Public Disclosure Authorized

C',

C,i
a)J
.... 0.
Public Disclosure Authorized

A 52

~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~1
.... . . .

. ~
.. . . ... ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~AA
. . .......... .......... >

~ .. ...~
. . ~. ........... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? A
Public Disclosure Authorized

... . .. . ...
w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'sAAAX4A C' A
.... ~ ~ 4¼.
....

*5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

mu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
losure Authorized

JO)JUOWF 1~P
Abbreviations and Acronyms

Bln. Billion
BOD Bio-chemical Oxygen Demand
BTU British Thermal Unit
CALABARZON Provinces of Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, and Quez6n
CCBPI Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.
CDS City Development Strategies
DA Department of Agriculture
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DOH Department of Health
DOST Department of Science and Technology
DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
EMB Environmental Management Bureau
ESWMA Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000
GHG Green House Gases
GTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation
HW Hazardous Wastes
IEC Information, Education, and Communication
IRR Implementing Rules and Regulations
ITDI Industrial Technology Development Institute
IWEP Industrial Waste Exchange Program
JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency
LLDA Laguna Lake Development Authority
LGU Local Government Unit
LOGOFIND Local Government Finance and Development Project
Mln. Million
MEIP Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program
MGB Mines and Geosciences Bureau
MM Metro Manila
MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority
MRF Materials Recovery Facility
MSE Micro and Small Enterprises
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NCR National Capital Region
NEDA National Economic and Development Authority
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NIMBY Not In My Back Yard
NSWMC National Solid Waste Management Commission
PCG Philippine Coast Guard
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PhP/P Philippine Pesos
PIA Philippine Information Agency
PPCP Polystyrene Packaging Council of the Philippines
SLF Sanitary Landfill
SWM Solid Waste Management
TDF Tire-Derived Fuel
TESDA Technical Education and Skill Development Authority
THW Toxic and Hazardous Waste
TIRE Totally Integrated Recycling Effort
WHO World Health Organization
 U
The World Bank Group

1818H. Street,N.W. CountryOffice Manila

WashingtonD.C. 20433 23rd Floor,The TaipanPlace
U.S.A. EmeraldAvenue,OrtigasCenter
Tel.:(202) 477-1234 PasigCity,Philippines
Fax: (202)477-6391 Tel.:(632)637-5855to 64
Fax: (632)637-5870
December 2001

TheEnvironment's Ilth hour!!!

As highlightedin the 2000 EnvironmentMonitor,theenvironmentand naturalresourcesof the

Philippinesis underincreasingpresstre.Thechallengeis to act now to ensurea futurethatpreserves
the qualityof life, health,resources,and naturaltreasuresof the country In the spiritof this challenge,a
clockhasbeenchosenas the symbolof theMonitor.

Theclockshownin the 2001Monitoris in the 11thhourto representthis urgencyand the factthat time
is nunningout.As theclockapproachesmidnight,theproblemgetsmorecritical In the caseDf solid
waste,the clockstandsat 11:50indicatingthattimeis runningveryshort.Thereasonsfor this are the
lackof progressondevelopingsafedisposalfacilitiesand visibilityof the effectsincludingtheManila
gatbagecrisis,the Payatastragedyandthe commonsightof garbagestrewnin rivers,streetsandon
privateand publicland in manyareasof the country.At the samne time,solid wasteis beingproducedat
increasingratesand withoutactiontheproblemsin Manilawillbecomeevenmorecriticaland
thosein otherareasof thecountrywillgrow On thepositiveside,severalrecentmeasureshave
preventedtheclockfromcreepingcloserto midnight,includingthe passageof
groundbreaking frameworklegislation(EcologicalSolidWasteManagement Act)and the
successof citizen-led-initiatives
suchas recyclingand awarenessprograms.
In the future,carefulimplementationof the newlegislationrepresentsthegreatesthopefor reversing
theclockon this criticalissuefacingthe Philippines.

The Philippines Environment Monitor 2000 presented a snapshot of

M: n X af environmental
¢ : : kq500general
trends in the country The 2002 edition, currently
under preparation, will focus on air quality management.

This documentwospreparedby a WorldBock Teemconsistingof1Messrs./Mfdmes. Anjali Acherya, BebetGozun,PatchamuthuIllangovan (Teem

Leader),John Morton, end Meye Villeluz. Thedocumentwaspeer reviewedby Messrs.Cerl Bertone,Den Hoornweg,L. PanneerSelvam,Allen
Rotmen,end ThomesE. Weltonof TheWorldBeck;end Mr N.C. Vesuki,ChiefExecutiveOfficer,DelewereSolid WasteAuthority, USA.Comments
end suggestionsofferedby thefollowing ore gratefully acknowledged:Mr. RamonPaje, Undersecretary,Departmentof Environmentand Natural
Resources(DENR); Mr. Julian D. Amador,Director/Officer-in-Charge,EnvironmentalManagementBureau;Mr. Albert A. Magalang,Executive
Director Office of theSecretariat,NationalSolid WasteManagementCommission(NSWMIC);Ms. SoniaMendozaand MfrBert Guevararepresent-
ing theNGOsand Leagueof Barangaysin theANSWMC,respectively.Commentswerealsoprovided by thefollowing WorldBankstaff and consult-
ants: Messrs./Mdmes. Joven Balbosa.BhuvanBhatnagarRob Crooks,GiovannaDare, Jack Fritz, Heidi Hennrich-Hanson,EmmaHooper Mary
Judd, and KanchalikaKlad-Angkul.
Ms. LuisaSambeliEspaflolacoordinatedtheproductionof this Monitor Ms.Agatha Anchetaassistedin data collection. Mr Jeffrey Lecksellwas
responsiblefor preparing the map.Disseminationof theMonitor iscoordinatedby Ms. LeonoraGonzales.Thecover wasdesignedbyVMrBrian Lu
of Liquid Graphics.Thedocumentwasprinted at Inkwell PublishingCompany.

Theviewsexpressedin the PhilippinesEnvironmentMonitor2001areentirelythoseof the authorsand shouldnotbe citedwithoutpriorpermission.Theydo

not necessarilyreflectthe viewsoFTheWorldBeckGroup,its ExecutiveDirectors,or the countriestheyrepresent.Thematerialcontainedhereinhasbeen
obtainedfromsourcesbelievedreliablebut it is notnecessarilycompleteandcannotbeguaranteed.
'§Printed on Recycled Paper
 Table of Contents

Preface
Abbreviations and Acronyms

.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - DOWN IN THE DUMPS! . 1-2

WASTE GENERATION MAP ...................................................... 3

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SOURCES AND GENERATION .4-5

Waste Sources
Waste Generation
Waste Composition

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND COLLECTION ........... ................6-7

Recycling
Collection
Transfer and Transport

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ............. ................ 8-13

Composting
Open and Controlled Dumping
Sanitary Landfills
Landfill Gas Collection and Use

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING,

TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL .................................................................. 14-17

Generation
Recycling
Treatment and Disposal

LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONS, AND BUDGETS ........................... 18-22

THE TEN CHALLENGES ..... . .... . ......................... 23-26

Case Study: The Two Faces of Payatas ................................. 27

Glossary of Terms ..... ..... ...... ............................ .. 28
Philippines at a Glance
 PREFACE

The Philippines Environment Monitor series, launched in 2000, presents a snapshot of key environmental
trends in the country. It aims to engage and inform stakeholders on key environmental changes as they occur.
The 2000 Monitor benchmarked trends in environmental indicators associated with water and air quality, and
natural resources conservation. Unlike economic indicators, environmental changes, however, occur over a
period of time, and therefore, annual variations are difficult to measure or assess. Thus, the series is designed to
track changes in general environmental trends every five years. In the intervening years, the Monitor will focus
on specific annual themes to highlight critical and emerging problems.

The Philippines Environment Monitor 2001 focuses on solid waste management, which, triggered by the
"garbage crisis" of Metro Manila, has emerged as one of the most pressing environmental concerns in the
country. Population growth, rising living standards, and inadequate attention have caused many of the current
waste problems. As wastes are dumped along roads, drainage canals and waterways, or in low-lying open fields,
it is inevitable that the sheer volume of the wastes including the toxicity of its contaminants will endanger
human health and safety by polluting water, air and land as well as threatening the food chain.

The present garbage crisis in Metro Manila and other cities in the country has started to reverse the appar-
ent indifference of the people towards the 'grime and dirt' of society. The seriousness of the human and environ-
mental impact arising from the lack of a strategic approach to waste management was highlighted by the prema-
ture closure of the Carmona and San Mateo landfills due to environmental and social considerations, and the
Payatas dumpsite tragedy in 2000. In the absence of a clear national framework on waste management, local
governments who are duty bound to manage solid wastes in their areas of jurisdiction, have resorted to solid
waste disposal practices, such as open dumps, controlled dumpsites, and open or curbside street piles, which are
operationally inadequate and do not protect either public health or the environment.

Both the Government and civil society should be complimented for the passage of the Republic Act 9003:
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, which was signed into law by the President on January 26, 2001. This
law was a result of several years of sustained work by many committed elected representatives, environmental-
ists, and professionals. It promotes an integrated approach to solid waste management and sets out ambitious
goals. The challenge now facing the country is its implementation.

The Environment Monitor 2001 consists of six sections. The first three sections discuss the current
status and trends in municipal solid waste generation; recycling and collection; and treatment and dis-
posal. The fourth section discusses hazardous waste generation, treatment, and disposal. An analysis of the
laws, institutions and budget is presented in the fifth section; and the Monitor concludes with an assessment of
the major challenges faced by the Philippines in implementing an integrated solid waste management program.
The Monitor also discusses the situation at the Payatas open dumpsite in Quezon City.

The information presented here has been obtained from a variety of sources, including published reports of
government agencies, universities and nongovernmental organizations, unpublished data from individuals, and
documents of the World Bank. However, solid waste data in many countries is often times unreliable due to
inconsistencies in data recording, definitions, collection methods, and seasonal variations. The Philippines is no
exception. Given the diversity and timeliness of the sources of data used, the information in this report has been
assessed for its reliability, and as needed estimates have been made. Data, information and support provided by
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Environmental Mangement Bureau, Metro Manila De-
velopment Authority, Local Government Units and Non-Govermental Organizations are acknowledged.

Robert V. Pulley Zafer Ecevit

Country Director, Philippines Sector Director
East Asia and Pacific Region Environment and Social Development
The World Bank East Asia and Pacific Region
The World Bank
 EXECUTIVESUMMARY- DOWNIN THE DUMPS!

S priority in the cities and

OLID WASTE or basurahas emergedas the most visible environmental
municipalities of the Philippines. Generation of waste is increasing rapidly as consumption
rises, while collection efficiencies are dropping as service levels deteriorate. Treatment and dis-
posalfacilities are facing closure because of improper siting and management, and growing pub-
lic opposition. The problem is most pronounced in Metro Manila, where it is a common sight to see
uncollected garbage piling up on the streets or being burned. In the meantime, human health costs
are rising because of improper handling and disposal of household, hospital, and industrial wastes.

Sources and Gener a-a_ a smallportionis recycled.

tion. A Filipinogenerates SolidWasteManagement inthe Philippines The rest is disposed in open
between0.3 and 0.7 ki- - At a Glance,2001 - dumps.Carmonain Cavite
lograms of garbage daily Province and San Mateo in
dependingupon income Indicator Value RizalProvincewerethefirst
levels. The current an- Solidwastegeneratedby households
(tons/year) 10 million landfillsto be constructed.
nual generation of 10 Toxicand hazardouswastegeneratedby Thesesiteshavesincebeen
milliontons is expected sector(tons/year)
industrial/commercial 2.4 million closed,whichtriggeredthe
to increaseby 40percent wastegeneratedby
Hazardousand infectious current garbage crisis in
at the end of the decade. hospitals
(tons/year) 6,750 Metro Manila. In San
The National Capital Shareof municipalwastegenerated thatis Urban- 70% Fernando, La Union,
RegiNaand Southern collected Rural-40% Valenzuela, and Duma-
Region and Southern Wasterecyclingandre-useasa percent of
TagalogRegionproduce totalwastegenerated (MetroManila) 12% guete, open dumpinghas
the highest amount of Recycledmaterialsoldas a percentageof beenreplacedby controlled
waste,accountingfor 23 totalwastegenerated(Metro Manila) 5% dumping.Theonlysanitary
and 13 percent of the No. of propersolidwastedisposalsites landfillin the countryis lo-
country's production, Landfills 1 catedin Cebu,whichis cur-
landfills
Closed 2 ctdi eu hc scr
respectively. * Controlled
dumps 17 rentlyexperiencingoperat-
No. of hospitalwasteincinerators 43 ing problems.
* Recycling and Collec- No. ofhazardous wastetreatment facilities 28
tion. Inadequatecollec- Shareof municipalsolidwastedisposedin landfills * Toxic and Hazardous
tion vehiclesand lack of andcontrolled dumps 2% Wastes.Justover5 percent
disposal sites have con- with accesstoincineratorsin
Shareof hospitals of the estimatedhazardous
tributed to a reduction in Shareof hazardouswastetreatedor recycled 5% waste generation of nearly
the collectionefficiency PercapitaallocationinLGUs(rangePhP) 12 - 250 2.4 milliontons is recycled
of householdwaste.Sev- Shareof solidwastemanagement inLGUbudget 1%- 12% or treatedannually.Hospi-
enty percent of the gar- n;= . - tals in the country generate
bage is collected in ur- W 6,750 tons/year of hazard-
ban areas, while only 40 percent is collected in rural ous and infectiouswaste. Some of this waste is inciner-
areas. Many of the poor neighborhoods in the country ated. However,the Clean Air Act of 2000 prohibits the
are under-served. Separate collection of segregated operation of all incineratorsafter November 2003.
waste is still minimal. Thirteen percent of Metro
Manila's waste is recycled, while it is much less in Waste recycling and disposal have always attracted
other areas. wide attention in the Philippines. Many non-govern-
mental organizations (NGOs) have been active since
* Treatmentand DisposaL Nationally, only 2 percent of the early 1990s through recycling programs such as
the waste generated is disposed in sanitary landfills or Zero WasteRecycling Movement and Linis Ganda. In
controlled dumps. Nearly 10percent is composted, and recent times, many civil society and community orga-

