Public discussions on Cebu’s upland resources often rely on a narrow and misleading definition of “economic value.” For years, local discourse has focused on equating economic worth with the revenues earned from quarrying and extraction. This creates the persistent and dangerous misnomer that natural wealth is measured solely by use value.
This belief is repeated in public forums, policy pronouncements, and fiscal reports. It suggests that whatever Cebu can extract, haul, crush, or sell represents the true economic contribution of its uplands. In reality, economics does not define wealth this way. Modern environmental economics evaluates natural systems differently. True economic valuation includes use values. It also includes non-use values. Ignoring non-use values results in incomplete analysis. This leads to flawed public policy. It causes environmental decline. It exacerbates climate vulnerability.
Before addressing this conceptual flaw, the scale of Cebu’s mineral economy must be clearly understood. The province is not operating a ₱600-million quarrying industry, as public officials often portray. It is operating a ₱20-billion extraction economy per year. When metallic and non-metallic activities are combined, the actual size of Cebu’s mineral economy becomes undeniable: ₱20.18 billion in 2024, ₱21.53 billion in 2023, and ₱19.32 billion in 2022. This is the real magnitude of extraction occurring in the uplands—far larger than what provincial income statements suggest.
Cebu’s quarry operators, processors, haulers, and construction supply chains transact between ₱7.5–₱12.5 billion annually in non-metallic sales alone, while metallic operations consistently exceed ₱18 billion per year. By contrast, government revenue—₱628 million in 2023—represents only 2–4% of Cebu’s total mineral economy. Thus, a massive private extraction economy generates billions in sales and profit. Meanwhile, public income is thin. It is too small to offset the environmental and social costs borne by the public.
This fixation on quarry revenue—and even the broader ₱20-billion extraction economy—reveals the deeper misconception underpinning current policies. It is the assumption that the value of natural resources lies primarily in what can be extracted from them.
This is not how economics works. Modern environmental economics, natural resource theory, and the Total Economic Value (TEV) framework all provide important lessons. They teach that real economic worth consists of use values and non-use values. Use values include quarrying, water extraction, timber, and agriculture. Recreation and tourism are also included. These activities are easily monetized and prominently appear in financial statements. Yet these represent only a fraction of total wealth.
Non-use values, although invisible in budgets and COA reports, are economically real. They represent the benefit of simply knowing that forests and watersheds exist (existence value). They also include the value of leaving ecosystems intact for future generations (bequest value). Non-use values cover the value of keeping nature available for future or unknown uses (option value). They encompass the value derived from knowing that other communities benefit from intact uplands (altruistic value). These are precisely the values Cebu loses. This happens the moment a mountain is cut, a slope is excavated, or a watershed is bulldozed.
The consequences of ignoring non-use values are visible today in the worsening flooding across Metro Cebu. Cebu’s intense focus on use values and extraction leads to destruction. This destruction affects the non-use values that sustain long-term stability. When uplands are stripped, infiltration declines; runoff accelerates; sedimentation increases; river capacity shrinks; and flood peaks intensify. This is why Metro Cebu now floods even without typhoons and why ordinary rainfall brings cities to a halt. Every ton of aggregates removed from Cebu’s uplands reduces the natural economy. This reduction affects flood mitigation, slope stability, groundwater recharge, biodiversity, and climate regulation.
In short, this is the heart of Cebu’s political economy of flooding:
- A ₱20-billion extraction economy drives upland degradation.
- A ₱600-million public revenue creates the illusion of fiscal benefit.
- A multi-billion-peso ecological loss is imposed on the public.
- A non-functioning natural protection system results in chronic flooding.
Short-term extraction is displacing long-term security.
These losses constitute ecological depreciation—the downward adjustment of natural capital from human activity. Government does not record this depreciation. However, households and businesses pay for it. They endure flooded homes. Business districts are paralyzed, and infrastructure is damaged. Transportation is disrupted. There are lost workdays, medical incidents, and increased LGU emergency spending. Against these losses, quarry revenues are negligible.
The core economic argument is simple: Cebu is counting the small gains and ignoring the massive losses. The province records quarry taxes, permit fees, operator sales, and extraction-based employment. However, it does not account for the loss of watershed integrity, slope stability, and infiltration capacity. It also overlooks groundwater reserves, biodiversity, and climate resilience. Social cohesion, cultural heritage, and intergenerational equity are ignored too. This is not just incomplete economics—it is incorrect economics. One cannot claim economic benefit from quarrying while ignoring the far greater economic harm caused by upland degradation. A ₱20-billion extraction economy is running alongside a collapsing natural economy. The outcome is predictable. The province gains short-term financial flows but accumulates long-term environmental debt.
This dynamic lies at the heart of Cebu’s political economy of flooding. A ₱20-billion extraction economy continues to drive upland degradation. A ₱600-million public revenue stream creates the illusion of fiscal benefit. A multi-billion-peso ecological loss is imposed on the public. And a weakened, fragmented natural protection system results in chronic flooding across urban and peri-urban areas. Short-term extraction has displaced long-term security, and the costs are borne disproportionately by downstream communities—not the operators who profit upstream.
Moving forward, Cebu can no longer afford a development model that counts quarry revenue but ignores watershed collapse. The province must make rational, future-oriented decisions. To do so, it must abandon the misnomer that use value alone defines economic wealth. The real economy of Cebu’s uplands includes their role as natural flood buffers. These uplands function as water towers and contribute to climate regulation. They have cultural and identity significance. Their value is also crucial to future generations. Cebu cannot call itself progressive if it treats natural capital as expendable. It cannot claim resilience if it undermines the uplands that protect the lowlands.
Economics is not about extraction. It is the total value—use and non-use, present and future, private gain and public cost. Until Cebu adopts this full accounting, it will continue to profit in pesos. However, it will lose wealth in floods, landslides, and ecological decline.
Real LexEcon 