making ra 9003 work putting real issues, real solutions in a real world a joint policy position...

7/30/2019 Making RA 9003 Work Putting Real Issues, Real Solutions in a Real World A Joint Policy Position Paper of the Leag

1/36

1

Making RA 9003 Work: Putting Re al Issue s, Re al Solutions in a Re al WorldA Joint Policy Position Paper of the League of Cities of the Philippines and

League of Municipalities of the Philippines

(draft copy)

Prepared by:

Elmer Mercado

LGU Policy AdvisorJa nuary 2006

With technical assist anc e provided by the Philippine-Canadian Local

Government Support Programme Ph as e 2 (LGSP II)


2/36

2

A. Overview

The pas sag e of the Republic Act 9003 (RA 9003) or the Ecological Solid

Waste Management Act of 2000 (ESWM) was a landmark environmental

legislation in the Philippines as well as for the newly installed government of

Pre sident Gloria Maca pagal-Arroyo who signed th e law in 2000 within a fewmonth of her as cension into office. The Act was a product of long-standing

advocacies by many sectors, including local government units and theirconstituencies, on the impending problem brought about by unsystematic

man age ment of the countrys solid wast e.

However like many good laws passed by the Philippine Congress, RA9003 has been plagued and criticized by several sectors as an unrealistic and

unimplementable becau se of certain provisions of the law. Among these

provisions include the time-bound d eadlines in the implementation of specific

solid waste management activities and systems such as establishment andconversions of disposa l facilities that ar e d ee med unrealistic by local

implementers particularly LGUs.Sev eral expert studies have pinpointed the inconsistencies andimpracticality of the existing provisions of the law and its applicability to local

conditions particularly with LGUs. As the mandat ed frontline implementing

agency of RA 9003, LGUs are tasked with the heaviest burden of operating andsustaining an effective SWM system within the limited financial, economic,

institutional and technical capacities of many LGUs. The World Ban k study on

Local Approaches to Environmental Compliance noted th at the principal

obstacles to environmental compliance and enforcement of environmental lawsin developing countries revolve around constraints th at ar e political, economic

and institutional.1

These observations are clearly pictures the real conditions by

which RA 9003 is working on in the Philippines.The law has placed a great burden of responsibility and governance to

LGUs on achieving its goals of instituting an effective, sustainable and

ecologically-sound solid waste management system in the Philippines. Thisobjective is a commonly-sh ared vision by many local chief executives and their

constituencies . However, such a vision can only happen if it fits within the real

conditions and parameters of the laws intended beneficiary communities and

constituencies . These include understanding the economic, institutional andpolitical conditions of LGUs who are t asked to implement and susta in the

system.

In this context, the first step in making RA 9003 work is to mak e it real firstin the real world of our LGUs and local communities . This policy paper is

intended to pres ent a real appreciation of the re al world of LGUs, primarily tasked

by the law, to make an ecologically-sound solid waste man ageme nt system inthe country real and working.

1A. Bianchi, W. Cruz and M. Nakamura (eds).Local Approaches to Environmental Compliance: Japanese

Case Studies and Lessons for Developing Countries. World Bank Institute, Washington. 2005.


3/36

3

B. Real Issues and Real Problems of Philippine LGUs and RA 9003

1.0Most Philippine LGUs are poor (4th-6th class) and are economically unable tosupport an effective solid waste management system in the country.

One of the major arguments for the inability of LGUs to implement RA9003 is the financial and economic limitations of most of the countrys LGUs to

fund and sustain an effective solid waste management system as provided for bythe law. RA 9003 has ve sted and impos ed upon LGUs the primary responsibility

of implementing the law, because of its primary role as frontline s ervice agencies

of government. However, it did not vest it with the nec es sary financial and fiscalresources to be able to effectively institute and sustain the SWM system

embodied under the law. Likewise, the law did not consider the economic and

financial gener ating capacities of LGUs in the country.

There are a total of 1,693 LGUs in the country broken down a s follows: 79provinces, 116 cities and 1,498 municipalities 2. There are also an estimated

41,975 barang ays. At pres ent, the LMP has a listed memb ership of 1, 498municipalities as of 2003. This does not include the 11 new municipalitiescreat ed under the ARMM RLA.3 Of these total, almost 2/3 of its members belong

to lowest income classes of LGUs (4th

-6th

class). ARMM has the largest number

of municipalities that belong to the poorest income class or 6th

classmunicipalities. Data from the income and expenditure statements gen erat ed

from the Dep artment of Financ es Bure au of Local Government Finance (BLGF)

in 2003, listed the average income gen erated by thes e 4th

-6th

class municipalities

are between PhP 15 million -30.0 million, while 1st-3

rdclass municipalities

(outside of NCR, Regions III and IV)4 have an average income of PhP 50-100

million. Most of the poor municipalities are scattered all over the country.

In the ca se of cities, ther e are a total of 102 cities (outside of the 14 citiesin Metro Manila) as of 2003. Of the total, more than half or 64 cities are

classified as high-income (s ee Table 2). Forty-six (46) of the 64 are 1st

class

cities. As per the 2003 Report of the Audited Financial Statem ent Rep ort ofCities by the Commission on Audit (COA), the average income generated by

thes e cities range b etween PhP 300 million PhP 600 million. However, in the

ca se of highly-urbanised cities located in the National Capital Region and s everal

others outside of Metro Manila5, income generated by these HUCs e xceeded

more than PhP 1.0 billion.