I

nizations have opposed improper management of open
dumps and landfills, the siting of future facilities, and
incineration of waste. Their sustained efforts led to the
drafting of RA 9003 also known as the Ecological Solid
Waste Management Act of 2000 (ESWMA),which was
signed into law early this year. This law replaces the
piecemeal provisions previously covered in several
laws, and for the first time, provides an integrated na-
tional framework for environmentally-friendly solid
waste management. The Act has set very ambitious
goals, and their achievement will be a major challenge
for all sectors of the society. The finalization of the
law's implementing rules and regulations need to be
expedited.
While public awareness has been growing, it is not yet
sufficientlymature to support appropriate and suitable
management practices. The "Not In My BackYard"
(NIMBY) syndrome has compelledmany local govern-
ments to abandon or defer plans to establish compostimg
plants, controlled dumps, and sanitary landfills.A case
in point is the situation in Metro Manila. Since the pub-
licly-demandedclosure of the Carmona and San Mateo
landfills,the metropolishas been buried in its own waste
with few altemativesaside from open dumping.This will
likely exacerbatepublic sentimentagainst sanitary land-
fills, the most suitable and cost-effectiveoption for the
safe disposal of Metro Manila's residual waste in the
context of an integratedsystem.
Except for a handful of Local Government Units
(LGUs), the performance of cities and municipalities
in the provision of services to collect and dispose solid
waste has been poor. This can be attributed to LGUs'
weak capacity, inadequate budget, limited understand-
ing of appropriate and cost-effective practices, and
weak enforcement of regulations. Further, the lack of
a cost-sharing formula between the national govern-
ment and LGUs for financing capital costs is also ham-
pering the establishment of proper disposal facilities.
The City Development Strategies being piloted by a
few cities and municipalities provide an opportunity
for LGUs to integrate solid waste management inter-
ventions in the overall investment planning and insti-
tutional development framework.
There are ten key challenges that the country needs
to address to achieve the goals of the ESWMA.
These include:
i I T.M10 7i I I. li Mi
1. Strengtheningenforcement and providing better in-
centives.The current lax enforcementsituationneeds
to be improvedto make the ESWMAan effectivepiece
of legislation.In addition,providing incentiveswould
reduce waste generation at source and improve man-
agement of waste disposal facilities.
2. Building the capacity of national and local institu-
tions. Capacity building for LGUs and barangays
and improving strategic planning at all levels of gov-
emient will be necessary.
3. Addressing the NIMBY syndrome. This has pre-
vented the siting of solid waste management (SWM)
facilities and could be addressed through better
awareness and consultation, and the demonstration
of safe landfill practices.
4. Raising public awareness on the benefits of proper
solid waste management. Support and participation
of the people in SWM programs will be key to the
successful implementation of the ESWMA.
5. Increasing expenditures on SWM. A back-of-the-
envelope analysis indicates that the Philippines will
need to spend an additional PhP150 billion (US$3
billion) over the next 10 years for SWM.
6. Mainstreaming the utilization of new funding
sources and employing cost-effective approaches.
New funding sources such as national government
cost sharing; private sector participation; and user
fees should be explored along with cost saving mea-
sures, such as shared facilities and producing power
using landfill gas.
7. Obtaining reliable information for national, regional,
and local planning. Without proper data, long-term
planning decisions cannot be made.
8. Ensuring proper management of closed dumps and
sanitary landfills.The environmental and health risks
of closed dumps and landfills will need to be mini-
mized.
9. Protecting the vulnerable and the under-served.This
includes scavengers and poor communities.
10. Expanding coverage of infectious medical and haz-
ardous waste treatment. Effective implementation
of the law will require a concerted effort that fo-
cuses exclusively on the practicalities of establish-
ing safe and effective disposal practices in the short
and long term.
Most importantly, the Philippines should avoid another
Smokey Mountain or Payatas open dump situation from
re-emerging!
2
 MAP
WASTEGENERATION

§ ~~~PHILIP>PINsES t} > 2tt :', tt

ENVIRONMENTMONITO3R2001 1!MUNICIPAL
i ~Waste G;eneration i4 7t

4p ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tt .AT, , [N WlN

ItAl >SWVt

;' '.t t; t - Rs-;lrs t- - - t4'* vlr t hw l;Y

C -IINA td.i¢i.~'-' t& e l%

~ ~ 1-~ ~
* tt H il IfNFtS'8 9 +
} ies4.s t,* iSt u, e=9 .ttSpef.tfA,^X

X ^ - *'^'' '''t-_ ' ~~~~IT4K

Dls

¢6? g---x1X$e-JNFECIOU HAZADUSNDti*~. ''b-t

-~~~~~~~~~~AT
w.a;FF R ' a- ,>,. . tttvL
+ -W . |
*t#ST
% . t
WA
Ar~~~~~cm-
>'^tw . .2is+ J fJi' i : av~~~OENEATIO TONVYt

+ rh W. 1z1 r {t v ' il
tff~~~~~~~~~~~~~~imk

*- }Ssit Nt- < * . i ;- * ^ ' -** ... 'et.+v . r

^ 1 L iT ^ + t; si
¢ Xt . .....................
+~~~~~~~~Al-.

.s4 A t At 5 94 i! . ,,, AX,, . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-.

§ t ><^t 7. , ff tot£i+.s$|s Xrp , .s ,

>S * wf _2o~~~~~~~~~t
* ' r t ... ,.},,,j_ *P
ti....
W - . I N D 0 MMW40
N 5 i ^.r,vz_,

; , WA^E WA5TE~10LWA
, \ # X ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~&0#3MA*K,

EEtT
1t-i
1$S.'Stf{f4;Y
S3$
Solid waste streams are generally characterized by
their sources, generation rates, types of wastes, and Table1: Sourcesand Typesof SolidWastes
composition. Source of solidwastes
Types

WASTESOURCES Residential paper,cardboard,

Foodwastes, tex-
plastics,
tiles,leather,yard wastes,wood, glass,met-
als, ashes,and householdhazardouswaste.
Solid wastes originate from a wide range of domestic
(residential),industrial,agricultural,institutional,munici- Industrial Housekeeping wastes, packaging, food
pal, and commercialsourcesincludinghouseholds,manu- wastes,constructionand demolitionmateri-
r . *. * * *-
activities, and. mar-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~als,
hazardouswastes,and ashes.
facturers, hospitals, street sweeping
kets. In the Philippines,the predominantsources of solid Commercial Paper, cardboard, plastics, wood, food
wastes, glass, metals,special wastes,and
waste are household and commercialactivities. hazardouswastes.

WASTE GENERATION Institutional Sameas commercial

Construction Wood, steel,concrete,dirt, etc.

Ten million tons of municipal solid waste was gen- Municipal services Street sweepings,landscapeand tree trim-
affected . and general wastes from parks,
*1mings,
erated in 2000... Waste generation rates are affected beaches,sludge.
by socio-economic development,
deelopment,degree
by socio-eonomic
degree of industri-
ofindustri-Processes Industrialprocesswastes,scrap materials,off-
alization, and climate. Generally, the greater a country's specificationproducts,slag,tailings.
economic prosperity and the larger its urban popula-
tion, the greater the amount of solid waste generated. and hazardous wastes.
It is estimated that in 2000, the 76 million Filipinos Source: What a Waste: Solid Waste Managementin Asia. Urban DevelopmentSector

generated over,ten million tons of municipal solid Unit, EastAsia and Pacific Region, World Bank, May 7999.

waste and this is expected to increase by 40 percent

during the current decade (see table 2). 2000-2010
Table2: NationalWasteGeneration,

Metro Manila accounts for a quarter of the national 2000 2070

waste generation... Metro Manila produces about 2.5 Min. % of Min. % of
million tons/year or a quarter of the country's gener- T/yr. total T/yr. total
ated waste as a whole. The generation rate in Manila t
N
years.'~ 2.45 23.0 3.14 22.3
has grown 4.5haspercent
grown
percent annually in
annually
4.5 the last
in the four years.
last four NationalCapitalRegion 0.17
CordilleraAR 1.6 0.21 1.5
It has been estimated that people living in urban areas llocos 0.50 4.7 0.63 4.5
including Metro Manila produces between 0.5-0.7 kg/ CagayanValley 0.32 3.0 0.40 2.8
Central Luzon 0.96 9.0 1.32 9.4
day, while those in rural areas generate 0.3 kg/person/ SouthernTagalog 1.42 13.3 2.11 15
day.2 These values are comparable to other lower Bicol 0.54 5.1 0.65 4.6
middle income countries. Metro Manila currently is a WesternVisayas 0.82 7.7 1.00 7.1
7.2
CentralVisayas 0.74 7.0 1.01
major contributor to national GDP, and therefore, has EasternVtsayas 0.43 4.0 0.51 3.6
the highest consumption rates and consequent waste WesternMindanao 0.40 3.8 0.53 3.8
generation. Eventually, as the rest of the country de- Mindanao
Northern 0.37 3.4 0.47 3.4
as the rest
generation. of the country de-
Eventually, Mindanao
Southern 0.70 6.6 0.97 6.9
velops, Metro Manila's share will begin to decline as CentralMindanao 0.33 3.1 0.41 2.9
other urban centers generate more waste. ARMM 0.26 2.5 0.39 2.7
Caraga 0.26 2.4 0.31 2.2
National 10.67 100 14.05 100

