"Once the construction of the bridge begins, the World Heritage Site designation will be withdrawn, with all the implications of that for this country’s tourism industry and, more importantly, for the prestige of the Philippines."
"Once the construction of the bridge begins, the World Heritage Site designation will be withdrawn, with all the implications of that for this country’s tourism industry and, more importantly, for the prestige of the Philippines."The title of this column is a takeoff on the title of American author Cornelius Ryan’s book—“A Bridge Too Far”—which was about one of the battles between the Western Allies and the German Army toward the end of 1944. The bridge of the title of Mr. Ryan’s book was the bridge at Remagen, a town near the Dutch-German border. Because of its critical location, the Germans defended the bridge very strongly. In trying to take the bridge, the Allies suffered heavy casualties, causing Cornelius Ryan to pronounce it a very costly—“too far”—bridge.
The bridge that is this column’s subject is too near, distance-wise; it will be here in this country’s capital. I am referring to the bridge that is programmed to be built across the Pasig River near the mouth of Metro Manila’s principal waterway.
The construction of the bridge ought to be a welcome development for a metropolis that is almost choking with people and traffic. After all, the cost of the bridge will be entirely borne by the government of the People’s Republic of China. And the proposed span will connect two of the busiest parts of the metropolis, to wit, the Port Area and the Binondo-San Nicolas-Tondo area.
Unfortunately, there’s a problem. The proposed bridge is a bridge too near. The nearness relates to the locational and environment requirements imposed by UNESCO (UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization) on national structures, locations and physical features that it chooses to designate as World Heritage Sites. Being a World Heritage Site is a very special status, and that designation is conferred by UNESCO only after the most thorough evaluation of the historical, physical and cultural values of a proposed World Heritage Site. The nearness referred to in the title of this column relates to the location of the proposed Pasig River span.
Many years ago, Intramuros was named a World Heritage Site by UNESCO, and, like all recipients of World Heritage Site designation, the Philippine government agreed to abide by the terms and conditions laid down by UNESCO for the preservation and protection of designated Sites. Perhaps the most important requirement is the maintenance of a specified amount of space around the Site to serve as an environment-protection zone for a designated Site. In the case of Intramuros, the zone extends to the areas beyond the walls of the Walled City. These include the Port Area, which lies between Intramuros and the mouth of the Pasig.
The proposed Pasig River bridge is a bridge too near because the Port Area end of the bridge will be very close to the riverside section of the Walled City; there will be no environment-protection zone in that vicinity. That situation will be violative of the terms and conditions upon which UNESCO conferred World Heritage Site status on Intramuros. Because of its close ties to the Chinese government, the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte appears bent on going ahead with the Binondo-Port Area bridge project. If the project is implemented, UNESCO can be expected to withdraw its designation of the Walled City as a World Heritage Site.
The Duterte administration has a tough choice to make. Should it pursue the Binondo-Port Area project as it stands, or should it seek to avoid the withdrawal of UNESCO World Heritage Site designation?
The process by which the Duterte administration resolves this problem should revolve around two questions. The first relates to the World Heritage Site designation. Does it consider Intramuros’ being a World Heritage Site more valuable to the nation than having a bridge across the Pasig connecting the two up-river areas being contemplated? The second question is, can the location of the proposed bridge be changed without greater damage being done to the government’s transportation-improvement program?
In the end, the decisional problem boils down to this. The location of the bridge probably can be changed; the DPWH (Department of Public Works and Highways) planners probably can do that. But UNESCO almost certainly is not likely to bridge. World Heritage Sites need protective zones around them, a fact known to the Philippine government when it accepted the coveted UNESCO designation.
However the Duterte administration resolves the problem, one thing is beyond question. Once the construction of the bridge begins, the World Heritage Site designation will be withdrawn, with all the implications of that for this country’s tourism industry and, more importantly, for the prestige of the Philippines.