2

The number of municipalities may vary according to source. The number of municipalities in this reportwas taken from the LMPs 2003 membership list. Other sources list the number of municipalities to around

1,500.3

Sec. 19, Art. VI of RA 9054 or the new Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

gives the ARMM Regional Assembly the authority to create, divide, merge, abolish or substantially alter

boundaries of provinces, cities, municipalities or barangays within the region.4

Several municipalities in these regions have reported incomes of more than PhP 300 million, including

Sta. Rosa and Binan in Laguna. Both municipalities, however, have recently been converted into cities.5

Outside of NCR, the cities classified as highly-urbanized are Davao, Cebu, Baguio, Cagayan de Oro, Gen

Santos, Bacolod, Iloilo, Lucena, and Zamboanga.


4/36

4

Table 1: Classification of Municipalities in the Philippines by Income and Physical

Characteristics

No. of LGUs by Income Class (1st-6th

Class)

No. of LGUs by

Physical

Characteristics

Region

1st 2nd

3rd 4th 5th

6th Landlocked Coa stal

Total

No. of

LGUs*

CAR 3 4 2 26 38 3 76 0 76

R1 4 9 23 53 28 0 68 49 117R2 7 10 13 36 20 4 62 28 90

R3 24 19 24 45 30 0 85 34 119

R4-a 34 13 13 41 29 1 47 84 131

R4-b 9 9 7 27 15 4 6 65 71

R5 6 10 16 47 28 0 30 77 107

R6 3 9 16 69 20 0 54 63 117

R7 1 11 14 46 47 1 31 89 120

R8 3 5 11 41 75 4 34 106 139

R9 1 7 15 31 13 0 34 33 67

R10 3 6 9 31 33 3 43 42 85

R11 9 9 14 9 2 0 22 21 43R12 12 10 15 7 1 0 36 9 45

CARAGA 5 6 10 19 29 1 24 46 70

ARMM 3 3 8 24 24 32 56 42 98

NCR 3 1 2 3

Totals 130 140 210 552 432 53 708 790 1498

Source: Compiled from the 2003 LMP National Secretariat Database.


5/36

5

Table 2. Income Classification of Cities in the Philippines

No. of LGUs by Income Class (1st-5th Class)Region

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Total No. of

LGUs

CAR 1 1

R1 1 2 2 3 8R2 1 2 3

R3 3 2 3 1 3 12

R4 6 1 3 2 12

R5 2 1 4 7

R6 5 4 1 6 16

R7 3 3 3 3 12

R8 3 1 4

R9 2 2 1 5

R10 2 1 3 1 7

R11 1 1 2 1 5

R12 3 2 1 6CARAGA 1 1 1 3

ARMM 1 1

NCR 14

Total 48 16 18 11 23 116

Source: Commission on Audit, 2004

Table 3. Top Twelve (12) Income Earners for Cities (outside of NCR)

Ranking/

City

Income

Class

Region Province Income

Class

Income Earned

(in PhP)

Davao 1 XI Davao del Sur 1st 2.22B

Cebu 1 VII Cebu 1st 1.82B

Zamboanga 1 IX Zamboanga

del Sur

1st 1.22B

Cagayan de

Oro

1 X Misamis

Oriental

1st 1.02B

Calamba 2 IV Laguna 1st 879.9M

PuertoPrincesa

1 IV Palawan 1st

838.77M

Batanga s 1 IV Batanga s 1st

835.73M

Antipolo 1 IV Rizal 1st

792.36M

Iligan 1 XII Lanao del

Norte

2nd 789.53M

Iloilo 1 VI Iloilo 1st 727.59M

Gen Santos 1 XII SouthCotabato

2nd

690.85M

Baguio 1 CAR Bengu et 2nd

686.71M



6/36

6

Table 4. Income Classification of Provinces in the Philippines

No. of LGUs by Income Class (1st-4th Class)Region

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Total No. of

LGUs

CAR 1 5 6

R1 4 4

R2 2 1 1 1 5

R3 5 1 1 7

R4 6 2 1 1 10

R5 2 3 1 6

R6 2 3 1 6R7 3 1 4

R8 1 3 1 1 6

R9 2 3*

R10 2 1 1 4

R11 3 2 5

R12 1 3 4

CARAGA 1 3 4

ARMM 1 1 2 1 5

Total 35 24 14 6 79


Table 3 further shows that of the top 12 income earners among the cities,

five are provincial capital cities and HUCs from Mindanao, four (4) from SouthernTagalog, and one each for Benguet, Iloilo and Cebu. The average income for

thes e top income e arner s is PhP 800 900 million. On the other hand, 3rd

5th

class cities or 52 cities have income s lower than PhP 200 million with the lowestclasse s (5th) of cities barely earning an average of a little more than Ph P 100

million.

In the c as e of the provinces , out of the 79 provinces in the country, morethan almost half are clas sified as high-income provinces or 1st clas s provinces.

Many of the provinces have an average income of PhP 300 million 700millionwhile the top twelve (12) provinces have an average range of around PhP 1.0

billion. Of the 10 highest earning province s, more than two-thirds a re in Luzonwith Southern Tagalog having five (5) of the top earning provinces in the country.

Based on the income data of LGUs, almost two-thirds of all municipalitiesand cities in the country are clas sified a s poor LGUs with almost 80 percent

dep endent from the internal revenue allotment (IRA) coming from the national


7/36

7

government. A similar numb er of provinces are also depend ent on IRA relea ses

for their incomes even those classified as 1st

class provinces . In fact, two studiesmade by Dr. Rosario Manasan on the fiscal generating capacity of LGUs showed

that only cities have extended their income generating capacity beyond their IRA.