Assumptions:
Wasteproduction rates2:
'MMDA Survey,December2000.
~~~December ~urban
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ nationalcapitalregion: 0.71 kg/person/day
population: 0.5 kg/person/day
2
UrbanEnvironmentand SolidWasteManagementStudy,GHK/MRM ruralpopulation: 0.3 kg/person/day
IntemationalLtd. 1994;CALA UrbanDevelopmentandEnvironment It was assumedthat the urban population would increasetheir waste productionrate by 1
percent per year due to rising income levels(based on GH-K/MRMInternationalReport).
Study,1996; JICA/MMDA, 1999. Urban and rural population, and growth ratesby region are basedon National Statistical
Office, data for 2000.

4
 MUNICIPALSOLID WASTESOURCESANDGENERATION

WASTE COMPOSITION
in
Table3: CountryComparisons
Waste composition is influenced by factors such as lo- Municipal Rate
WasteGeneration
cation living standards, and weather. The composi- Cityand Country
WasteGeneration
ationow, Rate(kg/cap/day)
tion of solid waste affectsthe selectionand operation Industrialized countries:

of collection and disposal equipment and facilities, the New York, USA 1.80
feasibility of resource and energy recovery, and the Hamburg, Germany 0.85
design of disposal facilities. Italy
Rome, 0.69
Middle-incomecountries:
Cairo, Egypt 0.50
Metro Manila's waste is highly organic and recy- Kano, Nigeria 0.46
clable... Forty-nine percent of Metro Manila's munici- Manila, Philippines
Tunis,Tunisia
0.60
0.56
pal waste is biodegradable and includes large amounts Low-incomecountries:
of kitchen waste and to a lesser extent, garden waste. Calcutta, India 0.51
This high percentage of biodegradable waste indicates Karachi, Pakistan 0.60

that it could be used as compost. There is also a great Source What a Waste: Solid WasteManagement Developmnent
in Asia. Urban Sector

potential for recycling, as 42 percent of the waste is Unit EastAsia and PacificRegion, World Bank.May 1999

made of recyclable items such as paper, plastic, and

metal. Chart1: Municipal in
WasteComposition
MetroManila,1999
HOUSEHOLD
SEGREGATION Paper
19%
Plastic
Household segregation involves sorting garbage at its 17P/
source according to its characteristics or re-use poten-
tial, where common kitchen waste, recyclables (pa- At/
per, bottles, glass, etc.) and hazardous wastes (batter- Mta6
ies, etc.), are placed in separate containers. Though
waste in the country has high composition of organic
matter and recyclables, household segregation is not Kitchen Garden

widely practiced. The ESWMA now mandates house- 42% Waste

hold segregation. 9%
Source: The Studv on Hazardouts WasteManagement in the Republic of the
Philippines, JICA. June 2001.

and Health Impactsof ImproperSolidWaste Management

Box 1: Environmental
The indiscriminatedumping of wastescontaminatessurfaceand groundwater supplies. In urban areas, solid wasteclogs drains,
creating stagnant water for insect breeding and floods during rainy seasons.Uncontrolled burning of wastesand improper
incineration contributessignificantly to urban air pollution. Greenhousegasesare generatedfrom the decompositionof organic
wastesin landfills, and untreatedleachate pollutessurrounding soil and water bodies.

Health and safety issuesalso arise from improper solid waste management.Humanfecal matter is commonlyfound in municipal
waste. Insectand rodent vectorsare attractedto the waste and can spread diseasesuch as cholera and denguefever. Usingwater
polluted by solid waste for bathing, food, irrigation, and drinking can also expose individuals to diseaseorganismsand other
contaminants.Waste workers and pickers are seldom protectedfrom direct contact and injury, and the co-disposalof hazardous
and medicalwasteswith municipalwastesposesa serioushealth threat. Exhaustfumesfrom vehicles,duststemmingfrom disposal
practices,and open burning of waste also contributeto overall health problems.

Source: What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia, Urban DevelopmentSectorUnit, EastAsia and Pacific Region,World Bank, May
1999.

5
RECYCLING
Recycling opportunities are not fully harnessed...
In the Philippines, only a small portion of the solid
waste is recycled or composted, despite the existence
of a relatively large market for compost and used prod-
ucarmatdveyromrgecycledfplastpcs,tg ndss
bottles,pscrap
ucts made from recycled pRecs, glass botles, scrap
paper, and scrap metals. Recovery of recyclable ma-
terials occurs at three stages: at the household level,
during collection time, and at open dumpsites. Junk
dealers buy recyclable wastes from households, while
waste pickers manually sort through waste at source,
transfer stations, and dumpsites. Palero or garbage
truck helpers also recover recyclables from the collec-
tion trucks to augment their income.
Recycling efforts in Metro Manila are on the rise..,
In 1997, only 6 percent of solid waste was recycled in
Metro Manila.3 By December 2000, it increased to 13
percent due to the concerted effort by Metro Manila De-
velopment Authority (MMDA)4 and NGOs to promote
waste segregation at the source, composting, and recy-
cling. Additional support was also provided with the
passage of the MMDA Ordinance in 1999, which man-
dates source segregation. With the operation of two new
recycling and composting facilities handling 200 tons/
day each, recycling is expected to further increase.
A growing number of LGUs in the country are now
implementing integrated waste management, which
includes waste reduction, composting, recycling,
and re-use.5 Estimates had shown that trade in waste
materials has increased in volume by 39 percent,
and in value by 47 percent in 2000 compared to 1998
(see table 4)6.
Box 2: RecyclingInitiatives
(PET)Bottlesand
PolyethyleneTerephthalate
AluminumCans
To promote the recycling of PET plastics and re-
duce plastic waste, the Department of Science and
Technology (DOST)-lndustrialTechnology Develop-
ment Institute (ITDI) and PET manufacturers and
users formed the PETRecyclingTaskForce. The same
efforts were also made by Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil-
ippines, Inc. (CCBPI),Rotary Clubs and Now Trad-
ing Concepts, which manage 13 PETand alumi-
num can recovery centers. Emptycoke PETcontain-
ers may be redeemed at fiftycentavos per container.
In just eight months of operation, 1,100,337 PET
bottles and 1,363,115 aluminum cans have been
recovered and re-used.
PolystyreneBasedMaterials
terial in fast food outlets, schools, and packing in-
dustries. Faced with an increasing PS generation,
20 PS manufacturers formed the Polystyrene Pack-
aging Council of the Philippines (PPCP)and to-
gether set up a PS recycling plant in Sta. Maria,
Bulacan. In 1996, PPCP,Ayala Foundation, Metro-
politan Environmental Improvement Program
(MEIP), Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR),and some private and govern-
ment agencies started the project at fast food out-
letswithin the Makati Commercial Center. Between
1997 and 2000, the amount of PS packaging ma-
terial recovered and recycled nearly doubled from
67,540 kgs to 123,001 kgs.
' :

COLLECTION
The country-wide collection efficiency in the Philip- Table 4: Waste Recovery in Metro Manila
pines is estimated to be 40 percent, although major
towns and cities show average collection rates of up Material Value
to 70 percent.7 The poorer areas of cities, municipali- Year Purchased (millionpesos)
ties, and rural barangays are typically unserved or un-
der-served. 1998 69,400 95.2

1999 95,600 124.5

3 2000 101,850 132.5
JICA-MMDA 1999.
4
MMDAOrdinance 1999.
5
PPSO Report of DENR Performance.
6Report of the Metro ManilaFederationof EnvironmentMulti-Purpose Source:Reportofthe MetroManilaFederationof Environment
Cooepratie BogTvs ac ,20Multi-Purpose Cooperative, BongTeves,March1,2001.
Cooperative, Bong Tevea, March 1, 2000.
7
Pasig River Rehabilitation Program, DENR/DANIDA, 1990-1991.

6
 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND COLLECTION

Municipalities and cities have primary responsibil-

ity for collection... In the Philippines, LGUs are re-
sponsible for garbage collection. Municipal solid waste
collection is done either by self-administration,through
private contractors or by the residents themselves. The
manner and frequency of collection and the choice of
equipment depends on the size of roads, density of
population to be covered, and affordability. In neigh-
borhoods with narrow roads, household waste is
dumped into communal receptaclesplaced strategically
on larger roads, which are then removed by trucks.

A quarter of Metro Manila's solid waste is not col-

lected... In 1997, municipal waste discharged to collec-
tion points in Metro Manila was estimated to be 89.7
percent of the generatedwaste. Seventy-threepercent of
this amount or 3,500 tons/day was collected.8 The in-
complete collection could be attributed to the limited
number and inappropriate collection vehicles, absence
of transfer points, traffic congestion, and lack of enforce-
ment of and compliancewith, rules and regulations.With
the closureof the San Mateo and Carmona sanitaryland-
fills, and the difcultynsitingaewlandfillwasGandaorganized the Federationof Multi-purposeCoop-
fills,and the difficultyin siting a new landfill, waste col-
lection has further decreased.
TRANSFER AND TRANSPORT
Box 3: LinisGanda:
A Case Study in Recycling
In 2000, Metro Manila Linis Ganda, Inc., a NGO, pur-
chased 101,850 tons of waste paper, corrugated boards,
and metalsworth PhP132.5 million. These
cutlets,plastics,
recyclablematerials were, in turn, sold to factories. Linis
eratives,an associationof 17 environmentalcooperatives
with 572 memberjunkshopsemployingmore than 1,000
eco-aides.Membersof the cooperativeare granted loans
without collateral;eco-aidesare also givenseed moneyto
buy recyclables.

Transfer systems serve to reduce the hauling distances Only 4.5 percent of waste generated in Metro Manila
for collection trucks, thus enabling a lower collection are recycled by Linis Ganda. The group hopes to in-
cost. Suchstat s acrease its recycling activities to 15 percent. The expan-
cost. Such statlons are appropriate for large citles, | sionwould require 1000 additionaljunk shops and 2,500
where thereare long haulingdistancesto the finaldis- | eco-aides.
posal site. l_l

In Metro Manila, solid wastes collectedby dump trucks T i

are taken to a transfer station in Las Pifias, where it Tae 5 a pl fse
was transferred to larger trucks before taken to the Philippines
Carmona landfill. With the closure of the Carmona City UserFees
and San Mateo landfills, the Las Pifias transfer station Cagayande Oro City Commercialand Industrial: P1500-
has been converted into a materials recovery facility, 2000 (maximum)
where compostable and recyclable materials are re- Lipa| City supplyI P10/month billedwithwa-
Household'
~~~~~~ter
covered. In addition, Marikina City also operates its o y tlHuhl
HouseholodP30 -P40/month collected
IOlongapo City
own transfer station. through electricitybills
Commercial: P75-P500/month (de-
pendingon the kind of business,floor
area, andwastegenerated
BatangasCity Household: P10/month collected
throughelectricitybills
|________________ Commercial: P300-P3000 collected
'The study of SWM for Metro Manila, Final Report, JICA/MMDA, March through business permits
1999. Source: Report from each city, August 2001.

7
 AND DISPOSAL
TREATMENT
Treatment methods include composting, anaerobic di-
gestion, incineration, and sanitary landfilling (see Box
4). Disposal only includes the final deposition of re-
jects from composting or digestion. Other materials
will be land applied as a recovered resource.
Box 4: Treatmentand Disposal
Options for Municipal Solid Waste
Disoosal in controlled dump or sanitary landfill: The
waste is placed, compacted and covered on an area
of land in a controlled fashion. Controlled dumps
have basic environmental amenities: site is fenced,

Composting and landfilling are the most suitable scavenging is organized, waste is covered by soil
technologies ........
Household solid waste reaching daily, fires are extinguished and stormwater is re-
tpechnolosites... thouePhodisolidpiswaste rching
mrouted around the site so it does not mix with the
in the Pilippines
open dumpsies shihnmis waste. They are more environmentally sound than
ture and organic content, and low in calorific value, at.Te r oeevrnetlysudta
tureiand torgi ontdvenand lowintriesic vsalu, open dumps but do not provide full protection against
ato
simpostiar most nidevelop dfiin
c naries in Asa environmental and public health hazards. Sanitary
Composting and sanitary landfilling are thus the landfills are similar but built and operated with full
most suitable technologies for treatment and dis- environmental controls includinga liner, leachate
posal, while incineration (or burning) is relatively treatment, and the flaring of gas produced by the
ineffective and expensive. decomposition of the waste. Both methods of disposal
are cost-effective and relatively simple to operate.
Efficient and proper disposal systems for solid
wastes are lacking... Illegal open dumping remains Compostina: The decomposition of organic wastes un-
the most prevalent form of disposal in the country. der controlled conditions to produce soil conditioners,
Controlled dumps and sanitary landfills are few. compostor organic fertilizers. Generally done to re-
Composting, though gaining in popularity,remains lim- duce the amount of waste going into landfill. Necessi-
ited to only a few neighborhoods and local govern- tatessourceseparationoftheorganicportionofthesolid
ments. Incineration is restricted to treatment of infec- waste and a market for the end products.

tious medical and hazardous wastes.
COMPOSTING
Composting has largely been a community-based ac-
tivity promoted by NGOs, people's organizations, and,
in some instances, by local governments through the
barangays. It can be done by households, homeowners'
associations or barangays. Composting systems can
range from simple backyard compost pits to more
mechanized processes.
While many communities produce soil conditioners
for their own use, others have opted to produce com-
or organic fertilizers TheDepart-amount
commercially.
post or organic post
fertilizers commercially. The Depart-
Anaerobic Digestion: The breakdown of organic mat-
ter by bacteria in the absence of oxygen, resulting in the
production of biogas that can be combusted as a fuel
source and a sludge that can be further composted for
use as a soil enhancer. Generally done to reduce the
amount of waste going into landfills. Necessitates source
separation of the organic portion of the solid waste and
residue should be re-used, treated or disposed.
Incineration: Generally it allows unsorted, non- bulky
solid wastes to be fed directly into the furnace and
combusted. The process produces ash, which gener-
ally is landfilled as well as gas and liquid emissions
that require treatment. Significantly reduces the
of waste to be landfilled and requires very
little land.; However, high moisture content and low

ment of Agriculture is now actively promoting the use lX H

of organic with the growing
fertilizers.
Coupled de- calorific value makes the municipal solid waste in
organicafertilzers.nCooupled,t
oandfor the garor dm- the Philippinestechnicallyunsuitable for incineration.
mand .f organically grownfotm , fo
t r- In addition, the high capital and operating costs to
postandorganic fertlizers IS alsogrowing, butnode- fully combust the waste in an environmentally sound
mand estimates are available nor is the quality of com- way makstcos poit e in tatmn of
ost known supportand
Govemmet encoragementway, .make It cost prohibitive for use in treatment of
postknown.Government supportandencouragement municipal solid waste in the Philippines.
for composting activities is also limited.

8
 MUNICIPALSOLID WASTETREATMENT
ANDDISPOSAL

Table6: Municipal
SolidWasteDisposal
Methodsin Selected
Countries,
1997
Land-filling OpenDumping Composting Incineration Other-

Australia 80 - 10 5 5
Korea 60 20 5 5 10
Malaysia 30 50 10 5 5
China 30 50 10 2 8
India 15 60 10 5 10
Indonesia 10 60 15 2 13
Philippines* 10 75 10 - 5
Pakistan 5 80 5 - 10
Vietnam - 70 10 - 20
Sri Lanka - 85 5 - 10

Since7997, the amountof waste disposedof in landfiltsin thePhilippineshas decreasedto about 2%.
:.lncludes animal feeding, dumping in water, ploughing into soil, and open burning.
Tableadapted from UN-ESCAP/ADB. Stateof the Environment,n Asia and the Pacific,2000
Source: Ministry of Environment,Singapore, Annual Report, 1997.

OPEN ANDCONTROLLED
DUMPING
Box 5: CompostingFacilityof Barangay
Uncontrolled open dumps have no environmental safe- SunValley, Parahaque City
guards, pose major public health threats, and affect the
landscape of a city. In contrast, controlled dumps have In 1997, the Barangay Council at Brgy. Sun Valley
basic environmental amenities and place, compact, and in Paranaque City established a composting facil-
cover waste in a controlled fashion. ity for biodegradable waste collected from 800
households of the area. As of 2000, a total of 2,500
Until recently,the Metro Manila region, except for households (50 percent) were participating. About
Marikina and Malabon, which had its own disposal one ton of waste per day was being processed at
the facility, resulting in a 35 percent reduction in
site, disposedof its waste in the Payatas open dump, the amount of waste that has to be collected and
and the Carmona and San Mateo landfills. With the disposed.
closure of the two landfills, Metro Manila now dis-
poses its garbage in open and controlled dumpsites in The Barangay invested around PhP500,000 to set
Catmon, Malabon; RIO Vitas, Tondo; and Barangay up and operate the facility,which has two compost
Lingonan, Valenzuela. reactors, a mixer, a shredder, and four pedicabs
Lingonan, used for the collection of biodegradables. Aside
from using lactobacilli activators, vermi-composting
The Payatas dumpsite in Quezon City was partially is also practiced.
reopened and only accepts waste generated in Quezon
City (about 1,200 tons/day). There are also 12 small A less expensive scheme to compost the biodegrad-
open dumpsites in Metro Manila. able waste from the poorer communities within the
barangay was recently implemented. Processing of
For the rest of the country, it was estimated in 1999 all the biodegradable waste is done in the
that each of the 1,607 LGUs operates and maintains community'sbasketball court. The processed mate-
its own temporary or permanent dumpsite. Of these, rials are placed in sacks and transported to the
226 open dumpsites have been identified by the Na- barangay center.
tional Solid Waste Management Commission Harvested compost is sold at P5.00/kg or P120/
(NSWMC) as of July 2001. About 37 percent of 50kg bag. Vermicastis sold at P35/kg. To get the
these have been inspected by the NSWMC for, most value from its compost, the barangay is now
among other things, complaints by residents, re- finalizing an agreement with the municipality of
quests for assistance by local chief executives, and Maragondon in Cavite to use their farmlands for
environmental compliance with prescribed site re- growmg organic vegetables.
quirements. According to Environmental Manage-

