Plans for ‘eco-luxury and tourism’ destination surrounding Bugsuk Airport

A plan for an ‘eco-luxury and tourism project’ encompassing nearly half of Bugsuk Island is the latest of a series of projects triggering a 50-year struggle for recognition of ancestral land and water rights.

Satellite imagery of Bugsuk Island, Balabac municipality, Palawan province, 27th October 2024. Bugsuk Airport and other facilites are indicated.

In 1974 indigenous Pala’wan, Molbog and Cagayanin people were expelled from Bugsuk Island, part of the Balabac Municipality off the southern tip of Palawan, the westernmost point in the Philippines. An article by Indigenous Peoples’ Rights International (IPRI), based on an interview with Jomly Callon, President of the Sambilog-Balik Bugsuk Movement (Association of Indigenous Peoples and Small Fishers from the Southernmost Tip of Palawan), an indigenous people’s group, outlines a 50-year history marked by projects, facilitated by a series of policy decisions, taking the place of agricultural and fishing livelihoods. The land was awarded to Danding Cojuangco, Chief Executive of San Miguel Corporation (SMC), one of the Philippines’ largest business and industrial conglomerates, who established a nursery for hybrid coconut trees. In 1979 Cojuangco, in partnership with a French businessman, Jacques Branellec, formed the Jewelmer International Corporation which established a pearl farm in ancestral waters. Sambilog was formed in the year 2000 in response to land grabbing and reducing access to fishing grounds, working to gain recognition of ancestral land and water rights. They made an application for a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) which has still not been approved by the government. Indigenous people’s access to traditional fishing grounds was eroded further in 2005 when, without consulting indigenous people, the Balabac municipality was declared a ‘protected marine eco-region’, prohibiting indigenous people from fishing in their traditional fishing grounds. In 2014, following Sambilog protests in Manila calling for return of their lands through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER) the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued a Notice of Coverage over agricultural lands for distribution to the people of Bugsuk Island. But DAR did not implement its decision to return the land to those affected by displacement.

After Cojuangco’s death in 2020 Ramon Ang took up the role of CEO of SMC. Bugsuk Airport (also referred to as Bonbon Airport) was built by SMC to support the coconut plantation. In February 2022 Jose Alvarez, Governor of Palawan, speaking about Bugsuk Airport and a Philippine Air Force (PAF) facility in Barangay Catagupan being ‘crucial to the transformation of Palawan’s southernmost region as a new tourist haven‘, said the coconut plantation had failed but that Bugsuk Airport was still under development with the runway already operational and used by people travelling to Balabac. Satellite imagery of Bugsuk island shows Bugsuk Airport, an airstrip near the southern tip of the island that is being developed for the PAF and a helipad. In 2023 the DAR revoked the Notice of Coverage that was issued in 2014 and under which the land would be returned to its original owners. The reason given for the cancellation was that the area is unsuitable for agriculture. Callon, countered this, explaining that residents were cultivating the land, growing many types of vegetables and fruit trees.

Environmental Impact Statement and Master Plan for resort taking up half the island

Bricktree Properties Inc., a subsidiary of SMC, plans to construct various so-called ‘eco’ tourism facilities surrounding Bugsuk Airport. Bricktree’s presentation at a public scoping event held in Bugsuk Community Center, Bugsuk Island on 25th May 2023 contains a timeframe for 2023-24 which includes access road clearing and construction, tree cutting, land clearing, construction of campsites, perimeter fencing and soil compaction. A number of ‘identified environmental impacts’ includes ‘Land tenurial issues and incompatibility with existing land use’, ‘Potential lost (sic) of fish related livelihood and conflict on the access/navigation of locals’ along with potential changes in water quality, water competition and dust from land clearance. The Environmental Impact Statement Summary for the Proposed Bugsuk Island Eco-Tourism Development Project, prepared for Bricktree, contains maps of the proposed site and a Proposed Master Plan comprising serveral zones taking up much of the south of the island along with a port on the northern tip.