Of the total IRA received by LGUs, especially municipalities and provinces,

almost 60-70 percent is earmarked for personnel services, 20% a s e conomicdevelopment fund (EDF) with little left for mainten anc e and operating expen ses

and/or capital outlay. With a very limited amount for dev elopment funds in theLGUs, SWM activities will have to compete with other contending priorities of the

community and LGUs.

2.0 The cost of operating an effective SWM system is higher than the potential revenues

that can be generated from the system.

On the other hand, the cost of operating a disposal facility andimplementing the 10-year SWM plan required by RA 9003 is fiscally impossible

for many LGUs to sustain given the current levels of its income gen erationincluding the potential revenues that is suppos ed to b e gener ated from garba geand tipping fees, fines and penalty collections, and income generated from

recycled and reused waste materials.

The results of a 2004 study6

by the Solid Waste Man agem ent Associationof the Philippines (SWAPP) from 41 LGUs in the NCR, Luzon and Visaya s

showed that across all LGUs in the study suffered a fiscal gap (net los s)7 of PhP

945-1,102 per ton to mana ge the total amount of waste gen erated by thes e

LGUs. Divided according to type of LGUs the net loss es amounted to PhP 27.0million for SWAP P-listed LGUs, 218.13 million for big (urban) non-S WAPP listed

LGUs and PhP 1.66 million for small (rural) non-SWAPP listed LGUs.8

In its

conclusion, the SWAPP study reported th at it is costly to implement a solid wast emanagement programme (without a sanitary landfill) because the cost of SWMP

is higher than the a ctual revenue that LGUs can get from the activities.

Another SWAPP study involving 3 pilot LGUs (Bayawan, Tacurong andBais cities) that have opted to establish a sanitary land fill facility and implement

a 10-year SWM plan as provided for by RA 9003 arrived at a similar conclusion. 9

The SWAPP study stated that in general the SWM system in the country is

6The SWAPP divided the LGUs into SWAPP-listed or assisted LGUs (15), Big/Urban Other (non-

SWAPP) LGUs (10) and Small/Rural Other (non-SWAPP) LGUs (16). The geographical distribution was

NCR (6), Luzon (25) and Visayas (10). The study was presented by Zenaida M. Sumalde during the 4th

SWAPP Conference in Zamboanga City in 2004.7

The net loss or fiscal gap was computed based on fiscal gap = total cost total revenue. Total costconsisted of up-front cost (equipment, vehicles, facilities, ECC and IEC), operating cost (salaries, supplies,

field and power, maintenance) and back-end cost (closure and post-closure care and support services).

Total Revenue consisted of fee-based (garbage fee, tipping fees, permitting fees, fines and penalties) and

non-fee based revenues (sale of recyclables and compost).8

Only four (4) out of the 41 LGUs studied showed a surplus in the implementation of their SWM. These

included 3 SWAPP-listed LGUs (Olongapo, Lipa and Batangas cities) and 1 small LGU (Calasiao,

Pangasinan).9

Lisette C. Cardenas, Developing a Sustainable Funding Mechanism for Solid Waste Management

Services: The Philippine Experience, SWAPP, 2004.


8/36

8

he avily subsidized and financially unsustainable. It argues that SWM budget is

highly dependent on the 20% EDF and has to compete with other developmentpriorities and concerns of an LGU.

In fact a CIDA-funded expert assessment study estimated that the cost to

achieve the sanitary landfill design standards as provided for in Sections 40 and41 of RA 9003 are estimated at PhP 119 million per hectare!10

This does not

include de sign and land acquisition cost s. A recently concluded expertevaluation study conducted by JICA further supports the expense needed to

construct and operate a SLF in the country11. The JICA expert study estimates

that the operation of a sanitary land fill under the existing provisions of the lawwill cost more than a hundred million peso s to construct and opera te.

The same conclusion was arrived at by a separate USAID-funded study

under the P hilippine Environmental Governance or EcoGov Project on thesu stainability of operating sanitary landfills in the country. Ba sed on this study, it

stated that LGUs and even the major agen cies do not have enough experience,technical know-how, financial capability and political will to sustain the operationof an engineered disposal facility such as a sanitary landfill.12

Table 5 shows a comparative cost of the proposed and existing SLFfacilities of 7 LGUs in the country. It clearly shows the extent of financial cost at

the moment for local LGUs to support the provisions for disposal facilities under

RA 9003.

Whilst many LGUs are willing, albeit some are compelled, to fullyimplement the law, the conditions of ma ny Ph ilippine LGUs show that they would

not be able to financially support much more sustain the an effective SWM

programme in the context of complying with the provisions of the RA 9003. Eventhe most progressive and most economically capable LGUs, most 1 st class LGUs

(highly-urbanized cities or HUCs) , only a handful are d ee me d capab le to

complying with implementing a suitable solid waste management system asenvisioned in the law.

An in-depth ca se study of 32 LGUs conducted by the JICA in 2004

showed th at only four (4) out of the 32 LGUs were ranked as A.13

According to

the study, cities and municipalities belonging to this category are most likelyable to mobilize funding that will be needed for the implementation of a suitable

solid waste manageme nt system. The four LGUs de emed suitable or ranked

A was classified a s 1st

class LGUs.

10Todd R. Pepper. Memorandum Report on Technical Appraisal of RA 9003. Essex-Windsor Solid Waste

Authority. Canada. 11 August 2003.11

Noboyuki Yamamura Institutional and Financial Performance Evaluation on Solid Waste Management

in the Philippines, JICA Philippines. November 2005.12

Reynar R. Rollan, Inputs to Phased Compliance in Solid Waste Disposal, USAID EcoGov Project2,

Pasig City, August 2005.13

Basic Study on the Selection of High Priority Cities/Municipalities for the Establishment of a Suitable

SWM System, JICA, Manila, November 2004.