9
ment Bureau (EMB), 17 open dumps have been
converted to controlled dumps (see Box 7). in
Table7: Statusof Dumpsites
Metro Manila, 2001
SANITARYLANDFILLS Type
of Dumpsite Location Status
Catmon,Malabon In operation

Environmental and social concerns caused the clo- Open Payatas, ClosedJuly 10, 2000
sure of two landfills in Metro Manila... In recent dumpsite Quezon City but partly reopened
years, Metro Manila has been continuously grappling inFeb.2001
with a garbage disposal crisis. The two landfills oper- R 10, Vitas, Tondo In operation
ated by the MMDA-Carmona in Cavite Province and Controlled Brgy. Lingonan In operation
San Mateo in Rizal Province were designed as sani- dumpsite Valenzuela
tary landfills but not constructed or operated as ones. Sanitary San Mateo, Rizal ClosedDec. 2000
These are now closed. Collectively, the two landfills landfill Carmona, Cavite Closed Apr. 1998
accommodated between 40 and 50 percent of Metro
Manila's daily garbage output. Since their closure, Table8: Wastedisposedat SanMateoand
piles of uncollected garbage could be found through- (m3 peryear)
Carmonalandfills
out Metro Manila, threatening the health and safety of Year SanMateo Carmona*
residents.
1991 258,880
1992 344,562 -
On the average, the San Mateo and Carnona landfills 1993 572,715 133,871
received daily 1,800 and 73010tons of solid waste, re- 1994 1,259,792 552,935
spectively.Both sites were closed due to environmental 1995 1,799,300 957,518
and social concerns'° such as foul odor and contamina- 1997 2,174,942 1,761,429
tion of adjoining ground water and surfacewater. 1998 2,965,007 293,631
1999 2,734,347 -
Both sites contain over 23 million cubic meters of de- 2000 3,270,090
grading waste. Leachate from the two sites continues Landfillclosed
Note:CanrmonaMSaniary in Apnl1998.
to contaminate ground water. Recent studies" indi-
cate that the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) qual-
ity of effluent from leachate treatment plants at both Box 6: Dangers of Controlled Dumps and
sites exceeded permissible standards (San Mateo - Landfills: Leachate and Gas
10,000 mg/l; Carmona - 3,500 mg/,' 2 "3 ). This indi-
cates that the treatment systems employed at both sites As water percolatesthrough the solid waste in landfills,it
are not functioning properly. absorbs chemicalsand microorganismspresentin the pu-
trefying materials. The uncontrolleddischarge of liquid
formed in solid waste dumps or landfills,known as leachate,
No restoration plans are in place for the two contaminatesground and surface waters, and thus, pose
sites... Normally when sanitary landfills are closed environmentaland publichealth risksto the localarea.
or capped, the facility owner is required to imple- Various gases are produced because organic matter in
ment a post-closure program. This includes storm the landfilldecomposesthrough the action of anaerobic
water drainage, leachate treatment and monitoring, microorganisms-bacteria that flourishin the absence of
and gas flaring or recovery and landscaping. Al- air. While some of these gases are relativelyharmless,
though it is a regulatory requirement, such a pro- others, like methane,are highly flammable. The migra-
tion and emissionof these flammablegases should be con-
trolledto preventexplosionsin the event of their build-up
on or near the landfill. Methane, in particular, is com-
"'Awaste density of 250 kg/m3 has been assumed. monlyflared or combustedfor energy in order to reduce
"Environmental Management Bureau, 1998. the risk of explosion and mitigate its effectas a green-
"2Analysis of leachate quality in San Mateo 1999 and Carmona 1996-97. house gas.
' 3Monitoring data from EMB. Standards for effluents for Class C inland
waterbodiesis 50 mg/1. Source:AdaptedSolid WasteManagement
for LocalGovern-
ments,DENR,1996.

10
 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
gram is not in place at either of the sites. While
these sites had landfill gas vents, there were no gas
recovery facilities. The poor construction and faulty
operation of the sites resulted in a negative percep-
tion of sanitary landfills among the general public.
This, combined with the NIMBY syndrome, has
caused problems in the siting of landfills in the
country, especially for Metro Manila, where the
problem is particularly acute.
The Cebu Landfill is facing operational difficul-
ties... The only active sanitary landfill in the coun-
try which began operations in September 1998, is
located in Cebu. It receives 400 tons daily and was
designed to have a life of 6-7 years. Technical prob-
lems have closed down its materials recovery facil-
nbtwaste
ity deommcoeup
ity due to mismatch of equipment between conlec-
tion constrained recycling efforts and increased the
daily volume of waste disposed in the landfill.
Landfill gas is vented through a series of horizon-
tal and vertical pipes. However, the leachate treat-
ment pond serves only as an impounding basin,
which discharges partially treated leachate to the
surrounding area, causing the adjacent communi-
ties to complain. Unless immediate corrective ac-
tion is taken, this landfill could be closed.
ANDUSE
LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION
Landfills produce large quantities of greenhouse
gases... Landfill gas, a gas similar to natural gas,
is produced during the decomposition of wastes in
landfills and dumps and typically contains 50 per-
cent of the potent greenhouse gas methane. Meth-
ane affects global warming 21 times more than car-
bon dioxide. Waste disposal sites are estimated to
account for 12 percent (see table 9) of the methane
released to the atmosphere in the Philippines. The
methane produced by landfills can be effectively
controlled by collecting and converting the gas to
energy that can be sold profitably. Production of
energy from landfill gas is a well-established prac-
tice in North America and Europe. A limited num-
ber of facilities have also been established in other
countries. For example, in Mexico and Thailand,
pilot demonstration projects are being implemented
to encourage the development of similar projects
nationwide and regionwide.
11
Dump-
Box7: Opento Controlled
PioneeringEffortsof San Fernando,
La Union
Thecity of San Femando,La Union is locatedin RegionI
and hasa population of 102,000. Itgeneratesan average
of 52 tonsof wasteper day of which45 percentis currently
collected. Disposal was a big issue, particularlyfor city
council,which wantedto promotethe city as a viable in-
vestmentarea in NorthernLuzon.
Encouragedby a study tour on SolidWaste Management
inthe USA,the Mayor and cityofficialsinitiatedthe shiftof
their city'swaste disposalsystemfrom open dumping to
controlled dumping,whilepreparingfora full-fledgedsani-
tarylandfill.
To reduce the volume of waste to be disposed, collected
undergoessecondarysortingatthe disposalsite. This
recoveryof recyclableand re-usablematerialsis under-
takenby the barangay,providingthemwithadditionalrev-
enue. Atthe same time,the residentsin thecityweretaught
to segregatetheirwastesat source.
Thesite is managedin cellswherethe residualwasteis first
compacted and then coveredwith soil. To improvethe
aestheticsof the site, ylang ylang trees, known for its fra-
grantflowers,were planted all over. Bougainvilleatrees
and other omamental plants were also planted along the
peripheryof the site.
Thecontrolleddumpsite in San Fernandonow serves as a
modelforotherlocalgovemmentsinthecountry.Ithas been
visitedby over9,000 representatives
of nationaland local
governments,NGOs, the private sector, and donor institu-
tions. Itis livingproof that wastemanagementcan be imme-
diately improvedif only there is political will to do so.
The constructionof the sanitary landfillwould be supported
by a loan beingobtainedfrom the LandBankof the Philip-
pinesthroughthe WorldBank-assistedLocalGovernment
Financeand Development(LOGOFIND) Project.
k . l
-
 -. ;S j iii -1 .1 i;

The Philippines can harness opportunities to con-

vert landfill gas to energy... Collection and utili- Table9: MethaneEmissionsin the
zation of landfill gas presents an opportunity to: (i) Philippinesin 1990
supplement LGUs' revenues from solid wastes; (ii)
control localized emissions, such as volatile organic Source (Gg)
Emissions
compounds (VOCs), found in landfill gas; (iii) mini-
mize the risks from explosion that may arise from Agriculture 904 61
the build-up of methane and other flammable gases; Waste 3273 122

and (iv) reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as -wastewater 151 10

part of the Government's commitment to the Kyoto Energy 228 15
Protocol.
LandUse and Forestry 18 1
Protocol. Total 1,474 100

During the next decade, wastes generated in Asia Least-cost

Source: Greenhouse Strategy,
GasAbaternent ADB/GEF/
Philippines,

Metro Manila can generate 1,000 GWh of energy

and power 8,500 homes... There are several op-
tions for the development of landfill gas facilities
in the Philippines. For example, they could be de- Table10: PotentialBenefitsof LandfillGas to Energy
veloped as part of new disposal sites. These would Projectsin DisposalSites in MetroManila.14
be most suitable in sanitary landfills in urban ar- SanMateo Carmona Payalas
eas, where large quantities of waste may exist. For
example, if landfill gas facilities are installed in all
of the disposal sites that would be accepting waste Facility capacity (MW) 5.2 2.2 3.3
from Metro Manila, these facilities could collect No. of houses powered 3,874 1,639 2,459
approximately 500 million m3 of methane and pro- Rateof returnon
duce 1,000 GWh of energy over the next 10 years.14 investment (%) 20 19 17
This amount of energy is enough to power 8,500
homes. Similarly, over the same period of time, a Methane avoided
smaller city like Cebu could capture 35 million m3 (millm3 /yr.) 17.0 6.0 8.0
of methane and power 600 homes.15 As landfills Volatile Organic Compounds
can produce gas for decades, landfill gas facilities (VOCs)emissions avoided
could also be developed in closed disposal sites. (tons/yr.) 25.9 9.4 12.5
This is a particularly attractive option for the closed
landfills at Carmona and San Mateo. Source: USEPA,
7999.

Rehabilitation of San Mateo and Carmona land-

fills could benefit from on-site power genera-
tion... Based on recent estimates, the waste con-
tained in the San Mateo and Carmona landfills is
capable of producing enough power to supply 5,500
homes (see Table 10). The use of landfill gas for
energy could supplement the costs of implement-
ing urgently needed rehabilitation plans for both
sites. If designed and managed well, revenues could

4
Calculated using the EPA E Plus landfill gas model with input
parametersandelectricity price asdescribedby USEPA1999.
Assumption on electricity generation was taken from other feasibility
studies of landfill gas projects.
' 5 bid

12
 ANDDISPOSAL
MUNICIPALSOLID WASTETREATMENT
help mitigate current environmental problems, re-
duce future risks like explosions, and contribute to
the socio-economic uplift of communities through
the provision of electricity.
A national strategy for landfill gas manage-
ment... To investigate the potential of landfill gas
utilization, the Government should formulate an
appropriate national strategy. Such a framework
could consider approaches for: (i) incorporating
landfill gas management in the planning, design,
and construction of future landfill sites, the opera-
tion of existing landfills, and the rehabilitation of
closed landfills; (ii) introducing landfill gas man-
agement in the process of converting open dumps
to sanitary landfills; (iv) targeting the most suitable
disposal sites and technological options consider-
ing the quality of operation and condition
landfill, gas generation potential, and financial vi-
ability of different technological options; (v) deter-
mining the most viable institutional arrangements,
including public-private partnerships; (iv) minimiz-
ing the legislative and regulatory barriers; and
obtaining financing via the private sector or using
climate change institutional mechanisms such as
grants from Environmntal
theGlobal Facility i
the short term and credits from the global carbon
trade envisioned under the Kyoto Protocol in the
long term.
-. ,*^ J.>. X ;
A t
- .,>
y -':/~i
v *< - | 6 $ 0
.~ z ., , n | | | *:
13
Box 8: Some InternationalExperiences
in LandfillGas Utilization
UnitedStates:Thelandfill gas industryin the US
is the largest in the world. It grew rapidly from
86 operational projectsin 1990 to 330 today.
With a combined capacity of 900 MW, approxi-
mately two-thirdsof those projects use landfill gas
for electricitygeneration. Many of the remaining
projects use the gas for a wide varietyof purposes
including commercial fuel (high and medium BTU
and liquefied natural gas), leachate evaporation,
boilers,and greenhouses.
Chile: Chile currently has four facilities that col-
lect landfill gas and feed it into a gas distribution
networkfor its direct use as gas fuel. In Santiago,
of the landfillgas is able to satisfy 40 percent of the de-
mand of the city's gas distribution network, and is
also sent to a nearby food processing plant for
use as a fuel source for the plant's boilers. In the
city of Valparaiso, the landfill gas is mixed with
(iv) manufactured gas for use by households and in-
dustry.
Mexico: Although open dumping is still preva-
Mexico's solid waste sector and the technolo-
grants fo thGlblEvomnlent,
gies used have gradually grown in sophistication
in the last 15 years resulting in increased collec-
tion efficiency and a larger proportion of waste
disposed in sanitary landfills. However,there are
currently no landfill gas facilities in Mexico. To
encourage the development of these facilities, the
Government of Mexico is undertaking a project
with the assistance of The World Bank and the
Global EnvironmentFacility. The project will de-
velop a demonstration site in Monterrey and dis-
seminate the results to encourage its replication.
National and local capacity will also be devel-
oped along with a national strategy and regula-
tory framework.
- t .
Sources:
US: Introduction to Landfill Gas Use and the US Landfill
LMOPJune25, 2001.
GasIndustry,USEPA-
1Chile: Bartone and Ahmed, Landfill Gas and Composting
for LCR,WorldBank,2001.BiogasRecovery
Strategy
from Sanitary LandFillSites in Santiago, Chile: A Case
Study, Julio Monreal, September 1998 and personal
communication with Francisco Zapeda.
HAZARDOUSWASTES
Chart 2: HazardousWaste Generation,
Hazardous wastes are wastes which, by themselves or by Type
after coming into contact with other wastes, have char- Oil
acteristics, such as chemical reactivity, toxicity, cor- 8% Other
rosiveness or a tendency to explode, that pose a risk to Putrescible/ 27%
human health or the environment. organic
wastes
11% Acid Waste
Hazardous wastes are generated from a wide range of 10%
industrial, commercial, agricultural, and to a much less
extent, domestic activities. They may take the form of Inorganic
solids, liquids or sludges, and can pose both acute and chemical
chronic public health and environmental risks. wastes Alkali
24% Wastes
20%
GENERATION
Source:TheStudyof SWM for MetroManila, FinalReport,JICA/MMDA, March 1999.

