senseneres

BUILDING RAILWAYS WITHOUT TRAINS

Please do not get me wrong. The railways will still have trains running on them. What I am proposing is that the railways and the trains should be built by two separate agencies — not lumped under one overburdened bureaucracy.

To go straight to the point: the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) should build the railways, while the Department of Transportation (DOTr) should build and operate the trains.

That is how it already works on our highways. The DPWH builds the roads, and the DOTr regulates the vehicles. The logic is simple: one agency takes care of infrastructure, the other handles transport systems and operations. So why can’t we do the same for railways?

Division of Labor, Not Duplication of Work

This is not about creating bureaucratic overlap — it’s about functional specialization. The DPWH has the engineering expertise for land acquisition, bridges, tunnels, and track alignment. The DOTr, on the other hand, knows rolling stock, signaling systems, and commuter operations.

If both functions remain under one roof, one tends to lag behind the other. We have seen this many times: expensive rail projects completed without enough trains, or trains delivered years before the tracks are ready. A clear division of labor could change that.

In other countries, this separation of functions is standard practice. In Singapore, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) builds and maintains the rail infrastructure, while private operators like SMRT and SBS Transit manage the trains. In the Netherlands, ProRail builds the tracks, while NS (Nederlandse Spoorwegen) operates the trains. Both systems work — efficiently and transparently.

Learning from the World, Building Our Own

We have long depended on imported trains. Since the first locomotive was invented in 1804 — yes, more than two centuries ago — many nations have learned to build their own trains. After 221 years, perhaps it’s time the Philippines caught up.

Why should we continue to import something that we can learn to manufacture ourselves? Making train coaches is not very different from making bus bodies — and we are already good at building those. In fact, Filipino companies like Santarosa Motor Works and Del Monte Motor Works have been manufacturing world-class bus bodies for years.

The more challenging part may be building the train engines, but that is not beyond the capability of Filipino scientists and engineers. With proper funding and collaboration with universities and local manufacturers, we could start a Philippine Rolling Stock Industry — an entirely new industrial sector that would create jobs, boost local innovation, and reduce dependence on imports.

Trains and Technology

Let’s not forget that our neighbors have already moved far ahead. Japan has mastered the bullet train. China is already running maglev (magnetic levitation) trains that float on air. Even Indonesia, which once looked to us for technical guidance, has started developing its own rolling stock and assembly plants through PT INKA (Industri Kereta Api).

So, the question is: when will we start?

We could begin with something more modest, like tramways — the lower-tech cousin of modern railways. These are cheaper, easier to maintain, and can serve provincial towns and smaller cities where a full-scale railway would be overkill. Tramways also promote tourism and local commerce.

Governance and Efficiency

Dividing responsibility between DPWH and DOTr is not just practical — it’s good governance. Each agency can focus on its strengths. DPWH can handle civil works and infrastructure rollout, while DOTr can focus on transport operations, rolling stock procurement, and public service delivery.

This modular approach also allows for staggered budgeting: DPWH can frontload spending for infrastructure, while DOTr can allocate funds for trains and technology as demand grows. It also enables adaptive procurement — letting us buy or build trains that match modern standards instead of being locked into outdated specs by the time the tracks are finished.

Of course, coordination will be key. There should be a Joint Planning Board between DPWH and DOTr, aligned on route design, train specs, and community impact. Local governments, particularly in provinces hosting new rail lines, must also be consulted to ensure integration with land use plans and social needs.

A Vision for the Future

If we can separate the way we build railways and operate trains, we can move faster, spend smarter, and govern better. It’s time we learned from the best — and then built our own.

We can begin small, one line at a time. But the goal should be bold: a Philippine-built train system that runs on Philippine-built railways.

Because in the end, it’s not about the trains or the tracks — it’s about our capacity to innovate, to adapt, and to stop depending on others for what we should have built ourselves a long time ago.

The technology is already there. What we need now is political will, strategic division of labor, and a nation that dares to believe that it can finally build — not just railways, but the trains that will run upon them.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

09088877282/02-16-2026

BALANCE OF BIODIVERSITY

Pardon me, but I am going to touch on a very sensitive topic that may cause some people to become mad at me. Before I proceed any further, I want to make it clear that I am an advocate of livelihood for everyone, and I do not mean to harm or disturb the livelihood of others, especially our poor farmers. That said, I humbly suggest that we should think about how some invasive species of fish are affecting the balance of our biodiversity, even if these are also providing us with our means of livelihood.

Just to be clear, I am not recommending any action yet. My only recommendation at this point is to start the debate on this issue, so that we could arrive at a good decision about what to do next. In fairness to everyone, however, I would like to recommend a neutral party that could moderate the debate, so that there will be no bias. Instead of suggesting the DA or the DENR to become the moderator, I am suggesting DepDev instead. That is what I mean by a neutral moderator.

What good will it do for our country if we make money from raising invasive species and yet also lose money because of the damage to our biodiversity? It is obvious that what we need is a serious techno-economic study that DepDev is very qualified to do; therefore they should be tasked with it. If DepDev decides to accept the challenge, all government agencies should cooperate with them, and give them the data they need. The task will involve a lot of econometrics, data analytics and perhaps also artificial intelligence. The final output should be a recommendation from DepDev whether or not we should resign to the reality of invasive fish. In other words, to give up eradicating them. If DepDev says otherwise, then we should do everything to eliminate them in all our bodies of water. Meanwhile, we should totally eliminate the useless species such as janitor fish and knife fish.