9/36

9

Table 5: Estimated Cost of Existing and Proposed SLF Facilities in the Philippines

Sources: SWAPP, JICA and LCP Reports.

The provision of disposal facility is a m ajor contentious issue that has

been raised by almost all the LGU Leagues in the country because of the fixedcomplianc e dates in the law, particularly on dispos al facility. Likewise , the non-

recognition of the econ omics of LGUs and non-consideration of the fiscal

capacity and context of most Philippine LGUs to support a sustainable SWM

syst em is a reality that bites off the potency of the law. The rec ent J ICAinstitutional and financial performance evaluation study concluded in the

circumstances of many development issues to be tackled by the Philippine

government, (a) too ambitious SWM regime requiring local governments forsignificant resource inves tment would not be guarante ed for effective

implementation.14

3.0. Weak institutionalised technical and financial support structures/systems to local

implementing bodies (i.e. LGUs) of SWM system.

There is no argument that almost all LGUs in the Philippines have limited

technical skills, manpower and capacities to fully implement that vision of RA9003. Technical support and as sistance to thes e LGUs from national

government agencies is a critical component of the whole system of achievingthe vision of the law. However, this remains to be se en, particularly in terms of

the prioritization provided to the key national implementing agencies of RA 9003,i.e. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

14Noboyuki Yamamura Institutional and Financial Performance Evaluation on Solid Waste Management

in the Philippines, JICA Philippines. November 2005.

LGU Cost of

Facility

(PhPmillions)

Funding

Source

Land

Area

(has)

Waste

Volume

Capacity

Estimated

Life-Span

Date of

Operation

Subic 340 JBIC loan < 5

has

n.d. 20-30

years

2006

Bais 18.8 GTZ loan

>1.0ha

10,000 5-10 years 2004

San

Fernando,La Union

100 LogoFind/

WB

10has 1,000 5-10 years 2006

PuertoPrincesa

140 WB >5 ha s 1.6M 5-10 year s 2005

Clark

Field(Capas)

n.d. Private/

German

n.d n.d. 10 years 2004

Bayawan 127 LGU n.d. n.d. 5-10 year s 2006

Tacurong 32 LGU < 5 n.d 5-10 year s 2005


10/36

10

Source: WB Dec 2005 Mission Report on National Programme Support to Sustainable Environmental and

Natural Resources Management.

Source: WB Dec 2005 Mission Report on National Programme Support to Sustainable Environmental and

Natural Resources Management.

Fig 2 Percentage of National Budget by Category

Personal

Services

MOOE

CO

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2003 2004 2005

Fig . DENR Budget, 2000-2004Constant 2000 Prices

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.7

4.9

5.1

1 2 3 4 5

Billions

Year

Pesos


11/36

11

Despite the pronouncements of the national government over itscommitment towards environmental management and its protection, this

commitment ha s not been clearly translated into real institutional and

fiscal/financial initiatives . In the late st JICA performance evaluation study on the

institutional and financial support of the n ational government towards theimplementation of RA 9003 concluded that LGUs were not able to receive

enough technical and institutional support from the national government a sstipulated by RA 9003 due to the governments budgetary constraints.

Over the pa st s everal years expenditure budg et allocated to DENR was

merely 0.5% out of the total national budget. The downtrend in the DENRs

budget over the last 5 years at constant 2000 prices is shown in Figures 1 and 2.For the 2006 proposed n ational budget, the s hare of DENR remains at 0.5%

(PhP 6.3 billion out of PhP 1.053 trillion) with the Department of Education,

Public Works and National Defens e cornering almost 20% of the total budget.For an national agency that is mand ated to mana ge and sustain the countrys

natural wealth and res ources and where the e ntire population is de pend ent on fortheir livelihood, economic activity, leisure and sustenance, the DENRs ranks

eight from among all national agencies in budget priority.With very limited budgetary support within the DENR, the allocation for

SWM activities is expectedly much lower. Table 6 shows the amount of allocated

for SWM activities (lumped into the EMB and NSWMC budgets) is barely 5-6% ofthe total DENR budget over the last 3-years of implementation of RA 9003.

Almost half of these allocations are for personnel and administrative support

esp ecially for the EMBs regional offices with almost nothing for capital outlays.

Budget for the NSWMC, the nationally mandat ed inter-agency body to

oversee the implementation of the law is roughly 2.3 percent of the entire DENRbudget. The JICA study estimates that over the last three year s of RA 9003simplementation a mere PhP 20 million per year was budgeted as national

support to the implementation of RA 9003 at the local levels. Broken down

further, the regional budgets for SWM activities amount to only 2-3% of the entireEMB annual appropriations for FY 2006 or an average of PhP 400,000 each

region.

The highest regional allocation for SWM activities was Region V(Bicol)with a little over PhP 1.0 million while the smallest one was Region IX (Western

Mindanao) with only PhP 200,000. Such dispersal of limited amounts for a very

large undertaking clearly shows the ineffectiveness of any effort to institutionalise

a sustainable SWM system in the country.


