THE Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) has, in the eyes of Aklan and of the public looking in, made a big mistake. They have given the go-signal for a bridge to Boracay, proposed by San Miguel Corp. under the public-private partnership (PPP) program.
Earlier, and very publicly, the Aklan community consisting of the boatmen who will lose income if the bridge materializes, the Boracay community that is itself represented by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, and the resident bishop vigorously expressed their opposition. The opposition includes Boracay residents and businesses, as well.
Yet against all of the opposition, which takes in the harm to the income of boatmen, the pressure on Boracay’s carrying capacity, as well as the utter absence of necessity for the bridge, the proponent marches on.
What is in it for the proponent? The toll they will charge for the use of the bridge. In other words, profit at the expense of the community and indifference to their opinion. Planting a bridge where it is clearly unwelcome.
Boracay has and is already experiencing pressure and subsequent damage to the environment via its abuse of carrying capacity. So much so that the previous administration deemed it critical enough to suspend tourism for a period for rectification. Boracay, like any other tourist site, cannot be flooded with too many tourists at one time or its ecology, its own tourist attraction as well as its governance and the income of its entrepreneurs will be affected negatively. Overdevelopment is destructive. The bridge will disturb all of these factors from day one of its construction.
How we handle what could be viable, attractive tourist sites to keep them in long-term viability is already in question. Think of Pagsanjan Falls and how the unsupervised unruly boatmen caused it to become an ungovernable and unmanageable site. Enough to scare tourists away. What about Mines View Park in Baguio surrounded by vendors so the view is gone. Hinulugang Taktak Falls in Antipolo that had to be closed for a time for environmental damage and unmanageable crowds? Tourist sites cannot be overwhelmed by too many visitors at one time or it will be chaotic which will take away from the experience expected. Second, the facilities and people running them have to be efficient and disciplined, and it would be hard going with immense numbers of demanding tourists. The Boracay beach should be kept for swimming, sunning, boating and walking. It should be a site primarily for the visitors and not for vendors. Vending should be controlled by putting vendors in specific places and not everywhere and into accosting visitors with hard-sell tactics. This is happening in Puerto Galera, Mindoro. The Botanical Garden in Baguio has managed this well. Visitors come and see the garden they expect, walk about and enjoy the plants and flowers. There is a separate building where vendors have their stalls, and those who wish to buy can go there and buy what is on sale. The place is well managed and orderly, vital factors in keeping a tourist site attractive and welcoming.
Baguio has been assailed by the so-called day trippers who term themselves “Aral-Lakbay.” They are funded by local governments, come to Baguio in buses, usually bringing their own food, creating traffic and leaving their garbage behind. This is a nightmare, and it can happen to Boracay with the new bridge. It happens when the carrying capacity is breached. As it is, the last thing Boracay needs is more vehicles and that bridge will bring them in large numbers and large sizes.
Day trippers using the bridge will have to pay the toll which will probably be high and for most of them unaffordable. Moreover, these tolls will not go to the local government of the site of Boracay but to a corporation which is building the bridge against community opinion for its own profit. So much so that it will leave little for other expenses like food and souvenirs for the day trippers. Therefore, they will bring their own food, and like the Baguio day trippers leave their garbage behind. And this would be aside from crowding Boracay beyond its carrying capacity.
Yes, we need infrastructure, but it should be infrastructure that the community wants and accepts. In the bridge to Boracay case, it is clear that the community is against it. To the credit of other contractors who know and accept what the Aklan community wants and does not want, not one of them has posted a Swiss challenge to this project. The absence of a Swiss challenge also means that the cost will be on the higher side as only one proponent thinking of its profit has no competition to adjust to. And of course, the higher the cost, the higher the toll.
Boracay welcomes everyone in manageable numbers and through already established ways and costs. Why change the equation by opening doors that only profit an individual corporation? And why is this corporation shrugging off the community’s opposition about what it plans to do?
In the end, there is an absence of civic sense and compulsion for profit in this case at the expense of the community it intrudes upon.
This is an unwanted bridge, and the DPWH should know it and listen to the people where that bridge wants to impose itself.
