect:

·   Seagrass, which stores carbon

·   Reefs, which reduce storm damage

·   Food systems, which support island life

When turtles are healthy, the island is more resilient to climate change. Saving turtles is not just about wildlife. It’s about protecting your island, your future livelihood, and your resilience to climate change. (Dr. Alan Salces Cajes, freelance researcher, trainer and teacher; chair and co-founder, Advocates for Development Management Sustainability, Inc.)

Natura non nisi parendo vincitur (Nature is not conquered except by being obeyed)

by Alan S. Cajes, PhD

I first encountered the powerful words, “Nature, to be commanded, must first be obeyed,” in 1995. The philosopher Francis Bacon wrote them centuries ago, but they were brought to life for me by two inspiring mentors: Dr. Delfin Ganapin Jr. and Atty. Antonio Oposa Jr. They taught me that this isn't a call for passive surrender, but for wise and respectful engagement. Atty. Oposa, in particular, cleverly framed "LAW" as Land, Air, and Water—the very elements whose rules we must follow.

This wisdom has become my guiding lens for understanding the climate crisis. The escalating disasters, the rising seas, and the desperate vulnerability we see worldwide are not random tragedies. They are the direct consequence of our failure to obey nature.

What does it mean to “obey” nature? It means to understand and respect its fundamental, non-negotiable laws. For generations, modern civilization has done the opposite.

• We have ignored the carbon cycle, treating the thin veil of our atmosphere as an infinite dump for our greenhouse gases. We commanded the power of industry without obeying the planet's delicate balance.
• We have dismantled our life-support systems, clearing forests, paving over wetlands, and silencing the natural world.
• We commanded the land for profit and expansion without obeying the crucial roles these ecosystems play in regulating our climate, absorbing floods, and guarding our shores.

The result? The furious hurricanes, the punishing droughts, the devastating floods—these are not mere “bad weather.” They are a predictable verdict on our collective disobedience.

Our disobedience has created a world where many communities are tragically unequipped to cope.

1. Low Adaptive Capacity: Stuck in the Past - “Adaptive capacity” is the ability to adjust to change. Many communities, through no fault of their own, have a low capacity to adapt. They are trying to survive in a new climate with old tools.

Obeying now means accepting a new normal. The stable climate of the past is gone. Adapting requires new ways of farming, managing water, and building our cities.

A painful gap exists between need and ability. Impoverished communities, often due to poverty or a lack of support, cannot make these changes. They are forced to plant seeds that wither in new droughts or live in homes that cannot withstand new storms. Their inability to "obey" the new rules of nature leaves them heartbreakingly vulnerable.

2. High Sensitivity: Where Disobedience Hits Hardest -- “Sensitivity” is about how hard a place is hit by climate changes. The most sensitive areas on Earth are paying the highest price for a crisis they did not create. 

• Small Island Nations: Their very existence is threatened by rising seas—a direct result of the world’s failure to obey the carbon cycle.
• Arid Regions: Places already living on the edge of water scarcity are being pushed into desertification and famine by our disrupted climate.
• Coastal Cities: Their vulnerability to storms is a product of building vast populations in naturally dynamic zones—an attempt to command geography without obeying its inherent risks.

Bacon’s quote is not a message of despair, but a blueprint for empowerment. The path forward requires us to return to obedience as the very foundation of a new, wiser form of command. 

1. Obey the Science. - We must base our policies, economies, and lives on the unequivocal findings of climate science, not on short-term convenience or political denial.

2. Obey by Working With Nature. - Our adaptation must be a collaboration, not a confrontation.

• Command flood control by obeying the floodplain—restoring wetlands and mangroves, which are nature’s resilient infrastructure.
• Command food security by obeying the soil—embracing regenerative agriculture and drought-resistant crops.
• Command coastal protection by obeying the ocean—building resilient communities, not just futile concrete walls against the rising tide.

3. Build Capacity as an Act of Obedience. - Helping vulnerable regions adapt is how we help them obey the new reality. This means providing climate-resilient technology, strengthening governance, and diversifying livelihoods so that a single failed harvest does not spell disaster.