12/36

12

Table 6. DENR Expenditure Budget for FY 2003-2006

(Million Pesos)

Fiscal Year 2004 2005 2006 Proposed

DENR 4,482 4,557 6,300

EMB 278 (100) 287 (100) 316 (100)Personn el 138 (49.6) 124 (43.3) 158 (50.0)

M & O 140 (50.4) 132 (46.2) 145 (45.9)

Capital Outlays - 30 (10.5) 13 (4.1)

(NSWMC/ Secret ariat) (1) 6.3 (2.3) 4.0 (1.4) 7.8 (2.4)

(Regional Allocations) (2) 6.1 (2.2) 5.0 (1.7) 7.3 (2.3)(1) Does not include Personnel of the Secretariat Office

(2) 40% of the SWM related M & O budget of EMB is allocated to the Regions.

Source: N. Yamamura Institutional and Financial Performance Evaluation on SWM in the Philippines,

JICA Philippines, November 2005.

Indeed, it is no surprise therefore that over the last 3 ye ars of the lawsimplementation, many LGUs have relied more on technical assistance (such as

capacity building, technical studies, surveys, SWM planning and systems) and

external funding support from donor agencies and NGOs than with the DENR orany other national government ag ency for that matter. The JICA study on

institutional and financial performance highlights this reality that the main source

of support that LGUs are receiving as primary implementer s of SWM in thecountry come almost entirely from multilateral and bilateral donor institutions and

NGOs in almost every as pe cts of SWM implementation. As indicated in Table

5, most of the SLFs being proposed and constructed in the country have to be

funded either by donor loans or commercial-loan s.The 2004 Accomplishment Report of NSWMC secretariats states that it

was only able to conduct SWM trainings and waste segregation to 4 LGUs and

2,218 bar angays or a little over 5% of the countrys barangays. Likewise, thesame NSWMC report that it provided technical assistance on conversion of

disposal facilities to 48 LGUs with no clear distinction on th e type of LGUsassisted, i.e. city or municipality.

The achievem ent of an effective SWM system in the country is not thesole responsibility of LGUs but is a common responsibility of the national

government, local government and the community. Local government units is

only one of the thre e legs by which a sustainable SWM system will work in the

Philippines , n ational government age ncies, specially the DENR, DTI and DILG,among other must play their role. Such role is a re sponsibility of the n ational

government to fulfill alongside with LGUs and local communities . The lawrequires the NSWMC and other national agencies to provide technical assistance

to LGUs to the m aximum extent feasible.

Unfortunately, unlike other technical provisions on the es tablishment of

dispos al facilities and local SWM system s, the law did not impos e a s pe cificamount nor fixed timeframe for the provision of technical a ssistance and


13/36

13

support to be provided to LGUs. At the mome nt, it is clear that such support and

commitment is not forthcoming with the existing n ational priorities of the nationalgovernment to achieve the goals of the law.

4.0 Other infirmities and realities faced by LGUs in implementing RA 9003

a. SWM has to compete with other local development prioritiesIt is a reality that many of our countrys LGUs are poor and with very poor

economies and constituencies. As such the demands and nee ds of LGUs and

their constituencies centers on providing basic delivery of services and stimulateeconomic activities to sustain their existenc e. The reality of LGUs a nd pres sures

to provide basic infrastructures such as farm-to-market roads, post-harvest

facilities, schools and health centers and services among others, makes

prioritizing for SWM activities are very difficult decision-making process not onlyamong LGUs but also among their constituency.

This is further h eightened by the reality that developme nt activities canonly be funded from the 20% economic development fund (EDF) of an LGUs

IRA makes it much more difficult to divert scarce funds away from basic social

services and infrastructure ne eds. An internal survey conducted by the Leagueof Cities of the Philippines from 43 memb er-city respondents showed that

majority of the LGU budget s allocated for SWM implementation was aver aging

almost 3% of their total budget whilst several others had significant allocations

amounting to more tha n 10% of their budget.b. Economies of scale and efficiency factors in implementing an effective SWM

system

A major elem ent in establishing an effective SWM system as shown in

many countries is the need for economies of scale and land ba se in order to

achieve a viable and sustainable SWM system. In many countries s uch a s theUnited States, Canada and Japan, solid waste management systems are often

operated a nd ma nag ed at a regional level in order to est ablish a viable and

working SWM system. Whilst, local community SWM activities such as

se gregation and recycling are done at the hous ehold levels, the economicviability of operating the system ne eds a certain amount of critical ma ss to

become feasible and sustainable.

Existing provisions (Sec 12, 16 and 41) of the law such as individualrequirement for each LGU (i.e. city and municipality) to develop and approve

individual solid waste management plans will have difficulty to sustain operations

of their SWM system if not enough waste is gen erat ed to support the system. Atechnical study by the USAIDs EcoGovernance project estimated the amount of

waste generated by the countrys 1, 696 LGUs (cities and municipalities) showed

that a total of 984 LGUs generate les s than or equal to 10 tons per day.15

On the

15The EcoGov study based their computation on the total amount of per capita generated of 0.3 kg/day for

rural areas, 0.5kg/day for urban areas and 0.7 kg/day for the National Capital Region.


14/36

14

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Series1 984 397 75 34 36 18 9 9 5 3 21 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Range No.

1 to 10 984

11 to 20 397

21 to 30 75

31 to 40 34

41 to 50 36

51 to 60 18

61 to 70 9

71 to 80 9

81 to 90 591 to 100 3

100 to 200 21

> 200 12

Total 1603

other hand, a mere 33 LGUs, mostly HUCs and large cities, generated more than

100 tons per day (Pls se e Table 7 and Figure 3).

Figure 3: Distribution of LGUs by Volume of Waste Generated Table 7.Source: Reynar R. Rollan, Inputs to Phased Compliance in Solid Waste Disposal, USAID EcoGov

Project2, Pasig City, August 2005.