There are several thousand potential hazardous waste-

generating industries nationwide, which in total, pro-
duce an estimated 2.4 million metric tons of hazard-
ous waste per year.'6

So far, only 1,079 of these hazardous waste genera-

tors are registered with the EMB.20 These industries
produce 278,393 tons of hazardous waste per year. The
major waste classes include inorganic chemical wastes,
7
alkali wastes, putrescibles, acid wastes, and oils. 1

Thirty-four percent of the estimated hazardous waste

production is in the National Capital Region (NCR),
while 27 percent is in Region IV

WASTES
MEDICAL
RECYCLING
The 18,500 hospitals (with 90,000 beds) in the coun-
try generate about 6,750 tons of infectious wastes an- About 25 percent of the total registered hazardouswaste
nually or 18 tons daily.'8 Forty-seven percent of this generated is recycled. 56 percent of the recycledwastes
waste is generated in the NCR, while Region IV ac- are oils and 49 percent are inorganic chemicals.
counts for 12 percent.
TREATMENTAND DISPOSAL

There are currently 28 hazardous waste treatment fa-

cilities registered with DENR-EMB nationwide, 21 of
which are operating full-time.
6
' lhe Study on Hazardous Waste Management in the Republic of the
Philippines, JICA, June 2001. About half of the registered hazardous waste gener-
"7[bid
5
Team computation, 2001. ated each year (or approximately 140,000 tons/year),

,14
 AND DISPOSAL
TREATMENT
HAZARDOUSWASTE GENERATION,RECYCLING,

is treated off-site, and 3,600 tons or 2.5 percent of that

Box 9: Cebu Common is recycled.
Treatment Facility, Inc.
Five thousand tons of the waste treated on-site is re-
Locatedinside the lnayawan SanitaryLandfill, this portedly incinerated. There is, however, a need to
2,781-squaremetercommontreatment facilityfor toxic change this treatment process given the provisions of
and hazardouswastefrom Cebu-based electroplating the Clean AirAct of 1999. By November 2003, incin-
industriesis thefirstin thecountryand secondin Asia. erators will be prohibited. Non-bum technologies are
It is co-ownedand managedby theCebuChamberof thus being studied for the disposal of hazardous wastes
Commerceand Industryand the CebuElectroplaters from hospital and industrial sources.
Association.

Thewastewater from the electroplatingplant is col-
lectedand thentransportedto thetreatmentplant. Af-
theresultingsludge
and precipitation,
ter neutralization
is storedfor recyclingand mineralrecovery.Funded
under a bilateralagreementbetweenthe Philippines
(throughthe DENR)and the FederalRepublicof Ger-
many (throughtheGermanAgencyfor TechnicalCo-
operation-GTZ), commercialoperationsstartedin Oc-
tober1999 withthetreatment fromseven
of wastewater
firms.
Box 10: Govemment and
IndustryPartnership
TheIndustrialWasteExchangeProgram(IWEP)of the
PhilippineBusiness for the Environment matchesthedif-
ferent waste-producing industrieswith recyclingand
wastetreating companies.Thisleadsto considerable
savingsfor bothpartiesinvolvedin theexchange.More
than 1,200 industrialwasteproducersare in theirdata-
base.Successful exchanges havebeenbrokeredfor vari-
ouswastessuchasscrapfabric,silicagel,usedcoolant,
used oil, used drums,used paper,used plasticsacks,
glasscutlets,solderwaste,moldrunnerplastic,andsaw-
dust. Manyotherexchanges havebeennegotiateddi-
rectlybetweenindustries. It hasrecentlylauncheda na-
tionwidewasteexchangenetworkcreatingmini-indus-
trial waste exchangecentersin Cebu, Laguna,and
Cagayande Oro.
for the Environment,
Source:PhilippineBusiness 2001.
There are currently no landfill facilities for hazardous
waste in the Philippines. As a result, hazardous waste
sources store their wastes, or dispose of them partially
treated or untreated. Approximately 50,000 tons or 36
percent of all hazardous waste treated off-site, is stored
on-site or off-site due to the lack of proper treatment
and landfill facilities.
Hazardous Waste. There are 13 industrial waste
incinerators in the country: 7 in Region IV, 5 in
Metro Manila, and 1 in Cebu. Plans for the con-
struction of a centralized disposal facility for haz-
ardous waste to service the Cavite, Laguna,
Batangas, Rizal, and Quezon (CALABARZON)
areas are also being discussed.
Medical Waste. There are currently 43 operational
hospital incinerators in the country. Of this num-
ber, 22 are located in Metro Manila. Fifty percent
of the medical waste generated is incinerated, while
the rest is disposed of improperly. At present,
MMDA is finalizing the establishment of a central-
ized hospital waste treatment facility to service
Metro Manila.
Technology solutions and policy direction are ur-
Tenoly soluti onsa policy irc tion
gently n eeded in wresose ther inc ne ion
ban.. For the past few years, there has been in-
tense debate in the Philippines over the use of in-
cinerators in waste management, leading to a pro-
hibition on their use imposed by the Clean Air Act.
The provision of the Act is to take effect in Novem-
ber 2003.

15
 StI. :e
Box 11: Treatmentand DisposalOptionsfor InfectiousMedicalWaste
Combusts the waste under controlled con-
Incineration:
ditions. To be effective and safe, it must be operated at
specific temperatures and under specific conditions. Ad-
vantages include its ability to eliminate the health risks
associated with all types of hazardous medical wastes,
and reduce the volume of the waste. Its disadvantages
include high costs, sophisticated operation and produc-
tion of air pollution, including dioxins, that become more
severe if properly operated at an insufficient tempera-
ture.The capital costs of such facility range from
US$120,000- 200,000 for each ton/day of capacity.
Autoclaving: Steam heats the waste in an enclosed con-
tainer at high pressure. The output is non-hazardous ma-
terial that can normally be landfilled with municipal
waste. The main advantages are the ease and familiar-
ity of its operation. Its disadvantages include the high
cost of operation, production of air emissionsand waste-
water, and its inability to treat special medical waste such
as tissues and body parts. The capital costs range from
US$40,000-i 25,000 for each ton/day of capacity.
Microwave and radiowave irradiation: Waste is disin-
fected using a high energy electromagnetic field that
causes high frequency oscillation of the liquid portions
of the cell material. The output is considered non-haz-
ardous and can be disposed in a landfill with municipal
waste. Its main advantages are the reduction in volume
achieved and its minimal production of toxic pollutants.
Its disadvantages include cost and sophistication, and
Incineration is not an effective option to dispose
of municipal solid waste in the Philippines because
of the unsuitable technical characteristics of the
waste (high moisture and organic content and low
calorific value), high construction and operating
costs, and attendant environmental risk due to weak
monitoring and enforcement. However, many
countries, including the Philippines, use incinera-
tors as an option to completely destroy certain in-
lla g l m-
its ineffectivenessin treating special medical waste such
as tissuesand body parts. The capital costsrange from
US$120,000-200,000 for each ton/day of capacity.
Chemical disinfection: The waste is shredded and
chemicalsare added to waste to kill or inactivate patho-
gens. The output has to be disposed of using tech-
niques such as safe landfilling. The advantage of this
process is the reduction of waste volume resulting from
shredding. However, chemical disinfection requires a
skilled operator,is costly, does not treat wastes such as
tissues and body parts, and produces a toxic waste
stream.
Safelandrilling:The waste is placed in a pit excavatedin
maturemunicipalwaste or in a special area constructedin
the landfill and coveredimmediatelywith soil or fresh mu-
nicipal waste. For added health protection and odor sup-
pression, lime can be spread over the waste. The area
shouldalso be fenced off to preventaccessby waste pick-
ers or scavenginganimals. The capital costsare low as it
usesan existingmunicipal landfill. Theadvantagesof these
methodsare their simplicity and low-cost. Theseare the
next bestoption to incineration for the treatmentof body
parts and tissues. However,the waste remains infectious,
and therefore,can be very dangerous if not managed ex-
tremelycarefully.
etal., HealthcareWasteMan-
Source:AdaptedfromJohannessen,
a9ement Guidance Note, TheWorld Bank, 2000.
fectious medical waste such as syringes, body parts
and tissues, and treat certain classes of hazardous
waste such as insecticides, pesticides, waste solvents,
types of hydraulic fluids and some oily sludges. The
broad-based ban on incineration will influence the
way that infectious medical and hazardous wastes
are disposed, and may well present risks to health
and the environment if it encourages unsafe and un-
regulated treatment and disposal practices.
16
 HAZARDOUSWASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING, TREATMENTAND DISPOSAL
At the same time, allowing unregulated operation
of incinerators in the Philippines for infectious
medical and hazardous wastes is potentially dan-
gerous. The country currently has limited capacity
to operate incinerators and monitor their emissions.
Without proper operation there is a danger that they
could not only ineffectively treat the waste but pro-
duce significant quantities of pollutants such as di-
oxins.
Effective implementation of the law will require a
concerted effort that focuses exclusively on the
practicalities of establishing safe and effective dis-
posal practices in the short and long term. If the
ban is fully implemented, then there will need to be
a shift to alternative technologies (see Box 11).
Some could take years and some technologies could
potentially have a lower order of treatment effec-
tiveness. The choice of technology is dependent on
environmental and safety considerations and com-
mercial viability. Experience from Latin America
suggests that microwaving or autoclaving options
.%.~~~V
"''- ~j ~ ~
17v.
17t &
could be used to treat infectious medical wastes at
prices equivalent or slightly higher than incinera-
tion, but not all waste streams could be effectively
treated. Similarly, cleaner production and chemi-
cal precipitation have been used to reduce the gen-
eration of hazardous waste in manufacturing pro-
cesses. Assuming viable treatment technologies are
identified soon, then it will have to be ensured that
such facilities are properly operated and environ-
mentally sound.
Alternatively, in the event that the incineration ban
is stayed or delayed for infectious medical and haz-
ardous wastes, the government should ensure that
the incinerators are operated as designed and regu-
lated closely by DENR, and their performance dis-
closed to the public. This would require substan-
tial capacity building of DENR's monitoring and
oversight capability. Also, existing incineration
capacity should be optimized to encourage the use
of shared facilities in order to minimize operational
and environmental risks.
~ Wo
-
 1-ii i S S i I - I

LEGISLATION

The Philippine Constitution (Article II Section 16) stipulates that "the state shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature." From the first anti-
dumping law in 1938 to the most recent ESWMA, every piece of enacted legislation has emphasizedproper collection
and safedisposal of household garbageand industrialand hospitalwastes.A summaryof the differentpieces of legislation
and their salient features follow. It is obvious that actions on the ground have not kept pace with policy and legal pro-
nouncements, and every effort should be made to ensure that the ESWMA succeeds where previous legislation failed.
Salient features of the ESWMA are also summarized.

Box12: Summaryof SWMLegislation

Act No. 383 - Anti-DumpingLaw (1938)
Commonwealth
Prohibitsdumping of refuse, waste matteror other substancesinto rivers. Punishmentis imprisonmentof not more than six months
and/or a fine of not more than P200.
Law(1965)
RepublicAct 4226, HospitalLicensing
Providesguidelinesto protectand promote public health by ensuringquality hospitalservicesappropriate to itslevel of health care.
GeneralOrderNo. 13 (1972)
Orders all residentsto undertake the cleaning of their surroundings and prohibits anyone from throwing garbage in public
places. All lot owners must maintain the cleanlinessof idle lots. If they are unable to do so, the Governmentwill undertake the
same at the owner's expense.
PresidentialDecreeNo. 825, GarbageDisposalLaw(1975)
Providespenaltiesfor improper disposal of garbage and other forms of uncleanliness.Penaltiesinclude imprisonment for be-
tween five days and one year and/or fines between P100 and P2000.
PresidentialDecreeNo. 856, SanitationCode(1975)
Requirescities and municipalitiesto provide an adequate and efficientsystemfor collection,transportation,and disposalof refuse
in their areas of jurisdiction in a manner approved by the local health authority,
DecreeNo. 600; as amendedby PD979, MarinePollutionControlDecreeof 1976 (1976)
Presidential
Preventsand controls the pollution of the seasby prohibiting dumping of waste and other matter,which createshazardsto human
health or harms living resourcesand marine life.
PresidentialDecreeNo. 984, Rulesand Regulationsof theNationalPollutionControlLaw
Providesguidelinesfor the prevention and control of pollution from solid, toxic, and hazardous wastes.
Policy(1978)
PresidentialDecreeNo. 1151,thePhilippineEnvironmental
Recognizesthe right of the people to a healthy environment,and the duty of everyone to contribute to the preservation and
enhancementof the environment. Section 4 requires the preparation of Environmental Impact Statementsfor any project or
undertaking that may significantly affect the environment.
Code(1978)
DecreeNo. 1152, PhilippineEnvironmental
Presidential
Requiresthe preparation and implementationof waste managementprograrns by all provinces,cities, and municipalities.
(OP)ExecutiveOrder No. 432 (1990)
Orders the strict implementationof PD825 by all law enforcementagenciesand officers. Enjoinsthe Metro Manila Development
Authority to do so for Metro Manila.
CodeRA7160 (1991)
LocalGovernment
MandatesLGUsto exercisepowersand discharge functionsand responsibilitiesas necessaryor appropriate and incidentalto the
efficient and effective provision of servicesand facilities related to general hygiene and sanitation, beautification, and solid
waste collectionand disposalsystems.
Rulesand
and Hazardousand NuclearWasteControlActof 1990,and itsImplementing
RepublicAct 6969- ToxicSubstances
Regulations (DAO 29) (1992)
Regulatesthe importation, use,movement,treatment and disposal of toxic chemicalsand hazardous and nuclear waste in the
Philippines.
AdministrativeOrder (DAO)No. 98-49and 98-50
Department
Providestechnicalguidelines for municipal solid waste disposal, and adoptsthe landfill site identification and screeningcriteria
for municipal solid waste disposal facilities.
RepublicAct 8749 - TheCleanAir Act of 1999
Providesa comprehensiveair pollution managementand control program to achieve and maintain healthyair. Section20 bans
incinerationof municipal,bio-medical, and hazardouswastesbut allowsthe traditional methodof small-scalecommunityburning.
Act of 2000
RepublicAct 9003 - EcologicalSolidWasteManagement
Declaresthe adoption of a systematic,comprehensive,and ecologicalsolid waste managementprogram as a policy of the State.
Adopts a community-basedapproach. Mandates waste diversionthrough compostingand recycling.