Proposed Master Plan including airport and zones for eco-tourism, forest tourism, coastal resort, industrial, commerical, residential, recreation, port facilities, agriculture and a road network. Screengrab from Environmental Impact Statement Summary, Proposed Bugsuk Island Eco-Tourism Development Project, Bricktree Properties Inc.

The Environmental Impact Statement Summary states ‘The Proposed Project aims to be an eco-luxury leisure and tourism destination governed by sustainable development principles’. A project schedule from 2023 to 2038 is indicated. The project location spans two barangays (districts) – Bugsuk and Sebaring – and the estimated total project land area is 5,567.54 hectares (nearly half of the 11,900 hectare island). Supporting infrastructure plans include power generator, solar farm, water supply primarily from Bugsuk River Lagoon, wastewater and sewage management, telecommunications, materials recovery facility, landfill and beach front maintenance on the Bonbon beach shoreline. The area earmarked for structures, roads and other facilities is 1,141.84 hectares, with the remaining 4.425.7 hectares consisting of areas for future development, open spaces and leasable space. A map of the Proposed Master Plan shows various zones centred around the airport and airport facilities and connected by a road network:

  • Eco-tourism area immediately to the south of the airport
  • Resort development on the southeast coast
  • Two forest / tourism areas
  • Four commercial areas
  • Low density and high density residential areas
  • Recreation area
  • Light industrial area
  • Employee facilities
  • Agriculture zone
  • An area for port facilities on the northern tip of the island

Tinig ng Plaridel, the official student publication of the University of the Philippines College of Mass Communication, challenged the statement in the document that resolutions endorsing the proposed project without objections were obtained from Barangay Bugsuk in September 2023, saying that hundreds of locals oppose the project.

Intimidation and harassment of Mariahangin residents

During the 1974 expulsion of indigenous people from Bugsuk Island the people of Mariahangin (also spelled Marihangin), a small 38 hectare island north of Bugsuk Island, resisted; the eviction was stopped and people remained on the island. But 50 years later Mariahangin residents say the presence of armed men is pressurising them to leave. On 27th June 2024 DAR officials arrived on Mariahangin, to inform residents that their homes would be demolished to make way for an eco-luxury tourism project covering over 5,000 hectares in Barangay Bugsuk. Just two days later, early in the morning of 29th June 2024 16 unidentified armed guards arrived on Mariahangin Island. On 13th September a group of indigenous people from Mariahangin Island arrived in Manila to campaign for land reform, the return of the 10,821 hectares of land awarded to Cojuangco in 1974, for the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples to process their CADT application and to raise awareness of the 50-year struggle. The group included an 18-year old witness to the presence of armed men in Mariahangin in June who said a man wearing black headgear and a black mask had pointed a gun at him.

Satellite imagery of Mariahangin Island, 27th October 2024

SMC denied involvement in the shooting incident and stated it has no connection with anyone involved in the incident and does not own any property holdings on Mariahangin Island. Yet, as reported by Bulatlat, residents claim that SMC does have an interest in Mariahangin Island and, in 2023, presented families with a ‘resettlement programme’, increasing an initial offer to P400,000 (USD6,852) per family to leave their ancestral land. In September 2024 the Philippine Misereor Partnership Incorporated (PMPI), a network of more than 230 social development and advocacy groups, expressed deep concern over human rights violations faced by the Molbog and Palaw’an communities arising from a land grabbing case. Mariahangin residents’ representatives, supported by the National Federation of Peasant Organisations (PAKISAMA) presented testimonies to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) reporting reported ‘alarming incidents, including threats at gunpoint to force them out of their ancestral lands and intrusive surveillance and intimidation that profoundly disrupt their daily lives and livelihoods’.