Given such limited volume of waste gener ated by more than 2/3 of all

LGUs, very little economies of scale will be achieved by individual LGUs andcapable to sust ain a working and efficient SWM system in their communities.The EcoGov paper is proposing a phased compliance policy using 3 technical

categories for the est ablishment of sanitary landfills base d on total waste

generated by LGUs as an alternative modality to fulfill the provisions of Secs. 37,39 41 on disposal facilities.16

The same problem of lack of economies of scale exists with the provision

for est ablishment of materials recovery facilities or MRFs in every bara ngay inthe country (Sec. 17c and 32 of RA 9003). The CIDA-funded study stated that

the collection and transfer of waste, est ablishment of MRFs (within land owned or

leased by the baranga y), provision of containers and receptacles and

se gregation by types of waste at the baranga y level of government was counterto the economy of scale and efficiency factors required for a comprehensive and

integrated city, municipal or regional solid waste man agem ent syst em. It

estimates that the provision requiring barangays to issue 2containers/receptacles for different wast e categories (compost ables and

recyclables) for each household would cost around PhP 1,500/household or an

average of PhP 300,000 per barangay17

or PhP 12.6 billion for all 42,000barangays in the Philippines.16

Please see Annex 1 for brief description of phased compliance proposal for sanitary landfills.


15/36

15

The study argues that it would be physically impossible to man age, letalone e stablish 42,000 different waste mana gem ent system s and integrate them

within the required timeframes and requisites impos ed by the law. In the same

mann er, the provision ea ch b arangays to establish MRFs in lands owned or

leased by the LGU will not only be very expensive but physically limiting giventhe different geographical characteristics, waste generated and population size of

local barangays.

c. High-end and state-of-the-art SWM system in a low-end, low-tech localeconomy.

As in most d eveloping countries, it will take s ome time b efore the LGUs

can move forward to the engineered and state-of-the art solid waste

man age ment system as envisioned in RA 9003. The USAID study prese nted that

considering the history and current state of the countrys waste disposalmanageme nt system that it falls within the lower levels of the evolutionary

improvement in solid wast e m anagem ent.

Figure 4: Evolutionary Improvement in Solid Waste Management18

17The average number of households per barangay based on official NSO standards is 200 households.

18Philip Rushbrook and Michael Pugh. Solid Waste Landfills in Middle and Lower Income Countries,

A Technical Guide to Planning, Design and Operations, World Bank, Washington, DC.1999


16/36

16

SanitaryLandfill

Opendumping

Controlleddump

Engineeredlandfill

Improvements inplanning,siting, design &

construction Higherenvironmental

standards

Lower

environmentalstandards

Solid Waste Disposalin the Philippines


17/36

17

d. Conflicting and incomplete implementing guidelines.

Finally, RA 9003 was revolutionary because of its strong and firm vision to

achieve an ecologically sound solid waste management system in the Philippines

in the soonest pos sible time. The laws provisions are both elaborate andsp ecific in terms of the technical and time-bound provisions it demands for

LGUs to establish an ecologically sound SWM system in the country. However,sever al major technical provisions nee ds to be further immediately clarified and

elaborated by the NS WMC to be effectively implemented at the local levels.

These provisions though remain incomplete a nd vague.

Among the technical provisions that are critical to fully implement the laws

are:

i. Sec 16. SWM Planning and Programming for Alternative SWMstrategies to comply with Sec. 37 (Closure of Controlled Dumps)

This section provides for the development of alternative SWMstrategies and a timetable or schedule of compliance to Sec. 37 (disposal

facilities) that should be incorporated into a LGUs 10-year SWM plan .

The submission and approval of the 10-year SWM Plan must be done bythe NSWMC as provided in Sec. 16. However, the Act remains silent on

what kinds of alternative me as ure s are allowed or recommend ed. The

only alternative provided under the Act and IRR for compliance with Sec.

37 is sanitary landfill! This alternative clearly is no alternative as clearlypresented in this paper and by other technical/expert studies conducted by

different donor-funded projects and agencies.

ii. Sec. 37- 39 Prohibition of Open Dumps and Closure of ControlledDumps

This s ection is the mos t contentious issu e for LGUs not only

bec ause of its lack of alternatives or single alternative propos ed forcompliance, namely construction of sanitary landfills (SLFs)19 but mores o

bec ause of the de adline imposed for LGUs to shift to SLF by Febru ary

2006, a mere five years after the pas sa ge of the Act. As many studies

have proven the deadlines imposed for the shifts in existing SWM systemsin a developing country like the Philippines is overly ambitious and

impractical to the current conditions of LGUs.

iii. Financing for SWM

There are three (3) provisions for financing SWM and financing

as sistance to LGUs to support the e stablishment, operation and

19The Act does not explicitly states that the alternatives for conversion of controlled dumps by February

2006 are SLFs. But provisions under Article 6 (SWM Facilities allowed in the Act) and the IRR have

placed very specific and clearly defined technical requirements for SLFs (Sec. 40-41) as the only

alternative disposal facility that would comply with the provision of Sec. 37 (Closure of open dumps and

conversion of controlled dumps).


18/36

18

maintenanc e of their SWM system and facilities. These financing

mech anisms are LGU grants (Sec. 45), SWM Fund (Sec. 46) andcollection of fee s (Sec. 47). The first two sche mes are impractical and

limited bec aus e they have to be annually budgeted through the Gener al

Appropriations Act (GAA). The continuing fiscal deficit and diminishing

budget allocations for DENR clearly shows that such fund mechanismswill not be a reality for LGUs in the n ear future. This doe s not con sider the

fact that specific provisions and guidelines for accessing these funds havenot been prepared.

