The Philippines continues to suffer from inadequate and poor quality road and rail transport infrastructure even lagging behind among ASEAN’s 10-member countries, on persistent poor implementation issues, including political intervention, according to a study.
The study “Road and Rail Transport Infrastructure in the Philippines: Current State, Issues, and Challenges” by authors Adoracion M. Navarro and Jokkaz S. Latigar at the Philippine Institute for Development Studies’ (PIDS) assesses the state of the country’s road and rail transport infrastructure, identifies the challenges in the implementation of the related public investment program, and generates policy insights from the analysis citing latest available data.
The study cited the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) of the Global Competitiveness Report 2019, where the Philippines continued to lag behind most of its peers in Southeast Asia in terms of the overall state of infrastructure. The Philippines ranked second from the bottom among the nine ASEAN countries and 96th among141 economies in infrastructure competitiveness.
In terms of road connectivity, the Philippines ranked third from the bottom in road connectivity among ASEAN and 125th globally.
On the quality of road infrastructure, the Philippines again ranked low, sixth among the nine ASEAN countries, and 91st globally.
Similarly, the Philippines was a bottom dweller in rankings for train service efficiency among the ASEAN countries.
Benchmarking the country against its ASEAN neighbors for different indicators, the PIDS study said that “one can validate what users of road and rail transport infrastructure in the Philippines have long been experiencing: a deficient and inferior infrastructure.”
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
The poor road infrastructure in the country was blamed to unmet target set under the Philippine Development Plan, the Public Investment Program, and the expenditure program.
“The low absorptive capacity, as indicated by unmet expenditure targets of the major agencies in charge of the road and rail transport subsectors, suggests problems in implementation,” the study added.
Implementation issues pertain to right-of-way acquisition, financing, political intervention, weak capacity at the local government level, natural calamities, and project management issues continue to persist.
Interestingly, the PIDS study said that political intervention in the finalization of projects in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) is a huge problem.
It added that during deliberations and finalization process of the GAA in Congress, some projects in the national expenditure program are supplanted by other projects.
“These replacement projects are Congressional insertions that have not undergone the usual due diligence process (such as thorough planning and consultation with stakeholders). These political interventions happen yearly,” the study stated.
Recommendations
To help address these issues, the study recommends that Congress enact a long-term national transport plan.
In the interim, it proposed that the executive branch must strictly adhere to the principles of its National Transport Policy and execute its self-imposed prescription to craft a national transport master plan.
Capacity-building programs for local government units must continue and local road databases—which are important in helping prioritize areas for national government support—must be completed and integrated. To reduce political influences on project implementation, reform champions must come to the fore and regional development councils ought to institutionalize their procedures.
