An MMDA duty

Does the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) know that its charter dictates that it provide the National Capital Region with the needed waste disposal facilities and services? That it is bound by law to do so?

Recent developments have resurfaced this issue. It will be recalled that there had been incessant bickering over the Payatas dumpsite. This may have been unnecessary. There is a bigger environmental issue which some quarters may have attempted to conceal, and who found it convenient to smokescreen the problem by heaping the blame for garbage woes on Quezon City Mayor Herbert Bautista.

About a month ago, the Supreme Court affirmed an earlier ruling that the MMDA has the authority to compel government agencies to clean up Manila Bay and enforce environmental laws.

The SC rulings have been referred to as the Manila Bay case. But it is not just about cleaning up the bay. It is also a clear order to MMDA chair Francis Tolentino to make sure that the cities of this bustling metropolis have a sanitary landfill which complies with standards set by law where they can bring their cities’ garbage.

That the SC had to order Tolentino and the MMDA to submit a report on the establishment of such a facility which complies with the specifications set by RA 9003 shows that the said agency may have not acted yet. Meanwhile, Tolentino’s inaction is being smokescreened by the incessant nitpicking on the QC government’s use of the Payatas dumpsite.

This is what baffles the public: Why crucify a local government head who is merely trying to solve his city’s woes? In so doing, are we not unfairly allowing the MMDA to get away with not performing its duty?

The SC’s recent order to Tolentino also underscores the sorry state of governance within the MMDA. And, there must be enough reason for local officials to be disappointed. The SC order confirms fears that the city of more than 10 million people has not been provided by the MMDA with the needed facility for their garbage. Meanwhile, local government heads like Bautista have to take the flak – for trying to make do with what’s available.

Bautista is not the only convenient smokescreen being apparently used to conceal the garbage crisis that Tolentino and the MMDA have been ordered to avert.

The Manila Bay itself appears to be a convenient mask.

After the SC issued the recent resolution affirming an earlier one, environment officials immediately took the SC Chief Justice on a Manila Bay cruise. We hope we are wrong, but that cruise appears to be a media blitz to focus the attention to the filth floating on the bay and away from the tons of garbage for which MMDA has yet to provide a proper destination,

It looked like a clever, even misleading, ploy to create the impression that the SC is concerned only with Manila Bay’s deteriorating condition.

No to emotionalism

First Philippine Industrial Corporation (FPIC) is now conducting a cleanup and remediation of an area in Bangkal, Makati City, which has been affected by a leak in FPIC’s pipeline. The cleanup or rehabilitation is good news for Bangkal residents.

While the cleanup is ongoing, it’s probably worthwhile to assess also the importance of operating the pipeline, which runs from Batangas to Manila. This assessment makes sense, especially now when consumers are reeling from the painful and unabated rise in gasoline prices. The continued shutdown of the pipeline has also its own impact on the environment, because it means the use of alternative transport modes that create their own problems. The assessment must also take all these into consideration.

Before the leak forced the suspension of the pipeline’s operation, the pipeline transported gasoline products for Shell and Chevron. The volume of products handled by the pipeline accounted for 60 percent of the petroleum products for Metro Manila, Bulacan, Laguna and Rizal.

After the pipeline closed down, Shell and Chevron had to use trucks and barges to move their products from Batangas to their depots in Manila.

From what I understand, these alternative transport modes are more expensive to tap. For instance, using barges cost about 50 percent more than transporting the same products through the pipeline. The pipeline, thus, offers one way of mitigating the rise on gasoline prices.

Lower transport cost is not the pipeline’s only advantage. The pipeline is an all-day, all-weather means of moving much-needed petroleum products, because it is not affected by typhoons, floods, and tidal changes.

I mention tides, because tidal changes limit the trips of barges going to and from the Manila depots of Shell and Chevron along the Pasig River bank in Pandacan. If the barges try sailing to Pandacan during high tide, they run the risk of triggering accidents by ramming bridge crossings along Pasig River. If they sail during a low tide, they face the danger of running aground. This means the barges have to wait for a narrow window of opportunity (when it is neither high or low tide) to sail to and from Pandacan through the river.

Shell and Chevron can opt to use tanker-trucks or lorries as alternative transport means. Based on data from the Senate, this alternative calls for 1,000 daily truck trips between Batangas and Manila, which aggravates Metro Manila traffic and pollution. 

The trucks spew into the atmosphere an additional 71,700 tons of carbon dioxide every year. Barging the petroleum products requires 4,000 trips per year between Batangas and Manila, and they could spew into the air an additional 4,500 tons of dangerous CO2 per annum.

Emotions, however, run high in the pipeline issue, especially among residents of the West Tower condominium in Bangkal. We try to understand the West Tower residents, because the leak did create an inconvenience for them. FPIC, meanwhile, is trying its best to clean up the area so affected residents can regain their normal lives.

However, we have to look at the bigger picture, like the benefits the pipeline can offer millions of consumers and commuters.

The Supreme Court earlier issued a Writ of Kalikasan and a temporary environmental protection order (TEPO), which directs FPIC to, among others, cease and desist from operating its pipeline until further orders from the Court.

 On April 15, justices from the Supreme Court will hold an ocular inspection to verify a claim that the pipeline has two other leaks.

 The members of the High Tribunal are most welcome to check the pipeline’s condition and assess its usefulness.

Hopefully, if the inspection uncovers no additional leaks, the result can help calm down emotions and create the right atmosphere for discussing solutions not only for Bangkal residents but for millions of consumers being served by the FPIC pipeline.

For comments, e-mail at [email protected].