In the end, only the provision for fee collections and imposition offines and pen alties by LGUs is the ONLY provision under the Act that can

augment the LGUs financial requirements to augme nt their IRA

allocations and support their local SWM system s. At the mom ent, the

determination by LGUs of garbage dispos al fees is vagu e and erratic.Many LGUs as shown by previous studies are subsidizing garbage

collection fee s by as much as 60-70% of actual collection costs. This isbecau se garbage fees are imposed as one-time p ayment rather than byvolume or per kilo/sack. At the s ame time, most garbage collection

system covers only a fraction of the whole population, particularly

households in urban or centrally-located barangays.Finally, a good part of the re as on for such low garbage and tipping

fees impos ed by LGUs are political. A willingness-to-pay survey

conducted by the JICA institutional and financial performance evaluation

study showed that local people views garbage disposal as aresponsibility of the LGUs. The situation is aggravated by the abs ence of

clear standards and guidelines for the imposition of garbage fees

approved by the NSWMC. The provisions of the Act or IRR do not providea clear description on the appropriate process of arriving for these fees.20

C. Overview of LGU Compliance of RA 9003 (What and How LGUs are Complying

with the Law)

Despite the clearly unreal provisions of the Act and limited available

resource s, LGUs are duty-bound to comply with the provisions of the law,particularly the requirements pertaining to institutional, planning, policy and SWM

syst ems (i.e. wa ste diversion, establishment of MRFs and dispo sal facilities).

Compliance d ata were gen erated by the various Lea gue s and informationdatabas es from existing donor projects working with LGUs. The LCP a nd LMP

have conducted its own survey among their members on their compliance with

the provisions of RA 9003. Likewise, a local governance performan ce monitoringsystem (LGPMS)21 is being implemented by the Dep artment of Interior and Local

20Noboyuki Yamamura. Institutional and Financial Performance Evaluation on Solid Waste Management

in the Philippines, JICA Philippines, Manila. November 2005.21

The LGPMS is a web-based performance monitoring and indicator system that covers four major service

delivery areas of LGUs (i.e. economic/investment services, social services, environmental, and


19/36

19

Governments (DILG) with assistance from the Philippine-Canada Local

Government Support Programme (LGSP) that monitors specific performanc eindicators on environmental services (particularly on solid waste) provided by

LGUs. Similarly, specific studies have also bee n made by the Solid Waste

Management Association of the Philippines (SWAPP) on the statu s of LGU

compliance through a sample study of 41 LGUs.

1.0 Establishment of solid waste management boards (Sec. 12)

Data from the DILGs LGPMS system showed that as of 2004 there was

overwhelming compliance of LGUs in the establishment of their local SWMboards that are compliant with the provisions of RA 9003.22 Nearly all LGUs or

more than ninety-three (93%) percent out of the more 252 LGUs have

established their ownSWM boards. More than half to two-thirds of thes e s elected LGUs likewise has

complied with most of the other requisites for an effective SWM Board such asthe following:

adopted measures to promote and ensure viability and effectiveimplementation of its SWM Programm e (67.5%);

monitoring the implementation of its SWM Plan in cooperation withNGOs and private sector (60%);

adopted specific revenue generating measures to promote the viabilityof SWM plan (55.5%);

convened regular meetings of the SWM Board (57%);

developed specific mechanics a nd guidelines for the implementation oftheir SWM plans (55.5%); and,

recommended measures and safeguards against pollution and

preservation of the natural resources (63.5%).

The same overwhelming compliance rate was reported by the LCPs

internal compliance survey conducted in February 2005 among its member-cities23. All of the 43 city-respondents reported to have e stablished their own

SWM Boards as provided for under the Act.

2.0Preparation and implementation of 10-year local solid waste management plans(Sec. 16)

administrative/institutional services). It replaces the local performance monitoring system earlier

introduced by the DILG in 2000. The LGPMS is now being nationally being implemented through the

DILGs Bureau of Local Government Services. ( www.blgs.gov.ph/lgpms)22

The information is based on 2004 LGPMS data entered by selected city/municipal LGUs from Regions

6,9,10,11 and 12 totaling 260 LGUs as of end of October 2004. Updated profiles of the data can be

viewed from the LGPMS website at www.blgs.gov.ph /lgpms.23

The LCP internal compliance survey was conducted in February 2005 with assistance from the CIDA-

LGSP where the author served as LGU technical policy advisor.


20/36

20

Bas ed on the LGPMS data, n early 63% of respondent LGUs have

prepared their 10-year SWM plans in accordanc e with the provisions of RA 9003.Similarly, except for waste proces sing procedures, almost all of the SWM plans

contained effective provisions under the law related to the e stablishment of an

effective SWM system in the locality. Thes e include RA 9003 technical

provisions on waste char acterization (57%) , collection system and tran sfersystem (65%), source reduction (53%), waste recycling (50%), composting

(61%), and final disposal site/facility (65%). The LGPMS indicators noted bas edon its performance benchmark that between 35-57% of the selected LGUs SWM

plans were d eficient in a number of aspects, particularly in waste proce ssing

where more than half of the LGUs were d eficient.24

The LCP members survey also showed almost total compliance by the

respond ent cities in the prep aration of their SWM plans. Almost eighty (80%)

percent have prep ared their 10-year SWM plan. However, only around 40% or

17 LGUs hav e submitted their plans for approval by the NSWMC. On the otherhand, more than half or 58% of the LGUs are already implementing their SWM

plans. This shows th at de spite the lack of approval by the NSWMC of their SWMplans, many LGUs have be en implementing their programmes to addres s theproblems of solid waste in their communities. Whilst this might be viewed as an

inappropriate action on the part of the LGUs, field conditions in LGU

constituencies de mand that they addres s the immediate issue s of solid wasterather than wait for the t edious approval and prolonged delay in the NSWMCs

approval process .25

One of the key problems in the approval of SWM plans by the NSWMC is

the lack of technical staff that would evaluate the approved SWM plans. Whilst aNSWMC guideline have be en is sued to DENR regional offices of the

Environmental Management Bureau to process the evaluation of local SWM

plans thes e h ave been hamper ed by the lack of dedicated SWM personnel in theregional EMB offices.