On 2nd December 2024, contradicting Bugsuk residents’ assertion of their land rights, SMC reiterated its stated legal ownership of 7,000 hectares of titled properties on Bugsuk Island, saying that the titles had been held since original issuance during redistribution of agricultural land in 1974, predating the 1997 Indigenous People’s Rights Act. Earlier that day, nine indigenous Sambilog leaders began a nine-day fasting and praying event outside the DAR headquarters in Quezon City to amplify the 50 year land struggle of indigenous Bugsuk Island communities. They pointed out that Mariahangin land is agricultural – seaweed farming is the main source of residents’ livelihoods, followed by corn cultivation – so therefore the land should be returned to them under the provisions of the 1998 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which states that all public and private agricultural lands are encompassed by the coverage for distribution to the people. An ILC Asia (International Land Coalition) statement in support of the seaweed farmers of Mariahangin Island raises concerns over loss of mangroves in a country particularly vulnerable to climate disasters and notes that mangroves on Bugsuk Island have already been cleared to make way for a 20km white sand beach.

In February 2025 Mariahangin residents refuted government dismissal of their allegations of harassment, land grabbing and restriction of access to fishing grounds. Residents said police and people suspected of being SMC representatives attempted to enter the community on 18th and 20th November and that armed guards had been stationed about 500-500 metres from Mariahangin. One resident said, “People there can barely earn a living because they’re constantly guarding against those armed men at the edge of the island.” Residents guarding the area reported threats from armed guards. Fishermen said guards were blocking access, seizing their equipment nad harassing them, with some being hit with paddles and illegally detained. One fisherman said his boat had been destroyed. On 5th March 2025 The Guidon reported that eight Mariahangin residents had been subpoenaed over allegations of assault and an individual received a subpoena for alleged cyberlibel. residents described these legal proceedings as part of “a pattern of relentless harassment” amidst their long-running land dispute with SMC over ancestral land on Bugsuk Island.

Mega Airport City in Bishoftu, Ethiopia

Construction of Africa’s biggest airport, a Mega Airport City, in Bishoftu, Ethiopia, is set to take up a vast 35 square kilometre site and a budget of USD6 billion just for the first phase and has met with resistance from farmers impacted by the resettlement process.

Mega Airport City, Bishoftu, Ethiopia
Artist rendering of planned Mega Airport City in Bishoftu, Ethiopia. Photo: Ethiopian Airlines, September 2024

Ethiopian Airlines announced plans for an airport city in Abusera (in Bishoftu, part of central Ethiopia’s Oromia region, about 40 kilometres southeast of Addis Ababa) in September 2018. CEO Tewolde Gebremariam said the location was selected because of its elevation; at about 1,900 metres above sea level it is considerably lower than Addis Ababa at 2,400 metres. This would bring the advantage of improved fuel efficiency for flights in comparison with Ethiopia’s existing main airport, Addis Ababa Bole International Airport. French engineering firm ADP Ingénierie (ADPI) conducted a site selection study and in February 2019 the Council of Ministers was set to endorse the proposed site in Abusera. Gebremariam said the mega-hub would not just be an airport, costing USD4 billion with four runways and capacity to handle 80 million passengers per year; it would include other infrastructures making it an airport city with a large duty-free shopping area, entertainment centres, hotels, business centre, logistics centres and real estate development. By January 2020 the airport city plans had become even more ambitious; passenger capacity had increased to 100 million per year. The anticipated cost had also risen significantly. Gebremariam said “We have identified 35sqkm land to be developed as an airport and it is about a $5bn project – larger than the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). It is going to accommodate 100m passengers; larger than Dubai and more or less equal to the new Istanbul airport.”

In February 2024 Ethiopian Airlines announced that the designated land for the airport city had been secured and that the project would encompass an area of 38 to 40 square kilometres. A spokesperson said the Oromia Regional Government, in collaboration with the Federal Government, was evacuating residents from the site to make way for construction to begin. The estimated cost of the megaproject had escalated again. In August 2024 Ethiopian Airlines was searching for USD6 billion in financing just for the first phase of what was now called a ‘Mega Airport City’. Projected passenger capacity increased again, to 110 million per annum, and the Dar Al-Handasah consultancy was awarded the contract for design and supervision of the Mega Airport City. At the signing ceremony Ethiopian Airlines stated, ‘The architectural team will incorporate elements of Ethiopian heritage to establish a people-centric, intuitive airport characterised by sustainability, resilience, and future-readiness.’

