Policy Brief: Manila Bay reclamation and its impacts on the people and environment

12 min readSep 23, 2021

Executive Summary

Coastal communities around Manila Bay are already exposed to numerous natural hazards, particularly those related to earthquakes (e.g. liquefaction, tsunamis) and hydro-meteorological phenomena (e.g., floods, storm surges). Reclaimed land are susceptible to liquefaction. Structures built on top of liquefied land are likely to collapse and kill people. The effects of these hazards are exacerbated by accelerated land subsidence due to over-extraction of groundwater.
Urban expansion — the goal of the proposed land reclamation projects — puts more people in areas susceptible to natural hazards, which translates to greater disaster risk. As it is, our knowledge of past extreme natural hazard events in Manila Bay is still limited. Therefore, the risks that we face could be understated. Most importantly, climate change compounds this uncertainty.
Coastal and nearshore Manila Bay were once filled with mangrove forests, seagrass beds, tidal flats, and coral reefs. These provide habitats to marine life, and are largely responsible for the stability of a marine ecosystem. Unfortunately, only a few patches remain around Manila Bay, and those scattered few are threatened by land reclamation.
The destruction of Manila Bay’s marine ecosystem threatens the stability of our food supply. Once a productive fishing area, destructive fishing practices, massive pollution, and unabated land conversion of wetlands and coastal areas have contributed to the marine ecosystem’s deterioration. Despite these, fishes like sardines still spawn in the shallow waters of Manila Bay. If the sardine population collapses, species higher up on the food chain — including humans — will be adversely affected.
Inasmuch as Metro Manila is ripe for a rapid-onset disaster, with urban expansion through reclamation compounding this risk, environmental degradation caused by pollution, urbanization, and destruction of marine habitats — all aggravated by reclamation — is a recipe for a slow-onset disaster that has the potential to affect not only communities around Manila Bay, but also elsewhere.
The government has a clear directive to rehabilitate and preserve Manila Bay through the writ of continuing mandamus issued by the Supreme Court. Land reclamation directly contradicts that mandate. An explicit and unambiguous policy that stops all proposals and activities related to land reclamation in Manila Bay must be put in place.
Manila Bay, in its entirety, should be declared as a fishery reserve. Current management policies should be reviewed and updated, with an ecosystem-based framework put in place and strictly enforced. Past experience have shown that fish stocks recover and multiply not only within a protected area, but in the surrounding waters as well. This means that not only communities around Manila Bay will benefit, but also those around the West Philippine Sea.

Introduction

Many private groups have partnered with a number of government agencies to push for reclamation of much of coastal Manila Bay. Their primary motivation is to create additional urban space for the expansion of Metro Manila. These spaces are mainly for commercial use and urban villages. But at what price? Here, we summarize several of the most significant impacts of reclaiming Manila Bay on the people and environment.

Increased disaster risk

The coastal areas of Manila Bay are exposed to numerous natural hazards. These include earthquake-related (e.g. liquefaction, tsunami) and hydro-meteorological hazards (e.g. floods, storm surges). Furthermore, the effects of these hazards are exacerbated by land subsidence due to over-extraction of groundwater.

Earthquake-related hazards

To date, there are several known earthquake generators near Manila Bay, the most recognized are the Marikina Valley Fault System and Manila Trench. A very strong earthquake from either one would be devastating; it is a well-known fact that reclaimed land is susceptible to liquefaction. When that happens, buildings on top of liquefied land are likely to collapse.

Many reclaimed land in Japan suffered from liquefaction during the 1995 Kobe and 2011 Tohoku Earthquakes. Eastern Japan and western Luzon have similar tectonic settings.

Even earthquakes originating from afar can cause considerable damage. On August 2, 1968, an earthquake in Casiguran, Aurora damaged many parts of Manila, including the infamous Ruby Tower. Casiguran is more than 200 kilometers away from Manila. The 1990 Cabanatuan Earthquake also caused huge damages in Dagupan and Baguio, both more than 100 km from the epicenter.

Historical records show that Manila Bay has experienced tsunamis in the past. Most studies point to Manila Trench as the source of some of the tsunami events, but there still are a few events that scientists are unsure of their respective sources. More research is needed, but what is important to know is that tsunamis in Manila Bay have happened before, therefore it is almost certain that it will happen again.

