Amid the bandwagon calls by environmentalists and President Marcos himself to suspend 22 land reclamation projects in Manila Bay and other parts of the country, there is a need to take a sober look at these projects, especially the 13 projects in Manila Bay. Do they really cause those problems attributed to them, and do they have desirable features that can be promoted? In his suspension order, the President pointed out the problems of flooding due to clogged rivers, the disappearing view of the world-renowned Manila Bay sunset, and the diminution of the bay marine area.
Land reclamation has long been recognized in many countries as a viable development strategy in places that experience rapid urban growth amid scarcity of land and high population density. Fast-growing cities, especially in Western Europe, Middle East, East Asia, and Southeast Asia have been reclaiming lands for port extension and expansion of different land uses, aimed at enhancing their economies while also observing aesthetic and environmental considerations. We see good examples of this kind of land reclamation in the Netherlands, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong, and Singapore.
Admittedly, land reclamation, aside from its spatial, economic, and aesthetic benefits, also poses cost challenges such as harsh ecological impacts, socioeconomic dislocations, and legal uncertainties. The challenges being faced by the current reclamations are the issues about flooding cited by the President, the Manila Bay pollution as petitioned by residents with the Supreme Court, and the adverse impact on the bay’s marine life and livelihoods voiced out by environmental groups. However, I would like to point out that the coastal flooding is not caused by the reclamations but by other causes I have cited in a commentary previously published by the Inquirer. Good reclamations do not impede water flow from the mouth of rivers. The pollution in the bay is due more to the uncontrolled throwing of solid and liquid wastes by urban households and factories into waterways. Of course, in reclamation construction, marine life and fisheries will be affected.
But I would like to point out that the Manila Bay reclamation benefits outweigh their costs. Aside from their socioeconomic benefits that we need to reach upper middle-income status, the bay reclamations have the unique environmental benefit of coastal protection, especially in terms of providing buffers against tsunamis, storm surges, and soil erosion. The precarious location of Manila Bay is that it is facing the Manila Trench which can move anytime and cause a very destructive tsunami on the metropolis—unless buffers like elevated reclamations and seawalls are present to repel it. A 2003 study funded by the Japan International Cooperation Agency presents a scenario of a possible subduction of the Eurasian Plate against the Philippine Plate with a magnitude 7.9 quake, which can cause four-meter sea waves to rush to Manila Bay in only 70 minutes. By the way, this tsunami may also run up into the Pasig River and flood the low-lying Malacañang Palace.
The last time that subduction tectonics occurred in the Manila Trench was in 1677 and, like the prediction for the West Valley Fault, it can occur again anytime. Proof that well-designed and properly constructed reclamation projects can mitigate the rising sea waves caused by a tsunami was the observation by the Philippine Reclamation Authority that when the bay area was hit once by a tsunami, the reclaimed areas from the Cultural Center of the Philippines to the coastal road did not suffer the same catastrophic rush of seawater that hit the areas from the Manila Yacht Club to the United States Embassy. The reclamation areas along Manila Bay were implemented according to the government’s Boulevard 2000 Framework Plan. I would like to suggest that, as part of the plan and for aesthetic purposes, the reclamation projects should follow the seaward width of the Mall of Asia and its provision of a good deck for viewing the beautiful Manila Bay sunset.