The claim to be ‘intuitive airport’, ascribing sentience to infrastructure, is just meaningless corporate guff. And the claims to be ‘people-centric’ boasting the qualities of ‘sustainability’, ‘resilience’ and ‘future-readiness’ disregard the airport city’s impacts on the people most directly affected, those who are being displaced to make way for it. Simultaneous with the search for USD6 billion to finance the airport city it was announced that construction could only go ahead if up to 2,500 farmers currently residing on and surrounding the site were resettled. Mesfin Tassev, CEO of Dar Al-Handasah, said a 740-hectare plot had been allocated by the Oromia Regional Government for this purpose, along with 17 billion Birr (USD172.5 million) for resettlement and development works. Design work was anticipated to be complete by December 2025 followed by construction of housing and other basic facilities along with development of employment opportunities for relocated residents by the end of 2026. Mesfin told The Reporter, “The construction of the airport city depends on the resettlement of the farmers. It will commence as soon as they move.”

The resettlement process is not proceeding smoothly. By January 2025 it was reported that Africa’s biggest airport was under construction but ‘faced significant challenges’ regarding coordination of finances, geopolitical dynamics, environmental concerns and the complex task of relocating affected communities. The airport city has triggered local resistance. Affected farmers, many of whom depend upon their land for subsistence and farming livelihoods, are concerned about compensation and resettlement. Many of them feel inadequately compensated and there are reports that the compensation offer was far less than the land’s market value. Resettlement has also caused discontent. Some farmers claim that clear plans for relocation and support for finding new livelihoods have not been provided. During a local meeting held to discuss the project one farmer said, “I’ve cultivated this land for decades. It’s not just my home. It’s my history and my family’s future.”

‘Entertainment destination’ in forested park would generate non-aeronautical revenue for Raleigh-Durham Airport

For more than 30 years hikers, cyclists and other recreational users have enjoyed a 14.5km network of forested trails in Lake Crabtree County Park, Wake County, North Carolina, USA. The trails are located on land managed by Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority (RDUAA) and leased to Wake County Parks and Recreation which manages and maintains the trails in partnership with Triangle Off-Road Cyclists (TORC), a non-profit organisation. Concerns that RDUAA might consider developing the land were heightened in 2014 when RDUAA commissioned a report on revenue generating possibilities for 809 hectares of land, including the park, which it manages but cannot utilise for aeronautical purposes. In June 2016 a 25-year land-use concept plan for RDUAA’s surrounding property was unveiled and park users were disappointed to see an office park and luxury hotels on land occupied by the trails. Dozens joined a rally opposing the plan and cyclists protested outside the airport CEO’s speech to the Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Raleigh-Durham International Airport wants to develop 136 acres of land
Raleigh-Durham International Airport proposes development on a 55 hectare (136 acre) site in Lake Crabtree County Park. Source: Raleigh-Durham Airport, Request for Information – Lake Crabtree Park Development, July 2024

Raleigh-Durham Airport published a Request For Information (RFI)  Lake Crabtree Park Development, for potential developers interested in leasing and developing a portion of its real estate, in July 2024. The RFI includes a map (above) showing the property in Lake County Park available for lease. The goals are stated as follows:

The Authority seeks to:
a. Create a unique and innovative entertainment destination which will be
appealing to the greater Triangle Region and may include community
assets such as food and beverage, retail, hospitality / boutique hotel,
recreational facilities, etc.
b. Develop in a manner consistent and appropriate with the natural
surroundings of the site
c. Ensure recreational users are considered in the development
d. Increase non-aeronautical revenue to the Authority

In January 2025 the possible threat to the Lake Crabtree County Park trails became imminent as notes were published for a meeting of the RDUAA Board to hear public comments on a proposal to lease 55 hectares (136 acres) within the park for commercial development, with one of the main goals being ‘to increase non-aeronautical revenue to the Authority’. TORC emphasised government responsibility for the airport lands, pointing out that RDUAA is governed by a Board comprising members from Wake County, Durham County and the cities of Raleigh and Durham. The map, shown above, reveals that most of the trails in the park are within the proposed development area.

