The congestion in the Port Area has eased with the lifting of the truck ban in Manila, and cargo is now moving swiftly in and out of the ports. The Federation of Philippine Industries reported that the Manila International Container Terminal registered a 22-percent increase in the average number of container boxes moved by trucks, and the movement of export and empty containers grew by 19.5 percent. Manila South Harbor had a 23-percent increase in the average daily import and export movement as compared to the time when the truck ban was still in effect. The Harbor Center Terminal had a 30-percent increase in the movement of domestic cargoes.
These, however, are only temporary developments. Integrated and permanent solutions are needed.
Stakeholders in the logistics industry have put together their inputs in a report titled “Port and Road Infrastructure for Greater Luzon Trade.” They are the Association of International Shipping Lines, Integrated North Harbor Truckers Association, Philippine Liner Shipping Association, Philippine Inter-Island Shipping Association, Port Users Confederation Inc., and port operators Asian Terminal Inc., International Container Terminal Services Inc., and Manila North Harbor Port Inc.
In the report, the stakeholders noted that bottlenecks in the supply chain started when the truck ban was imposed in Manila last February, resulting in the congestion at the ports. They sought as intermediate action a moratorium on all truck bans, the opening of 24-hour truck lanes, especially for the North, South and Cavite expressways for all cargoes, and a 24-hour free flow for refrigerated, perishable and dangerous cargoes.
The stakeholders called for strict implementation of laws against the parking of trucks on roads within the port zone; speedy construction of the North Harbor Link Road and Metro Pacific Port Connector Road system; railroad link to the ports; passage of legislation for the transfer of overstaying container boxes to inland container depots; and penalties for the use of terminals as warehouses.
They also called for the relocation of squatters and illegal businesses on Bonifacio Drive, Anda Circle, and R 10; providing housing for port workers, as well as speeding up the Manila North Harbor modernization program; and maximizing the use of the Port Area by clearing underutilized areas.
The long-term measures they recommended were the naming of an agency or person with authority and accountability to oversee the planning of a transport system to ensure supply chain efficiency, and the formulation of a master plan for the whole Port Area to ensure growth in trade.
The stakeholders proposed that a master plan be drawn up for the expansion of the Batangas port to accommodate present and future Laguna- and Batangas-based trade for international and domestic cargoes, and another master plan for the expansion of the Port of Subic for the Subic-Clark-Tarlac trade. An access road from Cavite to the Manila port was also proposed.
Likewise recommended was a strategy to encourage business relocation to other development hubs within or outside Luzon.
The ultimate objective should be the development of five excellent ports serving international and domestic traders to give shippers, consignees, shipping lines and logistics providers more choices based on efficiency and taking into account the Philippines’ robust economic growth, the stakeholders said.
Kris Kosmala, vice president of Melbourne-based company Quintiq, said that while initiative makes some sense, as cities around the world are moving seaports away from city centers to ease traffic and to better utilize land for commercial and residential expansion, all the elements of a well-functioning ecosystem encompassing land and sea are not being considered.
An efficient port capable of serving mainlines and feeder lines forms the heart of such a system, according to Kosmala.
“For the mainlines to make Batangas and Subic their ports of call,” he said, “those ports must offer the same efficiency as Manila, and it must make economic sense to discharge and load their vessels partially in two ports instead of one.”
Considering that port fees from two stops are higher than for just a single stop, it is a disincentive to switch to a two-port call, he said.
He added that if the initiative of the transportation department “comes to life, the lines can decide to call on Manila to transfer containers to and from the feeder lines, which would carry the cargo from/to Subic or from/to Batangas. The additional charges and fees resulting from this approach would be passed on to consumers, resulting in higher freight cost for importers and exporters.”
Kosmala also said the perimeter of a port is served by “consolidation/deconsolidation logistics facilities.”
“For this element, the ports outside Manila offer more flexibility, as there is more vacant land surrounding them for such facilities,” he said.