Hydro-meteorological hazards

Floods and storm surges are two of the most damaging effects of typhoons. Manila Bay is especially prone to storm surges due to its gently sloping seafloor. Additionally, many of the coastal areas in Manila Bay are low-lying and gently sloping as well, which allows incoming seawater to travel farther inland. In 2011, Typhoon Pedring (a Category 4 typhoon that only raised a Public Storm Warning Signal №2 in Metro Manila) generated storm surges that inundated most of coastal Metro Manila, causing widespread damages. For example, Sofitel Philippine Plaza, which is built on reclaimed land, suffered heavy damages costing more than ₱400 million in reconstruction expenses over eleven months, not including the loss of income during this period.

Numerous river systems drain into Manila Bay. When the natural drainage of rivers is constricted, flood waters take longer to recede. This is best exemplified in the coastal areas of northern Manila Bay, where fish ponds with extremely high walls have taken over the river systems. In an extreme rainfall event, such as when Typhoon Lando hit Central Luzon in 2015, the fish ponds prevented flood waters from draining out to the bay, causing floods that lasted for weeks. Blocking the natural outflow of water will result in floods that take longer to recede.

Land subsidence due to over-extraction of groundwater

Compounding the effects of these hazards is accelerated land subsidence. Many parts of coastal Metro Manila, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Cavite have subsided with rates of 1–6 cm/yr in the past two decades due to over-extraction of groundwater. Reclaimed land is also susceptible to land subsidence. This is perhaps best exemplified by Dagat-dagatan, reclaimed in the 1970s during Marcos’ Martial Law regime, which had subsided at rates of least 4 cm/yr in 2003–2011.

Extreme hazard events and climate change

The recurrence of extreme hazard events in the Philippines is still not very well-defined due to the limited amount of scientific data and research. Therefore, disaster risks could very well be understated. The end goal of reclamation is to increase spaces for urban expansion, which will naturally draw in more people. This results in an increased exposure to disasters, for which Metro Manila is ill-prepared. Climate change adds to this uncertainty. Many studies have suggested future scenarios where stronger typhoons will be more common.

Destruction of marine habitats

The shallow waters and coasts of Manila Bay were once filled with mangrove forests, seagrass beds, tidal flats, and coral reefs. According to scholars, Manila’s name comes from “may nilad” which literally translates to “there is nilad.” Nilad (Scyphiphora hydrophyllaces), a small flowering tree that grows in wetlands and mangrove forests, used to be found in abundance along Manila’s coast.

These provide habitats for marine animals. Today, only patches of mangroves are found around Manila Bay. Reclaiming nearshore Manila Bay will destroy these habitats, and further push the marine ecosystem, and with it a major resource of our country, to the brink of collapse.

Threat to food security

Manila Bay was a major fishing ground. Unfortunately, the loss of marine habitats due to unsustainable fishing practices, massive pollution, and unabated land conversion have put the ecosystem of Manila Bay in danger of collapse.

Despite all these environmental stresses, marine life in Manila Bay has survived, albeit barely. A recent study by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) revealed that Manila Bay is a spawning area for several species of fishes. Among these fishes are three sardine species: Sardinella gibbosa, Sardinella fimbriata, and Sardinella lemuru, which most of us know as “tamban.” Additionally, a recent BFAR survey in 2014–2015 yielded 146 species of marine animals still existing in Manila Bay. Fishes mostly spawn in the shallow waters of Manila Bay, which is also the main target of land reclamation proponents. Reclamation will therefore deprive these fishes of valuable spawning areas.

Sardines are an important food and economic resource, both for our domestic and international trade. It provides jobs to millions of people, from catching, processing, and selling the fishes and their products.

Many other fishes also depend on sardines for food, such as tuna, mackerel, scad, and trevally. Tuna, in particular, is a million-dollar industry and is a major export product of our country. Additionally, other non-commercially valuable but ecologically important species such as sharks, dolphins, and whales also eat sardines. Needless to say, if the sardine population crashes, all species higher up the food chain — including humans — will be affected. As it is, our seas are already overfished. It is therefore incumbent that we protect this vital food resource.

