Laurence Banyard
Global Principal, Jacobs
In the free online course (Re)Imagining Port Cities: Understanding Space, Society and Culture, learners are invited to create a portfolio exploring the spaces, stakeholders, transitions, values, and challenges of a port city territory of their choice. As part of the course, learners are challenged to reflect on their learning and share their findings in the form of a blog post. In this edition, maritime engineer Laurence Banyard explores the symbiosis of port and city and shares his observations in one of the world's most densely populated metropolitan areas: Manila, The Philippines.
Manila is a port and a city, intertwined, each dependent on the other both commercially and culturally. Yet, they compete for scarce resources of land and water, a battle exacerbated by sea level rise and poor water quality. My work as a maritime engineer often takes me to areas of the ports that are not open to public view and brings me into regular contact with port decision-makers. While analyzing, planning and designing improvements to port terminals, I find it helpful to consider the wider port city: its historical context, the stakeholders, their values and challenges.
Most people consider port cities from a land-based perspective, but I think we should also approach them from the sea, both literally and figuratively. Simply mapping out shipping channels, anchorages, berthing areas, recreational waters and intake/outfall zones can reveal port cities in a different relief. The blank spaces on navigation charts are commonly all on land. This thinking also demonstrates that the pressure and competition for water space usage is just as keen as it is for land within port cities.
Manila as a Port City – The Historical Context
The competition for space in the port city of Manila is best understood through its historical development over the centuries, shaped by significant external and international influences.
One of the most important turning points for Manila as a port was the transition from Spanish to American rule in 1898. The Philippines remained an American colony until the Japanese invasion in 1942. The Americans invested in the land reclamation and construction of wharfs at Manila South Harbor, following the plans that the Spanish had developed, creating piers where “the largest ocean craft in the Pacific can be docked” (Barrows, 1914, p. 19). From my personal observation, the pier structures, reinforced concrete piles and layouts are characteristic of American engineering from that era, which can also be seen in New York, Baltimore and many other US ports. To this day, the Philippines continues to use American codes and standards for engineering, whereas much of the rest of Southeast Asia adopts British (and therefore European) codes.
Even the Philippines' relative resilience during the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 may have been influenced by enduring Pacific trade links. In 1997, 39% of the Philippines' exports went to the US, which was experiencing strong economic growth, compared to just 14–19% for other Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand (World Integrated Trade Solution [WITS], n.d.). This suggests that the trading links to the US helped offset the effect of the crisis for the Philippines.
Interestingly, it is far easier to find maps online from the American Period than from either the earlier Spanish Period (pre-1899) or the Independent Era (post-1946). A fellow student of this course mentioned a similar pattern in Yangon, Myanmar: colonial-era maps and surveys are often more comprehensive and accessible than those from recent periods of independence.
Manila was among the most devastated cities in the world after World War II, alongside Warsaw and Berlin. At independence in 1946, the focus was on repair and reconstruction across Manila, including the port. By 1960, Manila North Harbor appeared on contemporary maps, and the Manila International Container Terminal (MICT) was operational by 1991. Throughout this time, the port city has steadily grown in both area and population density.
The Port of Manila – Who’s Who
One of the principal stakeholders in the Port of Manila is the Philippines Ports Authority (PPA). PPA is the government agency responsible for port planning, development, operations and regulation. It is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC). The PPA administers most ports throughout the islands of the Philippines and sets port dues and dockage fees.
The PPA’s mission is to provide modern, sustainable and resilient port infrastructure and services, along with responsive, reliable and efficient port services. Part of its mission is also to be transparent, fair and relevant to other stakeholders involved in port development. Among those stakeholders are the private enterprises such as International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) and Asian Terminals Inc. (ATI) that hold concessions for port operations in terminals in Manila, Batangas and other locations. In 2016, PPA, following consultation with the two international terminals and other stakeholders, introduced an electronic terminal truck appointment and booking system (known as TABS). According to Kalambakal (2017), the implementation of TABS contributed to measurable improvements in reducing peak congestion at the terminals.
The PPA also collaborates with other government agencies under the DOTC, for example, the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) and the Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA). They engage with the chambers of commerce in promoting and facilitating trade for the country.
The PPA is involved in securing space for port development, so inevitably their interests often overlap and sometimes conflict with those of others seeking the use of land and sea areas. For example, there is high competition for housing space, both formal and informal, within urban areas. Similarly, the desire to expand the nation's ports, requiring dredging and reclamation, may conflict with the priorities of other sea-users such as fisheries, recreational users and industrial or energy-related organizations.
Manila as a Port City – Values and Challenges
Manila’s growth has brought with it some of the city’s most fundamental challenges: competition for land use, shoreline access and, to a lesser degree, seabed usage.
Manila is the most densely populated urban area in the world (43,000 per km2), with a large number of people living on low-lying land (World Population Review, 2024). Sea level rise will not just squeeze existing urban areas; it will also make vast rural areas unlivable, driving further city-bound migration. To the north of Manila, a rural area of 700 km2 has been identified by PEMSEA (Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia, 2012) as vulnerable to one meter of sea level rise. This area has the highest rate of poverty in the province surrounding Manila Bay, with 11% of residents below the poverty threshold. With a population density of around 1,500 people per km2, this area is home to approximately one million people. Unless there is coordinated, region-wide flood management planning, these people will likely become displaced, and many will seek a home and a livelihood in urban Manila. This migration will increase the land pressure on the low-lying, impoverished urban areas near the port terminals.