The suffering in the world's most vulnerable regions is a profound lesson in cause and effect. We prioritized domination over respect, and we are now facing the consequences. 

Bacon’s wisdom is a timeless warning: our power is not absolute. It is a privilege granted by nature itself. True security and a thriving future will not be won by trying to control an increasingly volatile system we broke. It will be earned through humility—a steadfast commitment to observe, to understand, and finally, to respect the planetary laws we have ignored for too long. 

Only by first learning to obey the wind and the waves can we ever hope to truly command a safe and stable future.

About the Quote and Its Deeper Roots

The Original Source: The full quote is from Francis Bacon's Novum Organum (1620): "Now the empire of man over things is founded on the arts and sciences alone, for nature is only to be commanded by obeying her." This statement helped launch the scientific revolution. Bacon’s message was clear:

• "Must first be obeyed": To control nature, we must humbly learn its rules through observation and experiment.
• "To be commanded": Only after understanding these laws can we use that knowledge to create technology and improve human life.

In short, true power comes from respectfully understanding how nature works. 

While Bacon coined the famous phrase, the idea is ancient. The Stoic philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome, like Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC – AD 65), expressed a similar concept. In his work De Beneficiis (On Benefits), he wrote, "It is to be led not by obeying but by following." He argued that we achieve our ends by understanding and aligning with the rational order of the universe, not by fighting it.

Bacon brilliantly repurposed this ancient philosophical insight, transforming it into the founding motto for modern science. The core truth remains: power is born from partnership with nature, not from conquest over it.

Why Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Matters for Protected Areas

by Alan Salces Cajes, PhD

In recent months, numerous business establishments in Batuan, Bohol—including tourist inns, cafés, and small resorts—have received Notices of Violation (NOVs) from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for operating without the required Environmental Compliance Certificates (ECCs) under the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System. This situation has underscored the need for better understanding of environmental regulations among local enterprises and the importance of integrating compliance into municipal governance. This paper seeks to put this issue into context by explaining the value of the EIA process as both a legal requirement and a tool for sustainable, hazard-resilient development in a municipality exposed to flooding, landslides, and ground shaking.

The paper proposes practical solutions to address the widespread non-compliance. It recommends that instead of each establishment pursuing separate ECCs, Batuan’s clustered tourism businesses adopt a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) approach—preparing a shared environmental study and management plan coordinated by the Municipal Government through the MENRO, in partnership with EMB Region VII and local business associations. This collective compliance model would reduce costs, simplify monitoring, and strengthen environmental governance, transforming the current challenge into an opportunity for green, inclusive, and sustainable tourism development in Batuan.

Link to the article

Geotourism and the Bohol Island Geopark

by Alan S. Cajes, PhD

Photo taken from https://geopark.bohol.gov.ph/en/geosites/

This article basically attempts to answer the question: what form of tourism is appropriate for the Bohol Island UNESCO Global Geopark?

On 24 May 2023, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Executive Board designated Bohol Island as the first UNESCO Global Geopark of the Philippines, thanks to the efforts of the various proponents and stakeholders. A UNESCO Global Geopark is a single, unified geographical area “where sites and landscapes of international geological significance are managed with a holistic concept of protection, education and sustainable development (UNESCO)”. 

In the case of the Bohol Island UNESCO Global Geopark, it covers “8808 square kilometers of land and surrounding lush marine protected areas (UNESCO)”. The covered geosites include the following: caves, sinkholes and cone karst, including the Chocolate Hills; Danajon Double Barrier Reef; uplifted marine terrace in Maribojoc and Loon; rupture site in Inabanga; Alicia Schist; springs; waterfalls, etc.

For the geosites, the appropriate form of tourism is geotourism, a form of tourism “that sustains or enhances the distinctive geographical character of a place—its environment, heritage, aesthetics, culture, and the well-being of its residents (National Geographic). Geotourism adheres to 13 principles (see below), including the following: adherence to the principles of the World Tourism Organization’s Global Code of Ethics for Tourism and the principles of the Cultural Tourism Charter established by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). 

