Integrating a fragmented maritime industry

Integrating a fragmented maritime industry
Brenda V. Pimentel October 28, 2020 https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/10/28/business/maritime-business/integr...

One serious attempt to integrate the maritime industry took off during President Marcos’ martial law regime through the Integrated Reorganization Plan of 1972.

Scrutiny of the document showed efforts to bring together governance over the different modes of transportation under one agency i.e. the Bureau of Transportation. Realizing the huge tasks and responsibilities that come with transportation concerns later compelled the government to create specialized agencies among which shall be distributed the governance of air, land, water, and railway modes of transport. This paved the way for the creation of the Maritime Industry Authority and the Philippine Ports Authority, among others; the Philippine Coast Guard was already then a unit of the Department of National Defense. The allocation of functions appeared logical at that time.

As trade among nations increased, driven by economic growth and technological innovations, the movement of people and goods across borders was relaxed and became less complicated. Correspondingly, many countries including the Philippines stepped up aggressive efforts in pursuing diverse maritime-related undertakings. For this archipelago, these included such endeavors from shipping to shipbuilding, port operations to coastal enterprises, seafaring to fishing, ship management to the shipping agency, and many other ancillary activities.

Various activities which before were considered necessary components of a maritime venture branched out to become standalone enterprises such as maritime education and training which were simply part of the country’s educational structure; in the same manner manning (or husbanding of ships) was part of shipping operations. While the traditional maritime activities fall within the ambit of the regulatory sphere of existing agencies with defined maritime mandates, there arose the need to identify the appropriate agency to supervise the new maritime activities.

These circumstances plus the additional governmental responsibilities and obligations arising from the country’s international and regional commitments led to wider expectations, thus, the institution of new functions and maritime expertise. Drawing up the new functions and determining the competent and pertinent agency upon which to vest the authority to discharge such functions was not easy as this amplified the unresolved misunderstanding among agencies each claiming to have been given maritime mandates under their respective charter.

And these agencies are not incorrect. One agency was vested with functions related to maritime safety under its charter; yet, another agency will be able to show a similar proviso in the law creating it. Industry stakeholders had to deal with different agencies purportedly dealing with the same official authority. Efforts to resolve bickering among agencies may have been brokered and settled through compromise arrangements which do not necessarily respond to the needs of the industry often causing costly delays. While progress had been achieved in delineating the functions between these agencies, some occasions show undercurrents of animosity and embarrassment. That the squabble had receded could be superficial.

Moving forward or stepping rearward?

The perception of a fragmented maritime industry appears to have been shaped by the diverse maritime activities which exist today and most of which are regulated by different agencies. These agencies move about according to their respective programs and agenda often oblivious of the adverse impact these may have on the other agencies’ initiatives. The disjointed regulatory framework places an unnecessary burden upon the industry left to dealing with numerous agencies on seemingly separate but associated activities.

Notwithstanding that actual delivery of services by these agencies are merged through “one-stop shops”, the government agencies’ policy formulations continue to confuse stakeholders and hinder them from pursuing strategic business plans.

The purposes for which the Marcos reorganization plan initiated more than forty years ago may not be as broad as to settle the challenges now confronting the maritime industry. It was crafted when the government was occupied with linking this archipelago’s islands and hardly participated in international shipping. The reorganization plan started quite correctly in responding to the demand for better transport capability to cater to domestic requirements.

Is the Philippines getting close to achieving an integrated maritime industry through a well-coordinated maritime administration? The leaders of government and the industry stakeholders may have changed and the rules governing the industry considerably expanded, yet, the importance of the maritime industry endures. The industry’s performance will be a gauge to measure how well the government can harness the attributes of an archipelago through the integration of the maritime industry.