18
 ANDBUDGETS
INSTITUTIONS
LEGISLATION,

Box 13: Key Featuresof the EcologicalSolid Waste

Management Act of 2000 (ESWMA)

RA 9003- TheEcological Solid Waste ManagementAct of 2000 was passedby Congressin December2000 and signed into
law by the Presidentof the Philippineson January26, 2001 with the aim of adopting a systematic,comprehensive,and ecological
solid waste managementprogram. The ImplementatingRulesand Regulationsare currently being finalized.

• Institutional Arrangements: The Act provides for the establishmentof a National Solid Waste Management Commission
(NSWMC) to overseethe implementationof solid waste managementplans, and prescribepoliciesto achievethe objectivesof
the Act. Thecommissionwill be headed by DENRand composedof representativesfrom the following agencies: Department
of Scienceand Technology(DOST), Departmentof Health (DOH), Departmentof Agriculture (DA), TechnicalEducationand
Skill DevelopmentAuthority (TESDA),Departmentof Interior and Local Govemment(DILG),Departmentof Public Works and
Highways (DPWH),Departmentof Trade and Industry (DTI),Metro Manila DevelopmentAuthority (MMDA), PhilippineInfor-
mation Agency (PIA), Leagueof Provincial Governors, Leagueof City Mayors, Associationof Barangay Councils,and one
representativeeach from NGOs, recycling, and packaging or manufacturingindustries.A similar multi-sectoral SWM Board
will also be created in each Provinceand LocalGovernmentUnit (LGU).LGUswill be primarily responsiblefor the implemen-
tation and enforcementof the Act within their respectivejurisdictions.Similarly,segregationand collectionof biodegradable,
compostable, and re-usable solid wastes should be conducted at the barangay level, and the collection of non-recyclable
materials and handling of specialwasteswill be the responsibilityof the municipality or city.
* Strategic PlanningFramework: A National Solid Waste ManagementStatus Reportfeaturing an inventory of existing solid
waste facilities, waste characterization, waste generation projections, and other pertinent information should be regularly
updated and published.Based on such report, a National Solid Waste ManagementFramework, which will include medium
and long-term plans, should be formulated and implemented. The Act also requires each province, city or municipality to
prepare ten year plans, which should include the re-use, recycling, and compostingof wastes generated in their respective
jurisdiction, using the National Frameworkas their guide.

* Re-use:The Act requires all LGUsto divert at least 25 percentof all solid wastesfrom wastedisposal facilitiesthrough re-use,
recycling, composting, and other resourcerecovery activitieswithin five yearsfrom the effectivityof the Act, Similarly, segre-
gation of solid wastesat sourceis made mandatory.
* Recycling: The Act mandatesthe Departmentof Tradeand Industryto prepare an inventory of existing marketsfor recyclable
materials and compost. The Act also stipulatesthat procedure, standards, incentivesand strategiesshould be specified to
develop local market for recyclablematerials and compost. The Act also placesrestrictionon the useof environmentallynon-
acceptable packaging material.
* Sanitary Landfillsand Controlled Dumps: The Act prohibits new open dumps for disposal. Existingopen dumpsiteswill need
to be converted into controlled dumpsiteswithin three years, and replaced with sanitary landfills in a span of five years after
the Act has becomeeffective. The Act providesguidelines for the establishmentof sanitary landfills.
* Participation: To encourage popular participation, the Act also allows Citizen Suits, where anyone can file a civil, criminal,
and administrativeaction against any person,governmentagency or official who violates or fails to comply with the law.
* Fees:The Act specifiesthat fees should be levied on all waste generatorsfor SWM services. Finesand penaltiesfor any
violation of the law were also set. All revenuesfrom the implementationof the law shall accrueto a SWM Fund (both national
and local) earmarkedto support researchand development,provide awardsand incentives,provide technicalassistance,and
conduct information, education,communication,and monitoring activities.
* Incentives: The Act catalogues the incentivesthat are to be offered to LGUs, enterprises,private entities, and NGOs to
encourage their active participation. These include: tax and duty exemptions,tax credit on domesticcapital equipment,
provision of grants to LGUsto build their technical capabilities and incentivesto communitieshosting sharedtreatment and
disposal facilities.
* Appropriations: For the initial operating expensesof the NSWMC, National EcologyCenter,and the LGUs,the Act appropri-
ates PhP20million for 2001. Thereafter,the expenseswill be financed through the regular budget. For 2002, PhP10million
has been appropriated to support the NSWMC.

19
 - I I S 0
i I * 3

INSTITUTIONALARRANGEMENTS

Over the years, successive laws and issuances mandated different agencies to manage solid and hazardous
wastes. This has resulted in overlapping responsibilities. The Local Government Code of 1991 re-affirmed the
primary responsibility of local governments to plan and implement solid waste management programs within
their locality. The ESWMA reinforces this responsibility and defines the national oversight mandate of the
National Solid Waste Management Commission. The new structure and the responsibilities of the different
agencies are explained below:

Chart3: InstitutionalArrangementsMandated by the ESWMA

Office of the President

National Sold Waste Management Commission

* Chairedby the Secretary,DENR
* Outlinespolicies
* PreparesNationalSWMFramework
* Overseesimplementationof the ESWMAct
* ApprovesSWM Plansof local governments
* PreparesNationalSWM StatusReport

NationalEcologyCenter Secretariat of the NSWM

* Chairedby Director,EMB * Locatedat EMB
* Providestechnicalsupportto LGUs * Headedby an ExecutiveDirector
* Establishesand managesSWM database * Responsiblefor day-to-daymanagement

ProvincialSolidWasteManagementBoards
* Reviewand integratecity and municipalSWMplansinto the SWM planthe
* Coordinateeffortsof componentcitiesand municipalitiesimplementingESWMA
* Encouragethe clusteringby LGUswith commonproblems

City/MunicipalSolid WasteManagementBoards
* Prepare,submitand implementlocal 10 year SWM plans
* Reviewplan every2 years
* Adoptrevenuegeneratingmeasuresto promotesupport
* Providenecessarylogisticaland operationalsupport
* Coordinateeffortsof its componentbarangays
* Managethe collectionand disposalof residualand specialwastes
* Encouragesettingup of Multi-purposeEnvironmentalCooperatives

I
Barangays
* Handlethe 100%collectionof biodegradableand reusablewastes
* EstablishMaterialRecoveryFacility
* Conductinformationand educationcampaigns

20
 AND BUDGETS
INSTITUTIONS
LEGISLATION,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). Sets standards, criteria, and guidelines for
all aspects of solid waste management. Performs regu-
latory as well as monitoring and enforcement func-
tions with regard to air emissions and effluent of solid
waste management systems. Chairs the National Solid
Waste Management Commission, which sets the over-
all policy, prepares the national framework, and ap-
proves local action plans.
EnvironmentalManagement Bureau (EMB). Chairs
the National Ecology Center composed of multi-
sectoral and multi-disciplinary experts tasked to fa-
cilitate training and education on the ESWMA. Estab-
lishes and manages an information database. Provides
secretariat support to the Commission. EMB is a line
agency of DENR.
Box 14: CityDevelopmentStrategy(CDS)-
a promisingapproachto mainstreamsolid
waste management
The CDSaims to assistcity govemments and their stake-
holders in formulating a commonvision for their future,
identifying strategiesto attainthisvisionand priority pro-
gramsand projects,andfacilitatingresourcemobilization
to finance the implementationof these programs and
projects. Guided by the principles of livability,competi-
tiveness,bankability and good governance,the CDSfol-
lows a participatory process,which involvesall the stake-
holders in the entire planning and decisionmaking pro-
cess. In so doing, it developsa consensusbuilding pro-
cess within the city and buildsthe city's capacityfor more
effectiveurbangovernance.
Based on the experience of the first seven pilot cities
in the Philippines, solid waste was identified by the
various sectors as one of their priority issues.Having
gone through the process together, it was easier to
agreeon what needsto be done. Theissueof NIMBY
was thus addressed. In the case of San Fernando, La
Union, the CDS process facilitated the acquisitionof
an additional lot for sanitary landfill. It also paved
the way for the people's acceptance of the city's inte-
grated SWM program.
With the upscaling of the CDSin the Philippines(with 30
additional cities participating), it is expectedthat a more
comprehensivesolutionto the issueof solid waste man-
agementwill be developedand implemented.
Source: Philippines CDSProjectTeam
21
Local Government Units (LGUs). Responsible for
preparation and implementation of local SWM plans
together with other stakeholders within their area.
Principally responsible for proper waste manage-
ment - ensuring segregation at source, composting,
recycling, setting up of material recovery facilities,
efficient collection, and environmentally sound dis-
posal.
Department of Health (DOH). Regulates the stor-
age of refuse in food establishments with respect to
construction, maintenance, and placement of stor-
age containers within their establishments. Provides
guidelines for proper management and disposal of
hospital wastes, and other infectious wastes.
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). For-
mulates and implements a coding system for pack-
aging materials and products to facilitate recycling
and re-use. Publishes study on existing markets for
recyclables and recommends steps to expand these
markets.
Department of Agriculture (DA). Publishes an in-
ventory of markets and demands for compost. Assists
compost producers to ensure compost produced con-
form to standards.
Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA).
Enforces pollution laws in Laguna de Bay region in-
cluding illegal dumping of garbage.
Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA).
Coordinates collection, transport, and disposal of solid
wastes in Metro Manila. Responsible for daily opera-
tion of its transfer stations, composting facilities, and
landfills.
OversightCommittee. Moni-
Joint Congressional
tors the implementation of the ESWM and oversees
the functions of the Commission.
Philippine Coast Guard (PCG). Responsible for pre-
venting ocean dumping of solid wastes.
Private Sector. Serves as the Vice-Chair of the
NSWMC, and plays a major role in the provision of
collection, treatment and disposal services.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S - I

BUDGET AND EXPENDITURE

Table11: MMDA SWM Expenditures
Cities in both developing and industrialized countries (in millionpesos)
generally do not spend more than 0.5 percent of their Year Actualexpenditures
per capita gross national product on urban waste ser-
vices. This does not include costs directly paid by busi- 1994 73.4
nesses and residents, beyond the normal municipal 1995 136.5
1996 303.7
taxes and fees." 1997 405.9
1998 296.9

Expenditures in solid waste management also serve as 2000 24324.

a reliable proxy to service levels for collection and
disposal. However, in the Philippines, most LGUs do Source: PMO-MMOA

not correctly or fully account for their solid waste costs. Note:'budget allocation

No national data is available making it difficult to es-

timate the current share of solid waste expenditures in
the national accounts. Table12: CityBudgetsAllocatedfor

The budget for solid waste management as a percent- Per capita % of

age of total LGU budget varies greatly. Data from allocation Total2001

some cities outside the NCR indicates that in 2001, it City (Pesos) Budget

ranges from 1.2 percent to 11.7 percent. Current data Dagupan 87.17 4.1
for three cities within Metro Manila show Marikina at Antipolo
Ililo
148.66
12.50
11.6
7
10.8 percent, Muntinlupa at 9.8 percent, and Valenzuela Tagaytay 151.51 1.2
at 3.9 percent. The per capita allocation varies be- Island Garden City of Samal 85.39 3.4

tween less than a dollar (Iloilo and Roxas) to nearly Dipolog 60.69 2.1
San Fernando, La Union 162.97 7.0
US$5 (Muntinlupa). Generally, a substantial portion Marikina 192.55 10.8

of the budget for solid waste management is allocated Valenzuela 76.84 3.9

for collection and transport. Only a small portion is Muntinlupa 250.45 9.8
Roxas 23.21 1.4
provided for the management of the disposal site.
Source:Reportfrom, eachcity, August 2001.

MMDA's solid waste management budget is prima-

rily for disposal, since collection is the mandate of
LGUs. The 1997 Asian economic crisis led to a re- Tablery mmonly Usedwide
duction in MMDA's expenditures on solid waste man- Reo Measue W
sr
agement. However, by 2000, expenditures increased, (also seeTable5)
amounting to PhP424 million, more than five times Type Description

the 1994 levels. UserFees Direct: Paid by waste generators

User fees are not widely used by LGUs. Those levy-
ing such fees are able to cover part of the operation
and maintenance costs. None, however, are using the
fees as a means for financing capital investments.
according to levelof serviceprovided
Indirect: Regardlessof serviceslevel,
generators pay a flat fee.
Surcharge Incrementalfee leviedon property tax
or water or electricitytariffs.Thisdoes
not take into accountservicelevels.