Background: the case of “pla pla” (Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus)

You already laid out many of the key facts: pla pla was introduced in the Philippines around the 1970s (though some references indicate even earlier introductions via fishery programs). It grows fast, reproduces quickly, competes with native fish for food and habitat, degrades habitat, and is reported to contribute to the decline—and, in some cases, extinction—of native species, particularly in places like Lake Lanao. The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) classifies it as an invasive exotic species.

But there is also data showing that tilapia and other introduced freshwater fishes have made significant contributions to fish production in the country. In 2012, for example, cultured tilapias, carps, catfishes contributed over ₱20.16 billion in value, producing some 290,513 metric tons to the farmed fish production. From inland freshwater sources, introduced fishes (tilapia, carp, mudfish, catfish, gourami) produced over 88,000 MT worth more than ₱5.3 billion.

So yes: livelihoods, food security, incomes are all on the side of tilapia. We can’t dismiss that easily.

What is DepDev and why they are well-positioned

DepDev is the Department of Economy, Planning and Development, the newly created executive department under Republic Act No. 12145, which reorganized the former National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). Among its mandates are socioeconomic planning, coordination, monitoring and advising policymakers.

Given this, entrusting DepDev with assessing the trade-offs of invasive species seems reasonable. They have the institutional legitimacy, access to data, capacity (assuming sufficient resourcing), and mandate to convene stakeholders. Also, with long-term planning law (they are tasked with a 25-year infrastructure master plan, etc.), they already deal with balancing long-term costs and benefits.

What do we know and what remains unclear

From scientific studies:

A recent paper (on aquaculture in a Malaysian reservoir) shows that native fish catch (CPUE = Catch Per Unit Effort) is significantly lower in sites near tilapia cages compared to distant sites. Several native cyprinid species show >50% reduction in abundance near tilapia cages.
Overlap in diet and habitat between tilapia and many native species means that tilapia are outcompeting them both for food and for reproductive grounds.
On the Philippine side, there is some contradictory evidence: some studies report no evidence of adverse effect on native fish fauna when tilapia are introduced into certain lakes/reservoirs, while others warn about habitat degradation, competition, and loss of biodiversity.
Also important: much is unknown. The ecological impact of many introduced freshwater fish species is poorly documented. According to one review, 62% of introduced freshwater fishes in the country have “unknown” ecological impact, 54% have “unknown” socio-economic impact,

My thoughts, questions and suggestions

Trade-off awareness
We must openly recognize that there are trade-offs: food, livelihoods vs biodiversity loss. The poor farmers and fishers depend on tilapia (and other invasive species) for income and sustenance. Eliminating them cold turkey could hurt vulnerable groups unless there are alternatives.
Transparent data gathering & public engagement
A techno-economic study must be transparent, participatory, inclusive. Involve local fishers, environmental scientists, economists, community leaders. Ensure that local knowledge is respected.
Define criteria for decision
What counts as “too much damage”? Is loss of certain native species irreversible? How to value ecosystem services lost (water quality, recreational fishing, ecotourism)? How to compare with income gains from invasive species farming?
Possible policy options

Management rather than total eradication: e.g., containment, confinement (ponds), avoiding escapees.
Selective elimination in high priority ecosystems (rivers or lakes with endangered natives) but allowing on farms under regulation.
Genetic, biological, or ecological control measures (though risky).
Incentives for farming native species or for cultivation systems that reduce the invasiveness (closed systems, controlled stocking, etc.).

Regulatory and institutional framework
We have the National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan (NISSAP) 2020-2030 that aims to address IAS (Invasive Alien Species). Implementation seems weak, and enforcement issues remain. A multi-agency task force is needed (DENR, DA-BFAR, LGUs, academe).
Economic valuation of costs
There is a study that says invasive species cost Southeast Asia about US$33.5 billion per year (losses in agriculture, environment, human health). By knowing similar estimates for the Philippines, we can measure whether benefits from tilapia outweigh hidden costs from biodiversity losses.
Role of DepDev

Commission the study: ecological, economic, social dimensions.
Publish interim findings so public debate can happen.
Ensure legal, budget, and institutional support: data from BFAR, DENR, PSA (Philippine Statistics Authority), academe.
Possibly design compensation or support mechanisms for communities that might be adversely affected under stricter regulation.

Questions to ask

What is the real cost to ecosystems and native species in terms of biodiversity loss, which could translate into losses in ecotourism, cultural heritage, water quality, and resilience?
What are current levels of dependence of fishers, farmers on invasive species for income? Do they have alternatives?
Are there successful case studies—either in the Philippines or elsewhere—where invasive fish have been managed without harming the livelihoods of small farmers?
What are the risks of eradication: environmental, social, economic? Could removal of an invasive species cause unintended damage?

My view / suggestion

If I were to decide, I would lean toward a balanced management approach, not total elimination at this moment. Here's why:

The benefits (food, jobs, income) are real and important, especially for the rural poor.
But uncontrolled spread of invasive species risks irreversible losses of native biodiversity, which in the long run could undermine ecosystem services (clean water, natural fish stocks, ecological resilience) that even fish farmers and consumers depend on.

So, I suggest that we:

Task DepDev with a major study, as proposed.
Meanwhile, strengthen enforcement of measures to prevent escape of tilapia from farms; designate protected water bodies where invasive species are strictly controlled.
Promote aquaculture of native species in parallel (e.g., stock enhancement, culture of indigenous fishes).
Possibly provide subsidies or transition assistance to fish farmers should stricter regulations be imposed.

Let me end with this: what is the kind of country we want in 25, 50 years? One where short-term incomes dominate while we lose our unique lakes, rivers, and native species — or one where biodiversity, culture, and livelihood all survive together? If DepDev helps us frame that debate well, then perhaps we will arrive at the right decision — not easy, but necessary.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

09088877282/02-15-2026