Coastal Reclamation Controversies: Is Progress Destroying Our Philippine Shores?

More than 187 reclamation projects are either planned, approved, or underway across the Philippines, according to Philippine Reclamation Authority data cited by the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights. That number alone would raise eyebrows. But what makes it urgent is the convergence of three things happening at once: the scale of these projects, the mounting evidence of environmental damage, and the fact that the government itself is now reviewing whether some of them should proceed.

These aren’t small infill jobs. The Navotas Coastal Bay Reclamation Project (NCBRB), a P57-billion San Miguel Corporation undertaking approved in 2015, plans to reclaim 576 hectares of Manila Bay. Another P27-billion Philippine International Exhibition Center is slated for Pasay Harbor City, one of 25 reclamation projects in that area alone. Taken together, the volume of earth and water being moved is reshaping coastlines faster than anyone can fully assess the consequences.

The timing matters. In August 2023, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. ordered a suspension of most Manila Bay reclamation projects to allow for environmental and social impact assessments. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources resumed the NCBRP in February 2024 after a cumulative impact study, and is now reviewing all 21 projects in the bay — ongoing, approved, and proposed — to determine whether adjustments are needed. That review does not mean cancellation. What it signals is that even the agencies that approved these projects are wrestling with consequences they may not have fully anticipated.

Not One Kind of Problem: Environmental, Economic, and Human Rights Dimensions

To understand the controversy, it helps to separate the different kinds of harm involved. The environmental case is the most straightforward: reclamation fills in shallow marine areas, directly burying the habitats that fish, corals, and mangroves depend on. The Marine Environment and Resources Foundation (MERF) study found that reclamation could disrupt natural water circulation, intensify pollution buildup, and worsen flooding in low-lying areas — especially during extreme weather events. Dr. Charina Lyn Repollo, who worked on the study, put it plainly: reclamation can trap pollutants and exacerbate flooding.

But the issue is not just ecological. For the fishing communities of Navotas, the loss of fishing grounds is a direct economic blow. John Mark Macabantad, a local fisher, told Bulatlat that the sea is “getting smaller” and that areas once open to fishing — like the waters in front of the Mall of Asia — are now prohibited. The result is a slow squeeze: fewer fish, higher costs, lower income. Jordan Araza, another Navotas fisher, said simply: “They should not take away our right to fish in our own waters.”

Then there is the human rights dimension. The APHR inquiry heard testimony that reclamation projects have led to violent evictions and that environmental defenders have been red-tagged — labeled as enemies of the state for opposing development. Jonila Castro, a witness at the inquiry, stated: “These reclamation operations all ended in tragedy. There is no success story.” Whether or not one accepts that sweeping conclusion, the pattern of allegations is serious enough that the APHR plans a final report with recommendations for ASEAN governments.

Why the Answer Depends on Where You Stand

Not everyone loses from reclamation. The projects are backed by major corporations — San Miguel Corporation is the proponent of the Navotas project — and they promise economic benefits: jobs, tax revenue, tourism infrastructure, and land for development. The Philippine International Exhibition Center, for example, is a flagship project under the Marcos Jr. administration. For proponents, reclamation is a way to create valuable real estate where none existed, unlocking economic activity that could benefit the wider region.

But the trade-off is stark. The same government agencies that approved these projects are now reviewing them. DENR Secretary Maria Antonia Yulo-Loyzaga described the review as “a dynamic process” that will integrate reclamation plans with water quality, flood management, disaster risk, and waste systems at the local level. That language suggests a shift from project-by-project approval to a more holistic view — but it also acknowledges that earlier approvals may not have accounted for cumulative impacts.

One of the most counterintuitive findings is that reclamation can actually increase flooding risk. Filling in shallow coastal areas alters water flow patterns, and in some cases, the land that was “reclaimed” ends up being more vulnerable to storm surges and sea-level rise than the original coastline. The MERF study’s second phase, expected by Q3 2025, will include 3D flood modeling to better visualize these risks. For now, the evidence suggests that reclamation is not simply a trade-off between environment and development — it may also be a trade-off between short-term land gain and long-term flood exposure.

Another factor that changes the equation is location. Reclamation in Manila Bay — a National Historical Landmark according to the National Historical Commission — carries different weight than reclamation in a less ecologically sensitive area. The bay is a major fishing ground, a transport corridor, and a cultural landmark. Filling parts of it affects not just the immediate area but the entire water system, including pollution patterns and flood risks for surrounding cities.