Article 2.4-2.5 of the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism are particularly instructive:

• Article 2.4. Tourism infrastructure should be designed and tourism activities programmed in such a way as to protect the natural heritage composed of ecosystems and biodiversity and to preserve endangered species of wildlife; the stakeholders in tourism development, and especially professionals, should agree to the imposition of limitations or constraints on their activities when these are exercised in particularly sensitive areas: desert, polar or high mountain regions, coastal areas, tropical forests or wetlands, propitious to the creation of nature reserves or protected areas;
• Article 2.5. Nature tourism and ecotourism are recognized as being particularly conducive to enriching and enhancing the standing of tourism, provided they respect the natural heritage and local populations and are in keeping with the carrying capacity of the sites

A relevant ICOMOS principle states: “In any case, with the future in mind, it is the respect of the world, cultural and natural heritage which must take precedence over any other considerations however justified these may be from a social, political or economic point of view.”

Given the above principles, it is imperative that a third party evaluation study be done (Principle 13) to determine the state of the geotourism areas and destinations, as well as propose the strategies or ways forward. Lest we forget, the UNESCO Global Geoparks have four years before a thorough re-examination will be done. The review will determine if the UNESCO Global Geopark:

• Still fulfills the criteria and its status will be extended to another 4 years (green card);
• No longer fulfills the criteria and appropriate steps must be undertaken in a period of 2 years (yellow card);
• Will lose its status as a UNESCO Global Geopark should it fails to fulfill the criteria within 2 years after getting a yellow card (red card).

 Other possible immediate actions:

1. Ensure that the Protected Area Management Board is functional and meets regularly;
2. Establish some kind of multisectoral Geotourism Council to include the concerned residents, tourist associations, tour operators, tourism industry representatives, etc. to forge consensus on allowable, prohibited or restorative acts in the covered areas;
3. Tourism industry to pursue industry self-regulation to prevent violations from its industry players;
4. LGUs and concerned agencies to inform, educate and communicate to the stakeholders the honors, benefits and accountabilities of being a UNESCO Global Geopark, as well as properly enforce their respective mandates;
5. Identify the geosites (e.g., which hills are part of the Chocolate Hills), put up easy to spot and read billboards or markings, and engage the affected stakeholders in a “Binol-anon” way of conversation;
6. For the Provincial Government of Bohol, consider re-certification under the ISO 14000 (Environmental Management System) to encourage tourist establishments to conform or get certified under relevant ISO standards, such as ISO 18065:2015 for tourism and related services.

 The Geotourism Principles

1. Integrity of a Place - Enhance the geographical character of the destination by developing and improving it in ways distinctive to the locale. Encourage market differentiation and cultural pride in ways that are reflective of natural and cultural heritage.

2. International Codes - Adhere to the principles embodied in the World Tourism Organization’s Global Code of Ethics for Tourism and the principles of the Cultural Tourism Charter established by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).

3. Community Involvement - Base tourism on community resources to the extent possible, encouraging local small businesses and civic groups to build partnerships to promote and provide a distinctive, honest visitor experience and market their locales effectively. Help businesses develop approaches to tourism that build on the area’s nature, history, and culture, including food and drink, artisanship, performance arts, and the like.

4. Community Benefit - Encourage micro- to medium-size enterprises and tourism business strategies that emphasize economic and social benefits to involved communities, especially poverty alleviation, with clear communication of the destination stewardship policies required to maintain those benefits.

5. Tourist Satisfaction - Ensure that satisfied, excited geotravelers bring new vacation stories home and send friends off to experience the same thing, thus providing continuing demand for the destination.

6. Conservation of Resources - Encourage businesses to minimize water pollution, solid waste, energy consumption, water usage, landscaping chemicals, and overly bright nighttime lighting. Advertise these measures in a way that attracts the large, environmentally sympathetic tourist market.