Many of the people living around the port earn their living from the port in some way, for example local transportation, security and food and beverage supply, even if they are not directly employed as port workers. While individuals may have relatively little say in port-city governance, collective action can carry greater weight, whether through formal mechanisms such as the barangay (the smallest administrative division in the Philippines) or through informal tactics like land occupation and community-led control of access.
The competition for land, particularly waterfront land, is evident in the limited visual and physical routes for people to access the shoreline. Within the port city, only about 1 km of the coast is wide open for public access (at the Baywalk), and even the links from this area to other public zones are poor. By contrast, the shoreline occupied by the port terminals (wharfs and reclamation zones) is around 10–20 km (depending on how it is measured). Even new residential and commercial reclamation zones at the south end of the bay (at Bay City) almost seem to be turning their backs on the sea, with relatively limited views of the sea and few avenues to the shore.
As part of an Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) program, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has sought to make the best use of that 1 km at the Baywalk by creating a new beach along this waterfront. However, this project itself has resulted in conflicts, as nature conservation bodies and fisheries groups have raised concerns about the impact of the release of sediments on marine life. The beach is sandwiched between the port, the marina and land drainage channels, all of which affect the water quality at the new beach.
The poor water quality in Manila Bay perpetuates a cycle of disease, increased mortality, environmental degradation and habitat loss. It is a serious issue for government departments and agencies at all levels, for fisher-folk, the port authority and operators, and all residents, tourists and developers alike. It is also a complex issue, which arises from the available quality of housing, sanitation and infrastructure in the Manila area. Manila is situated on an enclosed bay, with relatively little water exchange with the South China Sea due to the low tidal range. So the organic and chemical matter that flows from houses and industrial sites into land drainage channels flushes into the bay and then remains there. From the bay this matter can directly affect the health of those who live and earn a living along the water's edge. These effluents are easily ingested by fish and shell-fish and returned back into the human food chain.
Everyone benefits from cleaner bay water, but the questions of who pays and how to achieve it are complex. Ideally, water quality should be tackled at the source in the upstream catchment, but most of the processes of pollution are relatively hidden from view. Various government and NGO programs have been proposed and implemented. The central government's USD 1 billion "Battle for Manila Bay” rehabilitation program includes institutional measures through the collaboration of 13 government agencies, engineering measures such as new sewage interceptors and treatment plants, and public engagement such as beach cleanups of plastic pollution and public education about pollution prevention. There are also private sector investments; for example, one of the local conglomerates is investing USD 37 million in removing waste and dredging the main city watercourse, the Pasig River (Guzman, 2023).
Manila as a Port City – Outlook
How will Manila develop as a port city? If the future has an ancient heart, then I'm sure that Manila will continue to draw on this with courage as best it can. The challenges of population density, deprivation, poverty, poor sanitation and social division in a city of 20 million people are immense. The Philippines is strategically important to wealthy nations, including the US, China and Japan, and so will likely continue to attract overseas investments. Land reclamation opportunities will continue to be realized by the city's private conglomerates across the port, industrial, commercial, residential and recreational sectors. Being a country on the edge of the Pacific Ocean and also situated on the seismic "Ring of Fire," the Philippines is prone to natural disasters, but Manila has benefited over centuries because its location is (relatively) less prone to earthquakes, storm surge and tsunamis than other Philippine cities.
How to work toward a more sustainable future more in line with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals? The starting point, I believe, is to acknowledge and explore the challenges discussed here and to develop a more profound sense of common shared ownership of the issues facing Manila, before rushing into solutions for this complex port city.
Acknowledgments
This blog post has been written in the context of discussions in the LDE PortCityFutures research community. It reflects the evolving thoughts of the author and expresses the discussions between researchers on the socio-economic, spatial and cultural questions surrounding port city relationships. This blog was edited by the PortCityFutures editorial team: Yi Kwan Chan and Eliane Schmid. In particular, we thank Carola Hein for her valuable input and comments, and Hilde Sennema for her feedback on an earlier version of this article.
References
Barrows, D. P. (1914). A decade of American government in the Philippines, 1903–1913. World Book Company.
Guzman, J. (2023, February 1), P2B cleanup increases Pasig River's flood-carrying capacity. Philippines Information Agency. Retrieved 7 May, 2025, from https://mirror.pia.gov.ph/news/2023/02/01/p2b-cleanup-increases-pasig-rivers-flood-carrying-capacity
Kalambakal, J. (2017). Manila International Container Terminal: Implementing the terminal appointment booking system (TABS), Port Technology International. https://www.porttechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/MICT.pdf
Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA). (2012). Integrating climate change and disaster risk scenarios into coastal land and sea use planning in Manila Bay. PEMSEA. https://www.pemsea.org/sites/default/files/2023-12/climate-change-manila-bay_0.pdf
World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS). (n.d.). Philippines Trade Summary 1997. World Bank. Retrieved 28 April, 2025, from https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/PHL/Year/1997/Summarytext
World Population Review (2024), Population Density by City, Retrieved 7 May, 2025, from https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-city-rankings/population-density-by-city