Fine Print That Changes the Picture

Three details in the research deserve closer attention because they complicate the standard narrative.

Environmental Compliance Certificates Can Be Revisited

Many people assume that once a project gets an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), it’s locked in. That is not the case. The DENR has stated that it will revisit ECCs already issued for reclamation projects, in coordination with the Philippine Reclamation Authority. This means that even projects that have already been approved and possibly started could face new conditions or even suspension if the cumulative impact assessment finds problems they didn’t anticipate. The review is not just about future projects — it reaches backward.

Income Drop Is Not Just About Fish Supply

The income loss for Navotas fisherfolk is not simply a matter of fewer fish in the water. It is also about restricted access. Fishermen are being pushed farther out to sea because areas near the shore — including traditional fishing grounds — are declared off-limits due to reclamation activity. This increases fuel costs, travel time, and risk. So even if fish stocks held steady, the economics would still deteriorate because the cost of catching them rises. The reported drop from P1,000–P1,500 to P500 net daily income reflects both fewer fish and higher expenses.

The Review Does Not Equal a Halt

The DENR’s review of 21 Manila Bay projects has been described in some news reports as a crackdown. But the agency’s own language is careful: the review aims to “identify possible adjustments,” not cancel projects. And the NCBRP already resumed in February 2024 after the suspension. The review process is real, but it is happening alongside continued construction. The second phase of the MERF study — with 3D flood modeling — won’t be ready until Q3 2025. Decisions about projects that are already moving forward may be made before the full picture is available.

What Affected Communities and Concerned Citizens Can Do

The options for ordinary Filipinos who want to engage with reclamation issues are limited but real. They depend on what role you’re in.

If You Are a Fisher or Coastal Resident

Documentation is the first line of defense. Record changes in catch volume, income, and access to fishing grounds over time. These records become evidence that can be presented to the DENR, the Philippine Reclamation Authority, or local government units during public consultations. The APHR inquiry and the Bulatlat reporting both show that firsthand testimony carries weight — but only when it is specific and verifiable. Connect with organizations like Pamalakaya, Oceana, or Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment, which were cited in the APHR inquiry as active on these issues.

If You Are a Consumer or Voter

Reclamation projects are approved by national agencies but also involve local government units. Ask your local officials where they stand on specific projects in your area. The DENR review is a public process, and the agency has stated it will integrate reclamation plans with local-level flood management and waste systems. That means local government input matters. If a project is in your city or province, attend public hearings and submit comments.

If You Are Following the Policy Path

The MERF study’s second phase — due in Q3 2025 — will include 3D flood modeling that could change how reclamation projects are evaluated. The DENR has also committed to coordinating with the Philippine Reclamation Authority on ECC revisions. Monitor these developments. If the review leads to concrete adjustments — like modified project boundaries, enhanced flood controls, or denied permits for certain projects — it will set a precedent for how reclamation is handled nationwide. If it results in business as usual, that too is information worth noting.

Frequently Asked Questions About Coastal Reclamation in the Philippines

What to Watch for Next

The reclamation debate in the Philippines is not heading toward a simple resolution. The DENR review, the MERF study’s second phase, and the APHR’s forthcoming report will all shape the direction — but none of them will settle the underlying tension between economic development and environmental protection. What matters is whether the review process actually changes project outcomes, or whether it becomes a procedural exercise that allows construction to continue as planned. The best thing a concerned reader can do is follow the specific projects in their area, attend public consultations, and hold officials accountable to the commitments they make during the review process.

If this was useful, you might also want to read how overdevelopment in Metro Cebu echoes similar trade-offs.

Sources

Land grabbing in the Philippines — A look at how large-scale development projects displace communities, with parallels to reclamation controversies.

Corruption in permits and unsafe construction — Explores how weak regulatory oversight enables projects that bypass environmental and safety standards.

APHR Calls on the Philippines to halt reclamation and prioritize people’s lives, human rights, and safety. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights, October 2024.

Navotas fishers struggle as Manila Bay reclamation expands. Bulatlat, April 2025.

DENR reviews Manila Bay reclamation projects amid environmental, economic concerns. Context.ph, April 2025.