7. Protection and Enhancement of Destination Appeal - Encourage the destination to sustain natural habitats, heritage sites, aesthetic appeal, and local culture. Prevent degradation by keeping the volume of tourists within maximum acceptable limits. Seek business models that can operate profitably within those limits. Use persuasion, incentives, and legal enforcement as needed.

8. Planning - Recognize and respect immediate economic need without sacrificing long-term character and the geotourism potential of the destination. Where tourism attracts in-migration of workers, develop new communities that themselves constitute a destination enhancement. Strive to diversify the economy and limit population influx to sustainable levels. Adopt public strategies for mitigating practices that are incompatible with geotourism and damaging to the image of the destination.

9. Land Use - Anticipate development pressures and apply techniques to prevent undesired overdevelopment and degradation. Contain resort and vacation-home sprawl, especially on coasts and islands, so as to retain a diversity of natural and scenic environments and ensure continued resident access to waterfronts. Encourage major self-contained tourism attractions, such as large-scale theme parks and convention centers unrelated to character of place, to be sited in needier locations with no significant ecological, scenic, or cultural assets.

10. Market Diversity - Encourage a full range of appropriate food and lodging facilities, so as to appeal to the entire demographic spectrum of the geotourism market and so maximize economic resiliency over both the short and long term.

11. Interactive Interpretation - Engage both visitors and hosts in learning about the place. Encourage residents to show off the natural and cultural heritage of their communities, so that tourists gain a richer experience and residents develop pride in their locales.

12. Market Selectivity - Encourage growth in tourism market segments most likely to appreciate, respect, and disseminate information about the distinctive assets of the locale.

13. Evaluation - Establish an evaluation process to be conducted on a regular basis by an independent panel representing all stakeholders' interests, and publicize evaluation results.

Disclosure: the author is a Bol-anon by consanguinity, a long time resident of Batuan in Bohol, an associate member of the National Geographic and the International Ecotourism Society, and not a recipient of any funding or support in writing this article.

Worldviews, Life Expressions and Social Determinants: A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Study

Kindle Edition

With the Philippines and the state of its ecosystems as the setting, I explore in this book the relationship between worldviews -- people’s perceptions of the world, in general, and nature or environment, in particular -- and lived experiences or life expressions. Later on, I added another dimension -- the social determinants. Basically, I wanted to know if people's life experiences are consistent with their worldviews, if people want an alignment of their worldviews and life expressions, and what would it take to make such an alignment possible.

This book used hermeneutic phenomenology as methodology involving seven co-researchers, who have diverse backgrounds, professions, and occupations. The methods generally include gathering and documenting lived experiences, and reflective reading of the narratives. The eidetic insight states that worldviews, life expressions, and social determinants are interrelated. The formation of worldviews is partly a product of social determinants and influenced by the lived experiences. The lived experiences or life expressions are also influenced by the worldviews and the social determinants. In addition, the social determinants can be modified, the process of which is influenced by the worldviews and life expressions. The study points out that people have varied worldviews, but there are common grounds. These worldviews are generally composite. These can be replaced as human beings gain more knowledge and experiences. Human beings seek ways to live out their respective worldviews. In the process of living out their respective worldviews, conflicts could occur. That is why there is a need for society to create the conditions that will foster the formation of integrative worldviews, which have beneficial impacts to us human beings and to our home, Planet Earth.

Sustainable Development: Perspective from the Philippines

Click here

From Domination to Stewardship: A Change in World View

By Alan S. Cajes, PhD[1]

One of the passages in the Bible that has perturbed me as a Christian Catholic and as someone whose work involves environmental management states: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."[2]

When I was younger, this passage is alright because I have been taught in school that “man” is the apex of creation. As I gain more experience in undertaking environment-related teaching and research tasks, however, this biblical decree started to trouble me. Did God really command that we, human beings, subdue (to bring somebody/something under control, especially by using force)[3] our planet and have dominion (authority to rule; control)[4] over the non-human forms of life? If yes, is this a reason why we have the propensity to cause damage to our environment?

