The proposed 2.54-kilometer Boracay Bridge, connecting Boracay Island to mainland Panay, has ignited a debate over its necessity, environmental impact, and economic consequences.
With the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) leading the project under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) agreement with San Miguel Holdings Corporation (SMHC), the project has been exempted from Regional Development Council (RDC) review under Republic Act No. 11966. While proponents argue that the bridge will enhance accessibility and environmental management, critics warn of economic displacement and ecological risks.
Supporters of the Boracay Bridge argue that it will alleviate congestion and improve mobility between the island and mainland Aklan. With Boracay’s limited infrastructure straining under the weight of millions of annual tourists, a direct land connection could offer a sustainable alternative to existing transport systems.
The DPWH envisions the bridge as a means to control the environmental carrying capacity of the island. By allowing regulated vehicular and pedestrian movement, authorities could reduce the dependency on small boats and lessen pollution from constant maritime travel. The bridge will also provide an all-weather connection, ensuring continued access even during typhoons or rough seas.
From an economic perspective, large-scale infrastructure investments often bring new business opportunities. The planned facility hubs and commercial spaces along the bridge could attract enterprises, diversifying tourism revenue streams beyond just hospitality services.
Local stakeholders, particularly the Caticlan Boracay Transport Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CBTMPC), warn that the bridge could eliminate the ferry industry that has sustained thousands of livelihoods for decades. Over 500 boatmen and 40 boat owners invested heavily in government-mandated fiberglass boat modernization, only to now face obsolescence if the bridge renders their services unnecessary.
Additionally, environmental concerns loom large. Experts fear that bridge construction could damage coral reefs and disrupt marine biodiversity, which are crucial to Boracay’s appeal as a world-renowned island destination. Any misstep in mitigating environmental impacts could lead to long-term damage, undermining the island’s ecological sustainability.
Political leaders in Aklan, including Governor Florencio Miraflores and Vice Governor Reynaldo Quimpo, have voiced opposition, arguing that the project was pushed forward without sufficient consultation. They also point to a provincial ordinance enforcing a “one entry/exit policy” meant to protect Boracay’s tourism assets. The lack of formal engagement with local governments and businesses raises questions about transparency and inclusivity in decision-making.
While the benefits of improved infrastructure are clear, moving forward with the Boracay Bridge without adequate consultation and oversight undermines public trust. A middle ground must be found to address both economic and environmental concerns.
First, the national government should ensure a participatory approach by engaging local communities, business owners, and environmental experts in meaningful dialogue. The RDC’s exclusion from the review process sets a precedent that could sideline local governance, and a formal consultation mechanism should be implemented to restore credibility.
Second, economic displacement must be mitigated. Alternative livelihood programs, financial compensation, or integration of affected ferry operators into the new transport framework should be considered. If the government mandated boat modernization, it must also take responsibility for those now at risk of losing their livelihoods.
Third, a stringent environmental impact assessment (EIA) must be conducted and made publicly accessible. If scientific findings indicate irreversible ecological damage, then the bridge’s design, scale, or even necessity should be reassessed.
Boracay has long been at the heart of debates over sustainable tourism. The bridge should not become another misstep in balancing economic growth with environmental responsibility. Progress should be pursued, but not at the cost of sidelining communities and jeopardizing the island’s long-term viability.