Tipping Fees Fee collected by landfill operator

from waste hauler or local
government. MMDA levies between
PhP150-430 as tipping fee
depending on the truck size.
"'What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia - World Bank (1999).

22
 THE TEN CHALLENGES...

With the passage of RA 9003: Ecological Solid WasteManagement Act of 2000 (ESWMA), the Philippines now has a
comprehensive and integrated solid waste managementpolicy and legal framework. The implementingrules and regula-
tions are currentlybeing finalized. The next step for the Philippines is to implement the law and ensure its sustainable
impact. In doing so, the following challenges need to be addressed:

Table14: ESWMAGoals
Action Goal Status

Generation and
Collection * Listingof non-environmentallyacceptable productswithin one year of Unknown
effectivity of the law with phaseout period to be set by Commission
* Segregationof waste in all householdsupon effectivity of the law

Recycling and
Composting * At least 25 percentof waste recycledand recoveredwithin five years of 12 percent in Metro
effectivity of the law Manila;
* Inventory of marketsfor recyclablesand compostwithin 6 monthsof 6 percent nationally
effectivity of the law (estimate)

Disposal * All open dumps convertedto controlled dumpswithin three years of 17 controlled dumps
effectivity of the law 2 closedlandfills
* All controlled dumps convertedto sanitary landfills within five years 1 sanitary landfill

Medical Waste
Disposal * Non-burn technologiesfor treatmentand disposal (CleanAir Act) by 2003 43 incinerators

National SWM Status

Report * Within six monthsof effectivity Incompletereport
* To be updated every two years

i Strengtheningenforcement and providing better
incentives... The Philippines has a poor record of en-
forcing environmentallegislationdue to lack of political
will, institutionalcapacity and incentives. It is impor-
tant the politicalintent that was demonstratedwhen fram-
ing the ESWMA should be continued through its imple-
mentation by fully enforcing the differentprovisions of
the Act. Otherwise,the intent of the Act will be compro-
mised and the achievement of the above goals will re-
main a distant dream, further exacerbating the current
situation. At present, incentives for effective delivery of
SWM services are limitedto recognitionprograms, such
as the Clean and Green and the Galing Pook25 Awards.
Additional incentives shouldbe put into place including:
(i) provision of financial incentives for capital invest-
ment (e.g. matching grants); (ii) imposition of user fees
and tipping fees to encourage waste reduction and in-
crease accountabilityof service delivery; and (iii) intro-
duction of product standards for composting and grant-
ing incentives to encourage market development.In ad-
dition, the ESWMA also stipulates the granting of cer-
tain concessions and tax exemptionsforimproving solid
waste managementpractices.
2
eTheGaling Pook Award, was first given in 1993, which recognizes and
replicates exemplary programs of LGUs that have effectively addressed
pressingproblemsin theirareas.
Building the capacity of national and local in-
stitutions... The implementatingrules and regulations
will detail the institutional roles and responsibilities
of different organizations. However, the primary re-
sponsibility for implementing the ESWMA lies with
local governments, which include 77 provinces, 114
cities, 1,495municipalities,and over 42,000 barangays.
Strateg-icPlanning. As required by the ESWMA,
over the next few years, strategic plans at the na-
tional, provincial, LGU, and barangay levels need
to be prepared. This will require the strengthen-
ing of technical capacity in the country to prepare
such plans and guide their implementation.
* National Government.The National Ecology Cen-
ter and the Secretariat of the National Solid Waste
Management Commission will need to be
strengthened to provide advisory and extension
services to LGUs and barangays. Their capacity
for obtaining, maintaining, and analyzing data on
solid waste in the country should alsobe enhanced.
* Local Governments. LGUs will need to upgrade
their technical and managerial capacity to expand
their role beyond the current responsibility of
mainly household collection. Also, LGUs need to
put in place financial systems to fully account for
solid waste management expenditures, which will
enable them to benchmark service efficiency and

23
 fulfill contractual obligations in a transparent
manner.
Barangays. Communities need to be made aware
of the benefits of proper waste disposal, as well
as their responsibilities in waste avoidance, seg-
regation, collection, recycling, and composting.
3 Addressing the NIMBY syndrome... This per-
spective is creating a major barrier to the siting of re-
gional or local landfills and materials recovery facili-
ties. Public awareness and support for solid waste man-
agement facilities can be encouraged through better
consultation and more widespread implementation of
programs, such as the current information, education,
and communication campaigns. Additionally, the es-
tablishment and promotion of landfills or demonstra-
tion landfills that are properly managed from an envi-
ronmental and social point of view will give the pub-
lic greater confidence that landfills can be safely con-
structed and operated in their locality.
I]
Ž Raising public awareness on the benefits of
proper SWM... The success of the ESWMA largely
depends on the support of the people. Solid waste is
often perceived as a purely government function, while
public consultation on landfill siting and solid waste
management programs is often lacking. This discour-
ages citizens from playing their role in SWM, such as
participating in recycling programs.
/< Increasing expenditures on SWM... The LGUsubsidies
bD Increasing expenditures on SWM..n The LGU
budgets for solid waste management have been typi
cally limited to household collection, transportation
to open dumpsites, and minimal operational expendi-
tures for disposal. The ESWMA requires additional
financing for: building capacity to implement the new
institutional arrangements; conversion to and opera-
tion of controlled dumps and sanitary landfills; shift
to environmentally-friendlypackaging; recycling pro-
grams; materials recovery facilities; and infectious
medicaland hazardouswastenon-burntreatmentand
disposal technologies. Preliminary estimates (exclud-
ing investments by businesses) indicate that additional
spending l 2Budget
on solid waste management will have to in-
crease by PhP150billion (Table15) over the nextten
years, or additionalper capitacost of PhP200per year.
Currently, LGUs annually spend between PhP 12 and
250 per capita. Much of the incremental expenditure
will be dedicated to infrastructure investments in the
next five years (Chart 3). The average annual costs of
21
implementing the law amount to 0.5 percent of the
2000 gross domestic product (GDP). If this would be
funded solely by the Government, it would require the
programmed public expenditure in the national bud-
get to increase annually by 3 percent from its current
level, and the local government programmed expen-
diture to increase by at least 15 percent. It is therefore
important for the Government to increase the budget
for solid waste management and to supplement that
funding by encouraging the involvement of the pri-
vate sector through the establishment of a functional
regulatory system, ensuring financial transparency in
the sector, and introducing user fees.
( Mainstreaming the utilization of new funding
sources and employing cost-effective approaches...
National Govcrnment Cost Sharing. The Philip-
pine Government will need to revisit its current
policy22 of not providing any cost-sharing grants
to LGUs to address pollution-related or "brown"
environmental issues such as solid waste. There
are environmental externalities associated with
waste disposal and treatment, which go beyond a
local government's jurisdiction. These often as-
sume a regional or national dimension, and there-
fore, LGUs need assistance. In many countries,
national governments offer various incentives and
to local authorities to invest in proper
waste disposal facilities. These take the form of
matching grants provided by the national govern-
ments for capital investments only. Local gov-
ernments usually assume responsibility for opera-
tion and maintenance costs through their own
budgets or user fees.
* Private Sector Participation. The encouragement
of private sector participation can provide invest-
ment to supplement or replace government fund-
2
'Source: National Income Accounts, DBM
GDP 3170 Billion PhP
For Information on programmed public expenditure in National
2 refer to Philippines-at-a-Glance section.
The Investment Coordinating Committee (ICC) of the Nationl Economic
and DevelopmentAuthority (NEDA) has adopted a policy of cost sharing
between the national govemment and local govemments for projects that
have social and environmental benefits. While this is being implemented
for green projects (forest management, protected areas, and wildlife) and
blue environment (coastal and marine resources),there is no cost sharing
for capital investments in the brown environment (urbanissues).
24
THE TEN CHALLENGES...

Costs
Incremental
Table15:Estimated forImplementing the ESWMA
between2002 and 2011 (in real terms)'

Item Cost(PhPbillion)

and Evaluation'
Institutionaland RegulatoryArrangementsfor Planning,Monitoring,Enforcement, 20

InvestmentsRequiredto ImproveWaste Collectionand Recycling 58

3 5
* EnhancedCollection for Complete Coverage
4 13
* Waste Separation at Household(4 bins) and collection
5 30
* Collection Vehiclesand Haulage Trucks
* Material RecoveryFacility' 10

Investments Requiredfor Treatmentand Disposal 72

7 4
* Shift to Controlled Dumps- Construction,Operation, and Maintenance
* Shift to Sanitary Landfills- Construction,Operation, and Maintenance7 67
8 1
* Non-burn Technologiesfor InfectiousMedical Waste Treatment
Total 150

hazardous waste.
This excludesinvestmentsthat need to be made by the private sectorto shift to environmentally-friendlypackaging and treatmentand disposalof industrial
Board and [GUICity Solid Waste
The ESWMA requires theestablishmentof a National Commission,TechnicalSecretariatat EMB,an EcologyCenter,ProvincialSolid WasteManagement
recyclablesneed to be in place and
ManagementBoard. In addition, a national framework, provincial plans, LGUplans, an annuat report, eco-labelingschemeand market mechanismfor
regularly updated.
'Incremental costsfor achieving 100 percentcollectioncoverage including under-servedpoor areas.
level and will be replaced every thre
TheAct requires that householdsor gesup of householdsto have four different bins. For purposes of costingthis is assumedto be at the barangay
years.
Incrementalcostsfor modernizing the collection neet in LGUs.
Thecost of an urban MRFis
TheActs goal is to achieve 25 percentwaste diversion, and this is to be realized through material recovery facilities (MRF)to be set-up in each barangay.
approximately PhP500,000, while that of a rural MRFis assumedto be PhP75,000.
conceptualdesigns (for sanitarylandfills in Lagunaand Cavite).
I Theunil costcoefficientsare basedon actual costs(conversionof San FernandoDisposalSiteto controlled dump) and from
are metby the construction
Assumesall existing open dumps and controlled dumpsare convertedand the additional disposal needsfrom enhancedcollectionmandated under the ESWM
of LGU-Ievelsanitary landfills.
Thisis mandated by the Clean Air Act.

Source: TeamEstimates,2001

ing. Currently, the private sector is only involved
as contractors for hauling, while the informal sec-
tor has a small role in material recovery enter-
prises. Private sector participation can be encour-
aged through a regulatory environment that en-
sures private operators are able to recover their
investments through garbage and tipping fees, and
avoid graft and corruption through improved and
transparent contractual practices based on perfor-
mance standards.
User Fees: Investment and/or operational costs
can be recovered by LGUs or the private sector
by charging residential, industrial, and commer-
cial users for garbage disposal. Successful fee
programs require political support, a quality ser-
vice with consumers who understand the value of
the service and are willing to pay for it, and an
efficient fee collection system.
Shared Facilities. Substantial cost savings can be
achieved through the establishment of regional fa-
cilities that service multiple LGUs. These include
material recovery facilities and sanitary landfills. The
latter shouldbe served by LGU-specific transfer sta-
tions, which can optimize waste haulage. It will also
be important for barangays to establish shared ma-
terials recovery facilities, as these will be prohibi-
tively expensive (50 percent of all barangays have
annual incomes of less than PhP500,000). Estab-
lishment of these facilities could be encouraged
through demonstration projects and national or re-
gional programs that provide an instrument for co-
ordination of the LGUs.
* Revenues from Landfill Gas Recovery. The gas
produced by landfills can be recovered and either
used as a gas fuel source or combusted to pro-
duce electricity. These facilities can be installed
in operating and closed landfills, and can provide
an LGU or landfill operator with an additional
source of funds to supplement other methods to
cover the costs of solid waste management.
7 Obtaining reliable information for national,
regional, and local planning... There are many
gaps in the data available from the local and na-
tional-levels. Without proper data, long-term plan-
ning decisions cannot be reliably made, and the risk

25
 AnnualCosts
Chart4: Incremental theEWSMAbetween2002-2011
of Implementing
25-
20
Chr Irmeap.
c -15
0 3
E~ ~ ~
2002 2003
CD
- --
and Regulatory
Institutional
_2 _- Improved
Collection
of crises such as that being experienced by Metro
Manila is higher. A comprehensive information
management system along with the establishment
of local, regional, and national monitoring databases
linked to decision support systems would greatly
help governments at all levels in making informed,
and sound long-term decisions.
(<>
e Ensuring proper management of closed dumps
The poor management prac-
and sanitary landfills ........
tices at Carmona and San Mateo landfills caused ad-
verse public reactions and the landfills' closure. The
landfill in Cebu is also experiencing major difficul-
ties. Landfill operators should put in place better man-
agement practices that are closely monitored by LGUs
and DENR. Further, the Carmona and San Mateo land-
fills, and the Payatas and Smokey Mountain open
dumps continue to pose significant environmental risks
to adjacent communities, especially the poor. There is
an urgent need to properly contain these sites and the
numerous open dumps to prevent leachate contamina-
tion of water bodies. Methane gas generated by closed
landfills could be collected and converted to power to
reduce the risk of methane gas explosions, while pro-
viding electricity to local communities.
mA
m2 Protecting the vulnerable and under-served.. ,.
Poor communities are most likely to be adversely af-
fectedby, ordonotadequatelybenefitfrom, solidwaste
management strategies. In particular, the poor are cur-
rently under-served in terms of collection. Some live
on or near garbage disposal sites (e.g. Payatas and
Smokey Mountain) and thus, are exposed to unsani-
t. x e m S 3e)
~ ~ YA
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
A 3
Arrange
ments ent and Disposal
- - - - Treatm
andRecycling
Costs
42. TotalIncrernental
tary conditions and environmental risks (contaminated
groundwater and air pollution) and safety risks (ex-
plosions and the collapse of garbage piles). Active in-
terventionsby Government will be needed to help these
communities, including opportunities to expand their
role in waste recycling. For example, social assess-
ments could be required as part of the development
closure of any disposal site. Programs to help the
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~and
communities on operational and closed landfills could
be developed. Equity considerations can be incorpo-
rated into the development of collection systems.
.
il ({) Expanding coverage of medical and haz-
ardous waste treatment. .. The main challenges in-
clude expanding on-site and off-site treatment fa-
cilities and addressing the issues posed by the imple-
mentation of the ban on incineration by the Clean
Air Act. Globally, incineration remains a common
means of treating infectious medical waste and haz-
ardous waste. Implementation of the ban will re-
quire adoption of alternate technologies, which will
take time. In the intervening period, every effort
should be made to ensure that disposal measures,
would not result in widespread unsafe and unregu-
Iated practices. The government, civil society and
private sector will need to collaborate to develop
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~the
workable and pragmatic approaches that are cost-
................
effective and environmentally sound. In the event,
the incineration ban is stayed or delayed for infec-
tious medical and hazardous wastes, the government
should ensure that incinerators are carefully oper-
ated, closely regulated, and function in the context
of an integrated waste management system.
26
 CASE STUDY: THE Two FACES OF PAYATAS- POVERTYAND ENVIRONMENT

The Payatas open dumpsite, located in Quezon City,has been receivingMetro Manila'sgarbage, hospital waste, and indus-
trial waste for over 20 years. Rightfrom the beginning, it attracted waste pickerswho earn a livingby scavenging. The waste
pickersthen became illegalsettlersin the same location, in appalling, unsanitary livingconditions.The adverse environmental
and health conditionscreated by the dump meant that the sitewas always under threat of closure, Thoughplans to close down
the area began in 1999, the attemptwas thwarted by both the settlersand middlemenwho depended on the dump for their
livelihoods. In July2000, tragedy struckat Payatas, when heavy rains caused part of the dump in the northernarea to slide
carrying with it 60,000 cubic meters of waste. The slide killed250 people belonging to 700 poor families.Thiscase study
discusses the two sides of Payatas: the effortsto rehabilitate illegal squatter elsewhere; and the organized approach of the
scavengers to improve their lives.