Negative effects of urban sprawl

The argument that the new land created from reclaiming Manila Bay will help decongest Metro Manila is fundamentally wrong. The planned urban villages will likely be unaffordable to most of the existing residents of Metro Manila, so there is no reason to expect any decrease in population density. In fact, these new structures are designed to be occupied by new businesses, both expatriate and local. However, these will not benefit their employees, who will most likely locate in nearby, already densely populated, areas.

Areas farther away from Roxas Boulevard that historically do not experience extreme flooding for an extended duration, were subjected to the very same in the aftermath of Typhoon Pedring, which generated storm surges along the Bay though only raising Public Storm Warning Signal №2 in Metro Manila. According to members of the Alyansa ng Maralita sa Malate, a large urban poor association, so severe was the flooding that residents of Malate up to San Andres Market were forced to flee and could not return to their homes until two weeks later.

One need only review the history of Dagat-dagatan. Imelda Marcos imposed reclamation in the Navotas area. Today, Dagat-dagatan floods all year round, all the way through Navotas and Malabon. On General Luna Street, which is Malabon’s main street, floods even in summer, can reach up to knee-high levels.

More urban spaces mean increased demand for public utilities and services. For instance, Metro Manila’s public transportation system is arguably one of the worst among the world’s biggest megacities, and the pace at which it is being improved has been arduously sluggish. This means that people working and living in the reclaimed areas will have to make do with car-based transportation, which inevitably results in more traffic and pollution.

In all, this represents another uncoordinated and ill-advised effort to expand Metro Manila’s urban sprawl, which will again result in added societal and environmental strain.

Ways forward

The government has a clear directive to rehabilitate and preserve Manila Bay. In particular, the Supreme Court issued a writ of continuing mandamus that orders a number of government agencies to:

“…clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters to SB classification to make it fit for swimming, skin-diving and other forms of contact recreation. To attain this, defendant-agencies, with defendant DENR as the lead agency, are directed, within six (6) months from receipt hereof, to act and perform their respective duties by devising a consolidated, coordinated and concerted scheme of action for the rehabilitation and restoration of the bay (MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP, and DILG v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, 2008).”

The negative environmental and societal impacts of land reclamation directly contradict that mandate.

Notably, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) identified Manila Bay as a Key Biodiversity Area in 2006. This means that DENR recognizes Manila Bay as a critically important biodiversity area. Along with reclamation, DENR lists pollution, conversion to fishponds, salt pans, industrial and domestic wastes, and road construction as threats to Manila Bay’s ecosystem. Additionally, DENR also designated the Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area (LPPCHEA) as a “Critical Habitat” in accordance with the Ramsar Convention, which the Philippines is a signatory. It is baffling that the Environment Management Bureau, DENR’s line agency tasked to review Environment Compliance Certificate applications, does not reject these reclamation proposals outright.

An explicit and unambiguous policy that stops all proposals and activities related to land reclamation in Manila Bay must be put in place. Designating it as a fishery reserve in its entirety, in recognition of its role as an important marine and fishery resource, would be a step in the right direction. Policies pertaining to its management and preservation should be reviewed and updated, with an ecosystem-based framework in place and strictly enforced. Past experience in the Philippines and globally have shown that fish stocks recover and multiply not only within a protected area, but in the surrounding waters as well. This means that not only communities around Manila Bay will benefit, but also those around the West Philippine Sea.

More research funding should be provided to research and academic institutions to ensure that policy-makers, stakeholders, and the public are well-armed with the best science available. To ensure transparency, funding for these research projects should not be funneled through government agencies that are respondents of the Supreme Court’s continuing mandamus.

Furthermore, since these activities are expected to be funded using taxpayers’ money, all findings must be open access, that is all the data and reports must be made freely available to the public with minimal restrictions, preferably through online means. Additionally, data products should be open data, meaning in addition to being open access the data must also be in machine-readable and interchangeable format.

Lastly, our cities must be inclusive to all. Our government must make sure that resources and services are equally accessible; that every person regardless of gender, social, ethnic, and economic background is recognized of their right to the city. Any development plan for the Greater Metro Manila Area must consider these factors. Urbanizing for urbanization’s sake, which these land reclamation projects are, does not achieve this.

References

Ardery, J., 2004. Q. What’s in Manila’s Name? A. White Star-Shaped Flowers. Online: http://humanflowerproject.com/index.php/weblog/comments/q_whats_in_manilas_name_a_white_star_shaped_flowers. Accessed: 22 April 2018.

