A bill has been filed restricting cargo volumes handled at Manila ports and diverting cargoes to Batangas and Subic ports as a permanent solution to port congestion and road traffic in Metro Manila.
Authored by Quezon City 2nd District representative Winston Castelo, House Bill (HB) No. 1593, or the Container Traffic Cap in Ports Act of 2016, was referred August 2 to the Lower House’s Transportation Committee.
The bill states that “the national government shall hereby execute the policy to put a cap on the volume of containers being handled at the Manila Port in order to decongest traffic and shift container traffic to Subic and Batangas Ports.”
It adds that the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) “shall implement further port development by renegotiating its current contracts for the Manila Port in favour of the development of new terminals and additional berths in Subic and Batangas Ports.”
In his explanatory note, Castelo said his bill “contemplates not just a timely but a long-term solution to the problem of congestion at the Manila Port due to the fact that volume of container traffic is more than this port could handle.”
He added, “Unless a policy is put in effect, the problem worsens.”
Castelo said that compared with the underutilized Subic and Batangas ports, Manila Port is overutilized and has “gone beyond its desired container limit.”
He noted that the huge cargo traffic coming in and out of Manila port is a major contributor to Metro Manila’s road congestion.
“For a well-studied ‘win-win’ solution that will transform Subic and Batangas Ports as new economic magnets… and maintain Manila Port to a desirable level of cargo or container traffic thereby easing congestion in Metro Manila, this bill is strongly endorsed for its immediate passage,” Castelo stated.
Capping and diverting of cargo volume or limiting the expansion of Manila Ports has been included in several proposals and studies in the past.
One of these is a 2015 discussion paper by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies’ (PIDS), entitled “A System-Wide Study of the Logistics Industry in the Greater Capital Region.” The study suggests suspending any plans to further expand Manila ports as a way to address port congestion and increase utilization of the ports of Batangas and Subic.
READ: Freeze Manila port expansion to steer more cargo to Batangas, Subic, urge experts
A similar action is also proposed in a 2013 study by Japan International Cooperation Agency, which recommends scheduling Manila Port’s capacity expansion, and delaying the Manila International Container Terminal (MICT) Berth 7’s construction and South Harbor Pier 9’s conversion until 2019.
READ: Capping capacity better option to phaseout of Manila ports — JICA study
JICA, in a separate study in 2014, also suggests curbing capacity expansion plans for Manila ports and providing incentives for greater use of Subic and Batangas ports as a doable short-term plan for the government.
Similarly, a Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry policy paper in 2014 entitled “Port Congestion in a Congested Metropolis” proposes capping Manila ports and shifting volumes to Batangas and Subic.
But in a forum in April 2016, Voltaire Wycoco, MICT director for management services and government affairs, disagreed, saying improving road capacity and not capping Manila ports’ volume is the solution toward improved logistics movement in Metro Manila. He reiterated that Manila ports were not lacking in capacity; rather, road capacity or development is falling behind port capacity investments.
He pointed out that capping volumes “is not a universal solution,” and it “effectively disincentivizes efficiency.”
He said capping should only be adopted as a last resort, “and only after all the risks to the national economy have been fully and correctly assessed.”
Moreover, Wycoco noted that bulk of the country’s trade is still bound for Metro Manila, which is a “consumption center.”
He insisted that cargoes meant for Manila, Laguna, and Cavite should not be forcibly shipped through Subic or Batangas.
“A thorough analysis on the hinterland cost of moving the cargo will reveal why,” Wycoco said.
He added that Subic was never intended to handle spillover cargo from Manila, but as a gateway for importers and exporters in northern and central Luzon. – Roumina Pablo
Image courtesy of khunaspix at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