RDUAA stated intentions to ‘develop in a manner consistent and appropriate with the natural surroundings of the site’, compatibility with established park uses and consideration of recreational users in the plans. TORC spokesperson Dave Anderson questioned these statements, saying, ‘We’re going to take three-quarters of the forest and develop something there. It’s not known that that’s going to be…but that kind of development is going to just fundamentally change what it is right now. It’s incredibly effective right now as forested outdoor recreation.” Public documents described plans for ‘a unique and innovative entertainment destination’ that might contain hotels, restaurants, shopping and recreational facilities. Anderson and other TORC leaders said there were already many similar mixed-use commercial centres nearby.

The 29th January 2025 RDUAA public comment session on potential development of Lake Crabtree County Park was packed with people with more lined up outside. Hundreds of people attended the meeting which lasted for over two hours as more than 100 had signed up to give public comment. Many of the speakers emphasised that the trails are unique to the area. RDUAA Board Members said the authority recognised the park as a community asset which the authority would not diminish, but park users at the meeting were sceptical and called for the trails to be maintained and enhanced. Researcher Natalie Lew said, “This is the heart of the community because this has been planned since the 50’s and then RDUA wants to just swoop in and take it away.” Jennifer Shetler of the TUFF Run Club group of trail and long-distance runners, read out a poem reading in part, “We do not need another store. We have restaurants and shops galore. Why trade the trails for steel and glass. These forests must be left to last.”

The Umstead Coalition, working to preserve Umstead State Park which is located immediately north of Crabtree Lake County Park and also contains many forested hiking and cycling trails, launched a letter writing campaign: Protect Lake Crabtree County Park – Demand Transparency and Inclusion of the Public with Non-Aeronautic Lands Under RDU Airport Authority. A template letter recommended rejection of the current proposals, negotiation of lease renewal, consideration of a full master plan for all lands not used for aeronautical purposes and for Wake County to purchase the lands. By 12th February more than 18,000 letters had been sent.

For more information about the campaign to preserve Lake Crabtree County Park’s forested hiking and biking trails, including references for all source material, see the case study on EJAtlas, the world’s largest, most comprehensive online database of social conflict around environmental issues – Entertainment Complex Development in Lake Crabtree County Park, NC, USA

An oral history of settlements impacted by Istanbul’s Third Airport

The local impacts of Istanbul’s third airport are explored in Whose Land? Whose Villages? The Vanishing Settlements of Istanbul’s Northern Forests by Cihan Uzunçarşılı Baysal, published by Housing and Land Rights Network. Oral history research records the testimonies of residents of eight villages in Istanbul’s Northern Forests which have been affecteded by the megaproject: Ağaçlı, Yeniköy, Karaburun, Durusu, Balaban, Tayakadın, Baklalı and Dursunköy. Construction works including quarries, excavation, cement plants, sand mining and land reclamation ‘made everyday life unbearable’. Part of the the vast 7,650 hectare airport site was forest land seized by the state, supposedly for public purpose. About 13 million trees were felled. Fertile agricultural land, meadows, lakes, wetlands and a stretch of coastline were also destroyed to make way for the airport. Impacts on agriculture and livestock breeding, in particular water buffalo, have been devastating. One resident estimated that 500-600 water buffalos used to graze around Kulakçayır lake, its landfilled remains now lying underneath the runways. This report, with some of its interviews interrupted by the incessant noise of planes flying overhead, helps keep alive memories at risk of being buried along with the ecosystems.

Report - Whose Land? Whose Villages?