Franchised trucks and port congestion
If the announced Oct. 17 deadline to get colorum trucks off the streets is implemented, then port congestion will likely worsen and further harm the livelihood of our farmers and fisherfolk.
The movement of agricultural products from farm gate to destination, as well as the delivery of production inputs, significantly affects the already low incomes of our farmers and fisherfolk. When the expanded February truck ban was imposed, their livelihood suffered significantly.
This was partly eased when the truck ban was modified to pre-February levels. The movement of goods increased by an average of 20 percent during the first week. This even doubled to 40 percent during the second week, and has since been sustained.
The government should be congratulated for having helped achieve this.
But because of the backlog of more than 20 ships waiting for a berth to deliver our goods coupled with the increased Christmas season volume, port congestion remains a serious problem. The good news is that things are now slowly improving.
There is, however, a lurking danger because of the Oct. 17 deadline. The next day, all trucks with no franchise will be taken off the road.
We formulated the table below using statistics from the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). It shows a looming problem. (See table)
For those without franchises, only 74 percent of applications are expected to be approved. However, since there are already 2,984 that got franchises prior to the anti-colorum drive, the total number of franchised trucks will be 7,279. This is 83 percent of all trucks. This means approximately one out of every five trucks will be taken off the road. This is a big problem because we need more trucks to address the backlog and ease port congestion.
This is not yet the total picture.
There are approximately 11,000 trucks currently used for port-related operations. This means that an estimated 3,176 trucks did not even apply for a franchise. The more accurate picture is that the trucks with disapproved franchise applications (1,545) should be added to those that did not even apply (2,176). The result is that 3,721 out of 11,000 (or approximately one for every three trucks) will not be used starting Oct. 18.
You can imagine what will happen to the resulting severe port congestion and the great harm that will befall our farmers and fisherfolk.
Moving the Oct. 17 deadline for securing a franchise is definitely called for. But we must delve deeper into this problem. Why did approximately 2,000 out of the 11,000 trucks not even apply for a franchise?
Of course, some trucks should really be taken off the road because they are not roadworthy. But my research on this issue revealed that most of the truckers that did not apply for a franchise were not willing to commit to a requirement that would force them to dispose of their trucks older than 15 years within a year.
They questioned this requirement, especially because more than 70 percent of their trucks are more than 15 years old but still roadworthy. They recommended roadworthiness criteria, instead of a 15-year benchmark. This is especially important since the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has an approved program to refurbish these trucks to make them roadworthy at a small fraction of the cost of a new truck.
Another trucker convincingly argued that our current law states that franchising should be undertaken when there is a need to regulate rates, workers, and capacity. Not one of these three areas is appropriate for port-related trucks today.
Three factors have affected the livelihood of farmers and fisherfolk since last February: the expanded truck ban, the resulting port congestion, and the decrease in truck availability. The truck ban has been addressed, port congestion is slowly being resolved, and truck availability has improved.
But the Oct. 17 deadline is fast approaching. Unless a moratorium is announced and a serious review of the franchising rationale and terms is undertaken, truck unavailability may be the biggest obstacle to restoring the livelihood of our farmers and fisherfolk.
(The author is chair of Agriwatch, former Secretary for Presidential Flagship Programs and Projects, and former Undersecretary for Agriculture, Trade and Industry. For inquiries and suggestions, email [email protected] or telefax (02) 8522112).