The usual answer that I get from persons I asked about my concern is that we need to understand the context of the passage and that the text should not be taken literally. This answer did not put a closure to what has been my concern for quite some time – to understand the meaning and implication of the biblical passage.

As it turned out, there are others who find the passage problematic. Thomas Berry, in a paper that he read at Harvard University said:

“The university can be considered as one of the four basic establishments that determine human life in its more significant functioning. These four are the government, the church, the university and the commercial-industrial corporation - the political, religious, intellectual and economic establishments… They all presume a radical discontinuity between the non-human and the human with all the rights given to the human to exploit the non-human.”[5]

Berry did not say that the Church committed an error because of its interpretation of Genesis 1:28. He also did not criticize the wording of the passage. He said that “the creation story in Genesis 1 is the story of the victory of the Heavenly Father God over the Mother Earth God. The first commandment, therefore, is ‘Thou shalt have no Mother Earth God.’”[6] This was Berry’s response to the questions asked by Daniel Spencer, who “was struggling to make sense of the Genesis creation accounts’ themes of human dominion and stewardship in light of my geological understandings of Earth’s origins and my concerns for how dominion interpreted as domination had contributed to massive ecological degradation.”[7]

In 1966, Lynn White delivered a lecture entitled “The Historic Roots of Our Ecological Crisis” at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. White claimed that the roots of the ecological crisis could be linked to the Judaeo-Christian theology, which separated humans from nature and then made humans dominate nature. He said:

“Christianity inherited from Judaism not only a concept of time as nonrepetitive and linear but also a striking story of creation. By gradual stages a loving and all- powerful God had created light and darkness, the heavenly bodies, the earth and all its plants, animals, birds, and fishes. Finally, God had created Adam and, as an afterthought, Eve to keep man from being lonely. Man named all the animals, thus establishing his dominance over them. God planned all of this explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes.”[8]

White pointed out that modern Western science, which enabled humans to exploit nature, “was cast in a matrix of Christian theology” and that the impetus for the “dynamism of religious devotion” was “shaped by the Judeo-Christian dogma of creation.” He said that the “implications of Christianity for the conquest of nature would emerge more easily in the Western atmosphere… The Christian dogma of creation, which is found in the first clause of all the Creeds, has another meaning for our comprehension of today's ecologic crisis.”[9]

In 1972, Arnold Toynbee wrote “The Religious Background of the Present Environmental Crisis’ stating that the solution to the environmental problems is possible if humans revert from the Weltanschauung[10] of monotheism to the Weltanschauung of pantheism, an older and universal world view. He asserted that the present-day assault against nature is due to the influence of a religious cause that gave rise to monotheism. He claimed that the command to have dominion over other creatures in Genesis 1:28 allowed the directed humans to exploit nature. In a 1973 article, he said:

This doctrine is enunciated in one sentence in the Bible. “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis I, 28)… Genesis I: 28 gave the license; Genesis III: 19 provided the incentive. In 1663, this read like a blessing on the wealth of Abraham in children and livestock; in 1973, it reads like a license for the population explosion and like both a license and an incentive for mechanization and pollution.”[11]

In 1975, John Passmore wrote “Attitudes to Nature” saying that the predatory attitude against nature is present in the writings of St. Paul. To Passmore, the Graeco-Christian arrogance became Christianity’s official position until recent times. This attitude of Passmore is based on his reading of Romans 8:21 “that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God (New International Version).” Passmore takes on the position that Paul considers creation as merely an instrument for human liberation.

A year before White’s classic paper, Pope Paul VI promulgated Guadium et Spes  (Joy and Hope"), the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, on December 7, 1965. The document stated:

“For man, created to God's image, received a mandate to subject to himself the earth and all it contains, and to govern the world with justice and holiness; a mandate to relate himself and the totality of things to Him Who was to be acknowledged as the Lord and Creator of all. Thus, by the subjection of all things to man, the name of God would be wonderful in all the earth.”[12]

