EARLIER this week, as part of a meeting between President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and key agencies to discuss the Philippines' climate change response plans, the Presidential Communications Office disclosed that it has received marching orders to "conduct an aggressive information dissemination campaign" to raise public awareness on the adaptation plan, as well as the risks posed by the changing climate.
This is welcome news, as public information and education about climate change adaptation and mitigation is an important aspect of policy that has not been given the attention it requires.
The country will not achieve any of its climate change response objectives without the support and participation of the public, so it is critical that the "aggressive information dissemination campaign" aims much higher than mere "awareness."
The conference in Malacañang was called to address the country's Nationally Determined Contribution Implementation Plan (NDCIP) 2023-2030 and the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) 2023-2050. The way these two important plans are described in the official statement from the Palace are a perfect illustration of one of the problems the public information campaign must solve immediately if it hopes to accomplish anything.
According to the official news release, as published by the Philippine New Agency and other outlets, "The NAP aims to steadily reduce climate-related loss and damage, as well as build the country's adaptive capacity toward transformative adaptation, resilience and sustainable economic development by 2050.
The NDCIP, on the other hand, is the Philippines' commitment to the Paris Agreement which aims to bring about sustainable industrial development; eradication of poverty and provision of basic needs; securing social and climate justice; and energy security."
Not to sound conceited, but all of us here at The Manila Times are college-educated communicators with a high level of practical competence in working with the English language, and even we have difficulty sorting out exactly what the NDCIP and NAP are from those descriptions. If that is what is presented to people who need to do something to help carry out those plans — local government officials, business owners, ordinary citizens — it is going to be regarded as confusing at best, or worse, dismissed as a meaningless word salad.
For the sake of clarification, these two plans are part of the Philippines' commitment under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. The NDCIP addresses greenhouse gas emissions reductions, while the NAP is a blueprint for helping communities and the nation as a whole manage the risks from unavoidable climate change effects, such as changing weather patterns and rising sea levels.
Remember, the essential goal of the information campaign is to encourage people to accept and believe in the government's policy, and to participate in carrying it out, in whatever capacity is relevant to them. In order for them to do so, the people need to understand what the government is trying to accomplish, why it is important and what steps need to be taken to carry it out. Simple language, using terms that people can relate to their own experiences, is the way to achieve that.
Another way to "get the message across" is to connect the policy to concrete action. As just one example, enforcement of Republic Act 9003, or the "Solid Waste Act of 2001," has for the past 20-plus years been a source of concern due to inconsistent application. If the relevant agencies, primarily the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of the Interior and Local Government, and local government units simply focus on addressing the enforcement shortcomings, such as the still-widespread practices of burning of waste, illegal dumping and lack of waste segregation, they are already carrying out aspects of both the NDCIP and NAP, without any news rules or laws needing to be created.
Then, when a citizen or local official wonders what the government means with a statement such as, "the NAP aims to steadily reduce climate-related loss and damage," the government can point to its improved enforcement efforts as a tangible example. People are not dumb, and the vast majority truly do not wish to harm the environment they live in, but the vast majority also do not speak the language of institutions and bureaucracy. If the government wants their help, it should speak to them in a language they understand.
Read The Rest at :