Bhatta, B., 2010. Causes and consequences of urban growth and sprawl. In Analysis of urban growth and sprawl from remote sensing data (pp. 17–36). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Biodiversity Management Bureau, 2014. Atlas of Inland Wetlands in Mainland Luzon, Philippines. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines. Online: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/atlas_inland_wetland_mainland_luzon_philippines_2014_e.pdf. Accessed: 25 April 2018.

Blanco, M., 1845. Flora de Filipinas. Imprenta de Don Miguel Sanchez. Manila.

Castillo, C., 2000. Saving the Manila Bay. In: Canopy International. Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines.

Elgamal, A.W., Zeghal, M. and Parra, E., 1996. Liquefaction of reclaimed island in Kobe, Japan. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 122(1), pp.39–49.

Evasco, F., 2000. Overfishing depletes fish population in Manila Bay. In: Canopy International. Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines.

Harvey, D., 2008. The right to the city. New Left Review (53), pp. 23–40.

Lagmay, A.M.F.A., 2018. An open data law for climate resilience and disaster risk reduction. Online: https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/57648. Accessed: 18 April 2018.

Lopez, M., 2000. Pollution endangers Manila Bay’s seagrass beds. In: Canopy International. Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines.

Manila Bay Coordinating Office, 2017. Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy (2017–2022). Online: http://mbco.denr.gov.ph/OPMBCS2017-2022.pdf. Accessed: 1 March 2018.

Manila Bay Coordinating Office, 2017. 2017–2022 OPMBCS approved by MBAC, concerned DENR offices back to the drawing board. Online: http://mbco.denr.gov.ph/2017-2022-opmbcs-approved-mbac-concerned-denr-offices-back-drawing-board/. Accessed: 22 April 2018.

Manila Bay Environmental Management Project, 2001. Manila Bay Coastal Strategy. Online: http://119.92.161.2/mbemp/dloads/mbcs%2001bgd.pdf. Accessed: 22 April 2018.

Montenegro, L.O., Diola, A.G. and Remedio, E.M., 2005. Environmental costs of coastal reclamation in Metro Cebu, Philippines. EEPSEA, IDRC Regional Office for Southeast and East Asia, Singapore, SG.

Pagador, C., 2000. The coral reefs in Manila Bay: Their alarming decline. In: Canopy International. Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines.

Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, 2006. Priority Sites for Conservation in Philippines: Key Biodiversity Areas. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines.

Ramsar, 2013. Philippines names urban coastal wetland. Online: https://www.ramsar.org/news/philippines-names-urban-coastal-wetland. Accessed: 26 April 2018.

Rodolfo, K.S., 2014. On the geological hazards that threaten existing and proposed reclamations of Manila Bay. Philippine Science Letters, 7(1), pp. 228–240.

Santos, L., 2000. Gone are the mangroves of Manila Bay. In: Canopy International. Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines.

Santos, M.D., Furio, E.F., Lopez, G.DV., Torres, F.SB., Borja, V.M., Bognot, E.DC., Gatdula, N.C., Perez, M.A. and Gonzales, F.L., 2017. Fisheries Resources and Ecological Assessment of Manila Bay 2012–2015. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources -National Fisheries Research and Development Institute, Quezon City, Philippines.

Magno, F.A., 1993. Politics, Elites and Transformation in Malabon. Philippine Studies, 41(3), pp. 204–216.

MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP, and DILG v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay. G.R. Nos. 171947–48 December 18, 2008. Online: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/december2008/171947-48.htm. Accessed: 23 April 2018.

Soga, K., 1998, January. Soil liquefaction effects observed in the Kobe earthquakes of 1995. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Geotechnical Engineering (Vol. 131, №1).

UN OCHA, 2011. OCHA and slow-onset emergencies. OCHA Occasional Policy Briefing Series — №6. Online: https://www.unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/OCHA%20and%20Slow%20Onset%20Emergencies.pdf. Accessed: 22 July 2018.

Yasuda, S., Harada, K., Ishikawa, K. and Kanemaru, Y., 2012. Characteristics of liquefaction in Tokyo Bay area by the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. Soils and Foundations, 52(5), pp.793–810.

Download this document in PDF format here.