This declaration did not sit well with some people, who were concerned about the anthropocentric slant of this passage. Emeka Obiezu expressed disappointment that “…the Second Vatican Council continued this apparent arrogant and dominion theme…that excludes any ecological concern.”[13] Joseph Xavier was cautious: “It may not be an exaggeration to say that there is an ‘anthropological concentration’ in Gaudium et Spes.”[14] He explained, however, that this “anthropological orientation… is very important for fundamental theology today.”[15] Thirty years later, the same theme was noted by Larry Rasmussen in John Paul II’s encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life). It states:

“Everything in creation is ordered to man and everything is made subject to him: "Fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over ... every living thing" (1:28); this is God's command to the man and the woman... We see here a clear affirmation of the primacy of man over things; these are made subject to him and entrusted to his responsible care, whereas for no reason can he be made subject to other men and almost reduced to the level of a thing.”[16]

The issue that I am trying to resolve is whether the passage in Genesis 1:28, specifically the terms “subdue” and “dominion”, can be interpreted as a license to destroy the natural environment. As has been shown earlier, there are scholars who consider the anthropocentric slant of the passage as the root cause of the current ecological crisis, and that the Catholic Church has been reluctant to give up such anthropological orientation. Despite this reluctance, it should be pointed out that the Catholic Church has always placed Genesis 1:28 in the context that humans are beings created in the image of God, thus humans have the responsibility to take care of the Earth as the “co-operator with God in the work of creation.”[17]

In 2015, the Church finally addressed the issue squarely when Pope Francis issued an encyclical, "Laudato si', mi Signore," or "Praise be to you, my Lord. It states:

“We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us. This allows us to respond to the charge that Judaeo-Christian thinking, on the basis of the Genesis account which grants man “dominion” over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), has encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church. Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures. The biblical texts are to be read in their context, with an appropriate hermeneutic, recognizing that they tell us to “till and keep” the garden of the world (cf. Gen 2:15). “Tilling” refers to cultivating, ploughing or working, while “keeping” means caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving. This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature. Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations. “The earth is the Lord’s” (Ps 24:1); to him belongs “the earth with all that is within it” (Dt 10:14). Thus God rejects every claim to absolute ownership: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me” (Lev 25:23).”[18]

Pope Francis emphasizes that human dominion “over the universe should be understood more properly in the sense of responsible stewardship.”[19] He explains, “Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble.” This is possible, he said, quoting John Paul II’s Cenesimus Annus, because “instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature.”[20]

Incidentally, the Hebrew word khabash (subdue) is used when one is dealing with a hostile enemy. When used in relation to the environment, it could mean that “we subdue the earth because without such subjugation the harshness of nature would yield death for us rather than life.”[21] In this sense, “subdue” becomes synonymous with an Old English word tammian (Latin, domare; Greek, daman) which means to tame or to make nature “not afraid of people, and used to living with them.”[22] On the other hand, the Hebrew word radah (dominion) is used in the royal sense (kings have dominion over their subjects and territories). It means “to have dominion, rule, dominate”[23] or “authority to rule; control.”[24] The same word, however, is used in the Scriptures to mean something else:

· “You shall not rule over him with severity;”[25]

· “…of Israel, you shall not rule with severity;”[26]

· “And the upright shall rule over them in the morning;”[27]

· “May he also rule from sea to sea.”[28]

Of particular interest is Psalm 72 (A Psalm of Solomon) entitled “The Reign of the Righteous King.” It depicts a ruler (one who has dominion) as righteous, just, and savior.[29] Thus dominion can be taken in a positive sense or what Pope Francis calls “stewardship” because the Earth belongs to God and we are the stewards of God’s creation.

The rise of Pope Francis is, in a way, a fulfillment of Lynn White’s proposal that was included in his 1966 paper. He said:

“Possibly we should ponder the greatest radical in Christian history since Christ: Saint Francis of Assisi…Francis tried to depose man from his monarchy over creation and set up a democracy of all God's creatures.

