Revived Manila Bay project slammed, defended
Why resurrect a project that was “banned” 20 years ago?
The Manila city government’s plan to revive a 148-hectare reclamation project on Manila Bay has drawn both critics and defenders, the first fearing for the environment and the livelihood of small fishermen, the other seeking more space and job opportunities for the city’s exploding population.
The fisherfolk group Pamalakaya is urging Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim and the city council to “retreat and recall” the plan as shown in the April 17 consortium agreement with private developer Manila Goldcoast Corp.
The planned reclamation spans the southern half of the city’s portion under the Manila Cavite-Coastal Road Reclamation Project (MCCRP) of the Philippine Reclamation Authority. In 1991, the PRA, then called the Public Estates Authority, awarded the project to Goldcoast’s parent company, Elco Development & Construction Corp.
The foreshore and offshore areas to be reclaimed would extend from the Cultural Center of the Philippines complex to the US Embassy compound.
But a 1992 ordinance passed by the city government banned any reclamation project on the bay, and the project was deferred by the Office of the President.
In April last year, the PRA affirmed the awarding of the project to Goldcoast. The city council later passed Ordinance No. 8233 authorizing Lim to apply for the reclamation, in effect repealing the 1992 ban.
But Pamalakaya chair and KKK-Manila Bay convenor Fernando Hicap argued that, historically, reclamation projects on Manila Bay had only resulted in reduced fishing areas and mangrove forests and in the mass displacement of coastal communities.
“Why revive this incorrigible project? Sending it back from the grave is really scary,” Hicap said.
The Manila city government should instead devote its resources to rehabilitating the polluted bay, he said. “It is not too late for Mayor Lim and his councilors to retreat and recall the project. The reclamation contract which was rescinded 21 years ago should not be given a second life. Nothing more, nothing less.”
But for Manila Councilor Joel Chua, author of Ordinance No. 8233, the future reclamation area could host the city’s next commercial hub, similar to that of Taguig City’s Serendra or Pasay City’s Mall of Asia.
“Manila is densely populated. It is high-time we ventured into these kinds of development,” he said, when asked why the city government changed its mind on the 1991 ban on reclamations.
Chua downplayed the feared environmental impact of the project, noting that when the PRA awarded it to Goldcoast, the latter was required to comply with environmental standards and conduct in-depth studies.
“You have to weigh everything. Look at what we will get in return: Economic development, increased employment,” the councilor stressed.