EFFORTS
REHABILITATION
The accident highlighted the need to improve the liv-
ing conditions of the people in Payatas. Local com-
munities, with the help of NGOs, the private sector,
and local governments are undertaking three reloca-
tion projects in the area:
* 200 families living in the danger zone are being
relocated to Bagong Silangan, Quezon City-a
two-hectare plot not far from Payatas donated by
the private sector.Atotal of 342 housing units will
be provided at a cost of about PhP70,000 per unit.
A training center would also be constructed.
* Another relocation site is a three-hectare lot in
San Isidro, Montalban bought by the waste pick-
ers at PhP150/sqm. All developments in the area
are being undertaken by the relocatees, including
the design and construction of roads, drainage
systems, and the houses. So far, 16 shell houses
have been constructed.
* The Golden Shower Homeowner's Association,
formedin 1993,started a savingsprogram,mapped,
enumerated and surveyed their settlements,and ar-
ranged to put their land titles in order.Plans include
the purchase of 3.2 hectares of land which associa-
tion members alreadyoccupy They plan to improve
their homes, build new houses,and establisha com-
munity recycling center.After the Payatas incident,
the Asian Development Bank, through the Japan
Fund for Poverty Reduction,provided a US$1 mil-
lion grant to help people with home ownership and
on-site improvement.
WORKING TOGETHER TO BUILD BETTER LIVES
In 1993, the community living in Payatas organized
themselves into the Payatas Scavengers Association
with the support of the Vincentian Missionaries So-
cial Development Foundation. Through this associa-
tion, they work to secure their economic future by ac-
cessing the resources and opportunities that will add
value to their products and stabilize their incomes. Ac-
tivities supported include:
* Promoting home-based solid waste related micro-
enterprises, by encouraging investments in recy-
cling processes that enhance the value of their
products, and transform recycled materials into
new/exportable products.
Mobilizing savings through a regular savings pro-
gram open to all members of the communities and
collected daily by community members. The sav-
ings of their 6,115 members from June 1995 to
September 2000 amounted to PhP14.2 million.
Through these funds, they were able to purchase
land, expand their businesses, pay for their
children's tuition fees, buy medicines, and meet
emergency needs. Loans disbursed within the
same period amounted to PhP61.5 million-indi-
cating that the total amount of money had been
loaned out and paid back four times, creating as-
sets and increasing wealth for households with an
average income of only PhP3,500 per month.
Encouraging the acquisition of land and construc-
tion of their own houses, and accompanied im-
provements in living conditions.
Aside from these activities, the association also has
programs for children including a center cooperatively
managed by mothers. The center offers working chil-
dren a place to play, obtain first-aid, sleep, shower,
and get something to eat. Alongside the center is a
day care school where mothers take turns teaching and
feeding children nutritious meals cooked in the court-
yard outside. The children themselves have initiated a
savings scheme for those who are on their own. The
savings scheme is aside from their families'. These
experienceshave shown that making savings and credit
the building block of a people-driven community de-
velopment movement, helps individuals understand
their own situationand needs. It develops and promotes
community strength, creates the bargaining chip of
collective assets, and truly turns poor communitiesinto
potential development partners.

27
Barangay: Pilipino term used to describe a community or vil- Leachate: Wastewater that collects contaminants as it trick-
lage; also the smallest political unit in the country. les through MSW disposed in a landfill. Leaching may result
Biodegradable: Capable of decompin hazardous substances entering surface water, ground water
Biodegradable: Capable of decomposition by microorganisms or 1ol
under natural conditions. Most organic materials, such as food or -oil.
scraps and paper, are biodegradable. Market wastes: Primarily putrescible MSW, such as leaves, skins,
and unsold food, discarded at or near food markets.
Collection: Theprocess of picking up wastes from residences,busi-
nesses, or at a collectionpoint,loading them intoa vehicle, and trans- Materials recovery facility: Facility that processes residentially
porting them to a processing site, transfer station or landfill. collected mixed recyclables into new products.
Commercial waste: All municipal solid waste emanating from Medical waste (hospital waste): Any MSW generated in the di-
business establishment such as stores, markets, office buildings, agnosis, treatment or immunization of human beings or animals.
restaurants, shopping centers, and entertainment centers. Methane: A colorless, non-poisonous, flammable gas created by
Composting: The controlled biological decomposition of the pu- anaerobic decomposition of organic compounds.
trescible fraction of MSW in the presence of air to form a humus- Moisture content: The fraction or percentage of a substance that
like material. is water.
Controlled dumps:A non-engineered disposal site at which MSW Municipal solid waste (MSW): Includes non-hazardous waste
is deposited in accordance with minimum prescribed standards of generated in households, commercial and business establishments,
site operation. It has minimal site infrastructure. Basic operational . . . p
controls include: control over size of waste tipping area with waste institutlons, andnon-hazardous ndustral process wastes, agricul-
spread and compaction, stormwater management, and supervision tural wastes, and sewage sludge.
of site operations by trained staff. NIMBY: Acronym for "Not In My BackYard"; an expression
Decomposition: The breakdown of matter, changing the chemi- of resident opposition to the siting of a municipal solid waste
cal makeup and physical appearance of MSW in landfills or management facility based on the particular location proposed.
composting facilities. Open dumps: A site used to dispose of municipal solid waste with-
Disposal: The final placement of MSW that is not salvaged or out management and/or environmental controls.
recycled. Putrescible: A fraction of MSW which can decompose under aero-
Energy recovery: Obtaining energy from MSW through a variety bic or anaerobic conditions, used as a feedstock for composting.
of processes (e.g. combustion). Recycling: Physical/mechanical separation process by which sec-
glass, plastics) are obtained
GasGas
control and recovery system:
cnrladrcvrsytmAsytmdsgetoclet
A system designed to collect ondary
from MSW.raw materials
The process couldmetal,
(paper, be accomplished manually, or us-
landfill gases for treatment or for use as an energy source. ing the pment.
ing sophisticated equipment.
Generation rate: The amount of MSW generated over a given Resource recovery: The process of obtaining matter or energy
period of time by a given source. from MSW.
Groundwater: The supply of freshwater that is found beneath the Sanitary landfill: This is a disposal site designed, constructed,
earth's surface, which supplies wells and springs. Since ground- operated, and maintained in a manner that exerts engineering con-
water is a major source of drinking water, there is a growing con- trol over significant potential environmental impacts arising from
cern about contamination from pollutants leached from dumpsites the operation of the facility. It has comprehensive site engineering
and/or badly managed landfills... and exhibits containment, treatment, and management of leachate
Hazardous waste: Waste generated that can pose a substantial or and landfill gas.
potential hazard to human health or the environment when im- Solid waste: MSW composed of solid matter from household, com-
properly managed. mercial, institutional, and industrial sources.
Household waste (domestic waste): MSW composed of garbage Tipping fee: A fee for unloading MSW at a landfill, transfer sta-
and rubbish, which is generated as a consequence of household tion or recycling facility.
activities. In developing countries, up to two-thirds of this cat-
egory consist of putrescible wastes. Toxic waste: A waste that can produce injury if inhaled, swal-
Incineration: A treatment technology involving destruction of lowed, or absorbed through the skin.
MSW by controlled burning at high temperatures. The main ob- Transfer station: A facility at which MSW from collection ve-
jective of this process is to reduce the volume of MSW and to hicles is consolidated into loads that are transported in larger trucks
make waste innocuous. or other means to more distant disposal sites.
Industrial waste: A heterogeneous mixture of different materials Waste picking: A process of extracting recyclables and re-
generated during an industrial operation. usable materials from a mixed MSW for further use and/or
Infectious waste: Hazardous waste with infectious characteris- processing.
tics, including contaminated animal waste, body parts, human
blood, and blood products, isolation waste, pathological waste,
and discarded needles and medical instruments. Source:Adaptedfrom Planning Guidefor StrategicMunicipal Solid
WasteManagement in Major Cities in Low-income Countries,Draft
Institutional waste: Waste originating from schools, hospitals, Planning Guide, February 1998, Environment Resources Man-
prisons, research organizations, and other public buildings. agement, London.

28
 AT
THE PHILIPPINES A GLANCE

Society Economy
Capital ................ Manila GDP-real growth rate ............... 3.9%1
Population . ............... 76.5 Mc GDP . .............. PhP3,322.6 Bb
Population growth rate . . .............. 2.32%c
Birth rate .. ... 28 births/l ,000 populationoi GDP-composition by sectora
Death rate ............ 6.5 deaths/1,000 population,i Agriculture .. ........................ 16%
Net migration rate ...... 1.03 migrants/ 1,000 populationcI Industry .. ........................ 31%
Sex ratio ............ 0.99 male/femalec Services .. ........................ 53%
Total fertility rate ............ 3.6 children bom/womanc
Poverty (% below poverty line) . 375/e
......................... GNP per capita..US$1,016.0'
Urban population (% of total population) ....... 56.9%ci GNP-real growth rate . ............. 2%
Infant mortality rate .............. 32 deaths/1,000 GNP. .PhP3,302.6Bb
live birthsc (1998) (In percent)b
Under-five mortality rate .................. 44 deaths/l ,000 Gross domestic investmentlGDP . 18.8
.....................
live birthsc (1998) Exports of goods and services/GDP . 51.3
Life expectancy at birth (both sexes) .......... 68.3 yearsch Gross domestic savings/GDP . .................... 14.6
Child malnutrition (% of children below ........ 28%, k 5) Gross National Savings/GDP . .................... 20.7
Access to safe water Inflation rate (consumer prices . . 4.4%d
(% of population) . . .......... 83 %f Labor force . ...... 48.4 Md
Adult literacy rate Participation rate . .. 64.3%d
(% of population age 15+) . ................. 94.8%'i
Employment by sector (In % total employment)b
Geography Agriculture . .... 40.1%
Location: Southeastern Asia, archipelago between the Phil- Government and social services . . ... 19.5%
ippine Sea and the South China Sea, east of Vietnam Services ..... 44.2%
Area Manufacturing . .... 9.5%
Total........... 300,000 sq km Construction .............. . 5.3%
Land ........... 298,170 sq km
Water . .......... 1,830 sq km Unemployment . ............. JlAMd

Land boundaries . .......... 0 km Unemployment rate . .............. 11.1 %d

Coastline . .......... 36,289 km
Climate: Tropical marine; northeast monsoon (November Budgetg
to April); southwest monsoon (May to October) Programmed public expenditure (2001)..... PhP700B
Elevation extremes Local government programmed expenditure.. PhP I 28B
Lowest point: ... ..... Philippine Sea: 0 m Industries: Textiles, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, wood
Highest point: ... ..... Mount Apo: 2,954 m products, food processing, electronics assembly, petroleum
Natural resources: timber, petroleum, nickel, cobalt, sil- refining, fishing
ver, gold, salt, copper
Land use Industrial production growth rate ....................... 0.5%b
Arable land: ..... .. ....... 19% Agriculture-products: Rice, coconuts, corn, sugarcane,
Permanent crops: ..... .. ....... 12% bananas, pineapples, mangoes; pork, eggs, beef, fish
Permanent pastures: . ............. 4%
Forests and woodland: . . ............ 46% Exports of goods and services ................. PhP1,648.2 Bb
Other: .. 19%s Imports of goods and services ................. PhP1,342.6 Bb
Currency conversion average ..... US$1=PhP44.1938 Bb
Environmental issues: Solid waste management; defores- Debt-external . ........ US$52.06 Bb
tation; air and water pollution in Metro Manila; marine and Currency ......... I Philippine Peso (PhP) = 100 centavos
coastal pollution.

Sources: 'World Development Indicators 2000, b Selected Philippine Economic Indicators - Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (SPEI-BSP),
National Statistics Office (NSO),'Nat ional Statistical CoordinationBoard (NSCB),'National Economicand DevelopmentAuthority(NEDA),f
Human Development Report 2000, B National Income Accounts, Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

29