…The greatest spiritual revolutionary in Western history, Saint Francis, proposed what he thought was an alternative Christian view of nature and man's relation to it; he tried to substitute the idea of the equality of all creatures, including man, for the idea of man's limitless rule of creation. He failed….Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not. We must rethink and refeel our nature and destiny. The profoundly religious, but heretical, sense of the primitive Franciscans for the spiritual autonomy of all parts of nature may point a direction. I propose Francis as a patron saint for ecologists.”[30]

At last, a new version of Saint Francis put an end to the controversy. I am pleased to be a witness of this unfolding. Toynbee did say that “only a change in world view[31] could heal the planet.”[32] This new world view brought about by the new interpretation of the Genesis 1:28 approximates what Berry calls the ecozoic era or “the geologic era that Earth is entering – when humans live in a mutually enhancing relationship with Earth and the Earth community.”[33] As Berry said:

"In this new context every component of the Earth community would have its rights in accord with the proper mode of its being and its functional role. In each case the basic rights would be for habitat and the opportunity of each being to fulfill its role in the natural systems to which it belongs. Humans would be obliged to respect these rights." [34]

---

[1] Associate Member, National Research Council of the Philippines; Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science

[2] Genesis 1:27 “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them;” 1:28 God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth." (NAB).

[3] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/subdue.

[4] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/dominion?q=dominion.

[5] Thomas Berry, "The University: Its Response to the Ecological Crisis", a paper delivered before the Divinity School and the University Committee on Environment at Harvard University.

[6] Quoted by Daniel T. Spencer in “Thomas Berry: An Overview of His Work,” http://thomasberry.org/assets/attachments/Worldviews_ThomasBerryReviewEssay_Spencer_2017.pdf.

[7] Daniel T. Spencer, “Thomas Berry: An Overview of His Work.”

[8] Lynn White, “The Historic Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” https://www.cmu.ca/faculty/gmatties/lynnwhiterootsofcrisis.pdf

[9] Lynn White,  “The Historic Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.”

[10] “A particular philosophy or view of life,” https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/weltanschauung?q=weltanschauung.

[11] Arnold Toynbee, “The Genesis of Pollution,” The New York Times (September 16, 1973).

[12] Guadium et Spes: 34. This passage cites as references Gen. 1:26-27; 9:3; Wis. 9:3; Ps. 8:7 and 10.

[13] Emeka Christian Obiezu, Towards a Politics of Compassion: Socio-Political Dimensions of Christian Responses to Suffering (AuthorHouse: August 14, 2008.

[14] Joseph Xavier, “Theological Anthropology of ‘Gaudium et Spes’ and Fundamental Theology,” Gregorianum Vol. 91, no. 1 (2010): 124-136.

[15] Ibid., p. 133.

[16] Evangelium Vitae: 34.

[17] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus: 37, http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html.

[18] Laudato si': 67.

[19] LS: 116; Love for Creation. An Asian Response to the Ecological Crisis, Declaration of the Colloquium sponsored by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (Tagaytay, 31 January-5 February 1993), 3.3.2.

[20] John Paul II, Centesimus Annus.

[21] Genesis 1:28, To “Subdue” and “Have Dominion Over” Creation, https://christopherbrown.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/genesis-128-to-subdue-and-have-dominion-over-creation/. See also https://biblehub.com/str/hebrew.

[22] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/tame_1?q=tame.

[23] https://biblehub.com/str/hebrew/7287.htm.

[24] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/dominion?q=dominion.

[25] Leviticus 25:43 (NAS).

[26] Leviticus 25:46 (NAS).

[27] Psalm 49:14 (NAS).

[28] Psalm 72:8 (NAS).

[29] Psalm 72: 1-4 .

[30] Lynn White, “The Historic Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.”

[31] In simple terms, it refers to “a person’s way of thinking about and understanding life, which depends on their beliefs and attitudes”, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/world-view?q=world+view.

[32] Arnold Toynbee, “The Genesis of Pollution.”

[33] What does Ecozoic mean?, https://ecozoictimes.com/what-is-the-ecozoic/what-does-ecozoic-mean/.

[34] Thomas Berry, “The Great Work: Our Way into the Future.”(Bell Tower: New York, 1999), 80.