WHEN Malacañang asked for patience from the citizenry for the traffic snarls that hit the metropolis some weeks back as lumbering delivery trucks with container vans took out overstaying cargoes, it said a solution is being put in place to address the issue of port congestion.
“We’re asking the public for understanding,” Palace Spokesman Edwin Lacierda said then in a news briefing, as the complaints on the monstrous traffic jams reached alarming decibels.
Indeed, to some people, including government officials, the cargo containers and container trucks are but a cause of traffic and a nuisance to commuters and motorists. And traffic is deemed to drive costs by way of increased gasoline expenses, not to mention the burden on labor productivity.
That is why some months back, the city of Manila imposed a daytime truck ban to address what it said was a worsening traffic situation in the city. The result, though, was port congestion, the kind that has serious repercussions to robust trade that, in turn, leads to more jobs, more income and more taxes for the government.
The number of cargoes and container vans that arrive in a country’s port is a function of trade. Container vans are indicators of economic growth; of trade, to say the least.
The more containers come in and go out of a country’s seaports, the more robust trade is, and the more progressive the economy is.
Thus, the growing volume of trade should not be seen, therefore, simplistically as a problem of traffic management, but in the bigger scope of national economic policy. The trucks that haul containers of raw materials, equipment and supplies, consumer goods and other cargoes are just one cog in the global supply chain that begins at the point of production and ends at the point of use or consumption.
Any disruption in any part of the chain has serious repercussions in the flow of trade—not only here but also in our trading partners—and eventually our economy.
Obviously, there is a need to balance the needs of commuters and motorists and the needs of the supply chain in support of trade and a vibrant economy—which affects all Filipinos, just the same.
It is in this context that the Malacañang pronouncement for patience should be viewed, for without a robust trade in place, the government’s overarching need to address poverty issues would be waylaid.
Thus, it makes sense for stakeholders in the supply chain to propose—as they have done—a holistic solution involving the entire chain of infrastructure, specifically ports and roads.
In a well-thought-out study and set of recommendations, the country’s leading logistics operators point out the real problems and propose immediate and long-term solutions that address not just the traffic problem but, more important, maintaining and enhancing the country’s competitiveness in world trade and commerce.
They raised the following:
It is vital for the port and road network to be planned as a system to ensure that the supply chain is not affected when different stakeholders in the system try to achieve their respective goals.
Independent and uncoordinated actions to reduce congestion imposed by any one of the stakeholders can create a problem where the economy pays a severe price. For example, reducing congestion problems with truck bans, leads to more trucks on the road required to meet falling productivity.
The net result of bottlenecks in the supply chain means added supply-line costs and, in turn, a major cost to the economy and black mark for competitiveness.
In planning the port and road system that effectively supports trade and commerce, the volume and flow of trade need to be considered. Why? Because the logistics network (composed of ports and port operators, shipping companies, trucking companies, among others) follows the flow of trade.
Where for instance do imported raw materials, equipment, supplies and consumer goods go?
The study by supply-chain stakeholders shows the following: 70 percent goes to Metro Manila and Northern Cavite, 18 percent goes to Laguna, 6 percent goes to Batangas and Quezon, and 6 percent goes to Pampanga and other areas north of Metro Manila.
The distribution is a function of industry and economics. Goods go where the market is. Simply put, the country’s major industries and factories, as well as markets for consumer goods remain in Metro Manila.
It follows that then the goods that are exported naturally flow mostly in Metro Manila and Northern Cavite (73 percent). The nearby provinces account for the balance (15 percent in Laguna, 7 percent in Batangas and Quezon, and 5 percent in Pampanga and areas north of Metro Manila).
This is a supply-demand situation that the logistics industry is simply addressing—the reason the major ports have to be in Manila, so that these raw materials, supplies and finished goods could be moved from one end to another in a most efficient and cost-effective way. Thus, in terms of international cargo-handling capacity, the existing major ports in Manila also account for the bulk: South Harbor, 1.2 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs); Manila International Container Terminal (MICT), 2.5 million TEUs; Batangas Port, 300,000 TEUs; and Subic Port, 600,000 TEUs.
How does the government then address the problem with the least disruption in the flow of trade and the growth of the economy?
Tomorrow: Part II: Turning Manila into a world-class port city.
Special to the BusinessMirror