SCMAP Perspective is our fortnightly column on PortCalls, tackling the latest developments in the supply chain industry, as well as updates from within SCMAP. On this column, Henrik Batallones looks at how the lack of urban planning is failing the logistics sector in its quest to deliver value to businesses and consumers alike.
Not in my backyard
A couple of weeks ago the city government of Valenzuela announced that it would ban the establishment and operation of container yards within its borders starting next year, claiming that it would ease traffic in the city, as well as address concerns surrounding safety and the environment.
The timing of the announcement is pretty funny, coming off the heels of a three-day port holiday, which protested, among others, the long-running difficulty to move empty containers to yards.
I also could not help but be reminded of the total daytime truck ban implemented by the city government of Manila back in 2014, citing the need to reduce traffic. Of course, the truck ban affected the movement of all goods to and from the Port of Manila, the country’s key international maritime gateway. This led to an increase in prices and the reduction of products in store shelves.
The impact of Valenzuela’s proposal may be less immediately evident, but consider how truckers have connected high logistics costs in part to the difficulty to returning empty containers, due to congestion and lack of suitable facilities, as well as a coordinated strategy from government and the private sector to keep empties moving despite the trade deficit. Valenzuela is also a major industrial center in Metro Manila, and the container yards there also serve truckers and shippers in surrounding cities. That will have an impact.
Of course, personally, I hope that the city government reconsiders its proposals. It looks like another one of those plans that would benefit the city on paper, but would have negative and wide-spreading repercussions on the medium to long term. And besides, banning container yards would not exactly reduce traffic, as trucks would still be plying the city’s thoroughfares, delivering raw materials and finished goods to their destinations.
But let’s say they do reconsider, and realize the folly of their plans. The problems they have identified – road congestion, unsafe driving conditions, pollution – would still remain. Unfortunately, these wouldn’t be solved by band-aid solutions alone. Unfortunately, this highlights one of Metro Manila’s biggest sins: the lack of planning as it developed and grew over the last hundred years or so.
Urbanism enthusiasts would tell you that there were plans. Yes, there were, but they were virtually unfollowed thanks to widespread destruction during World War II and the need to quickly rise from the ashes. This haphazard development has led to congested roads, clogged waterways, and heavily-populated areas lying near fault lines. And then there’s the lack of coordination between the sixteen city (and one municipal) governments that make up Metro Manila proper, as well as the many local governments in the surrounding suburbs in Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna and Rizal. The mindset that they get to run their own town their way, with little consideration for others, has led to disjointed traffic and planning regulations whose ripple effects spread far and wide. In the case of this container yard ban, it’s the NIMBY mindset – “not in my backyard” – without considering the wider repercussions.
In an ideal world, logistics in and around Metro Manila should be easy and free-flowing. Of course, it isn’t, and of course, solutions are neither quick nor cheap. But here are a couple of things to consider. One: are we still being served well by having our major trading ports in the heart of Manila? The benefits of having them nearby is definitely being reversed by road congestion and the general move of production facilities away from NCR and to the industrial hubs of central Luzon and CALABARZON. Can both the Subic-Clark corridor and Batangas accommodate the ecosystem needed to serve the current and future needs of our economy? Singapore is in the midst of moving their ports to a modern facility in the western region of Tuas. Is something like this in the view of our leaders, splitting sea trade to Subic and Batangas?
Two: what is the plan with the airports serving Mega Manila? NAIA, initially mooted for closure, is being rehabilitated by the same conglomerate that is building a shiny new airport in potentially hazardous reclaimed marshland in Bulacan. The government also has put the conversion of Sangley Point in Cavite City to a state-of-the-art international airport, as part of the Luzon Economic Corridor initiative. And, of course, there’s the airport in Clark; they say they’re targeting flyers from northern Luzon, but it is ably serving as an alternative to NAIA in any case. But aren’t four airports too much?
Ah, it’s either I have no idea what the wider master plan is, or we’re doing the same mistakes we have done across the past century.