3.0Establishing mandatory solid waste diversion (Sec. 20)This provision is one of the mandatory provisions of the Act that is time-

bound. It provides for mand atory diversion of at lea st 25% of solid waste from

wast e disposal facilities within 5 years of the approval of the Act (2001). The

date for achieving the diversion goal as dictated by the Act is J anu ary 25, 2006.

Several studies used in this study showed a high range of diversion ( 10 %

- 30%) being achieved by LGUs involved in thes e studies. In some cas es , thestudies reported almost a hundred percent achievement in the diversion goal of

25%. LGPMS data showed that of the 205 LGU respondents on s olid waste

24It should be noted that the minimum requirements provided by RA 9003 for LGU compliance on an

acceptable SWM Plan uses a slightly different parameter with the LGPMS performance benchmark for

effectiveness. As provided in RA 9003, LGU SWM plans are to be submitted and approved by the

NSWMC. No indicator in the LGPMS data would validate if the SWM Plans monitored have been

received and approved by the NSWMC.25

At the time of the preparation of this paper, no report has been obtained on the number of SWM plans

approved by the NSWMC.


21/36

21

diversion and reduction goal of 25% wa s re ached by ALL the LGUs. In fact, little

more than one-third of the LGUs wer e able to reduce/divert their was te by morethan thirty-one (31%) percent in 2004.26

LCP data, on the other hand, showed that almost half (19 cities) of their 43

LGU respondents have achieved the diversion goal of 25% whilst those that havenot yet achieved the diversion goal were averaging between 10 20% diversion

rate. The LCP survey also took note of the various activities initiated by theLGUs to implement the ir diversion goals. In the survey almost all of the city-

respondents initiating several key SWM activities to achieve their diversion goals,

nam ely mas sive public education campaign (98%), distribution/implementation ofse gregation system for recyclables and compostables (81%), technical and

logistical support to barangays/NGOs (67%), and other programmes (54%).

A SWAPP study of 41 LGUs (composed of SWAPP-member LGUs andnon-SWAPP LGUs) showed that almost the entire SWa PP member LGUs (15

LGUs) achieved 36% diversion rate. Similarly, sm all non-SWAPP member LGUs(16 LGUs) that are mostly rural have a 29% diversion rate while big non-SWAPPLGUs (10 LGUs) only had a diversion rate of 5%.

Meanwhile, the USAIDs EcoGov Project reported that the estimate dwast e diversion rate s o f its as sisted LGUs totaling six (6) LGUs was eleven

(11%) per cent. It predicted, though, that thes e LGUs would be able to comply

with the diversion rate by the end of Janu ary 2006.

It should be noted that in all these studies the waste diversion rates

showed a great chance of being achieved. This is primarily due to the nature of

the waste g enerated in many of the LGUs in the country. As e arlier pres ented inthis paper, a lot of Philippine LGUs were mostly poor and agriculturally-based

communities whos e major source of living and economy is tied to agricultural

production. This means that most of the waste gen erated by many of thes eLGUs, as proven by the various studies, are largely biodegradable and therefore

could ea sily be diverted or composted. On the averag e the es timated volume of

biodegrad able wastes generated by many communities was betwee n 60-70%.

4.0 Establishment of solid waste disposal facilities (Sec. 40-41)

Latest data (July 2005) from the NSWMC as shown in Table 8 presentsthe over-all status of disposal facilities in the country distributed by regions. As of

July 2005, as many as 777 open dump sites are still operating nationwide despite

the closure and its conversion into controlled dump facilities provision underSe c. 37 of the Act by January 25, 2004. Likewise, there wa s a noted increa se in

26LGPMS computed the percentage of solid waste reduction from the volume of garbage composted (Vc)

+ volume of garbage recycled (Vr) total volume of garbage collected (Vt). The LGPMS performance

benchmark indicator deemed acceptable was between 21%-31% waste reduction/diversion.


22/36

22

the number of controlled dump facilities by 106 sites comp ared to last year or a

total of 321 op erating controlled landfills nationwide.

In the ca se of sanitary landfills (SLFs), no significant increase h as be en

seen from the number of operating SLFs from 2-3 sites27

while the numb er of

proposed sites h as decrease d from 220 at the end of last year to 161 proposalsat the end of July 2005.

The LMP survey provide s a more concrete s cenario of the efforts by LGUsto comply with the establishment of alternative disposal facilities (i.e. sanitary

landfills). From the 43 city LGU-respondents, around 16 are in the proces s of

es tablishing their own SLFs. Of this number only 5 are in the construction phaseand only two are near operational (Digos SLF and Puerto Princes a SLF). The

rest of the other propos ed SLFs are all in the fea sibility and fund sourcing stag es .

This obviously reflects the earlier argued financial and technical limitations of

many LGUs to e stablish and op erate SLFs according to the provisions of the Act.It is likewise obvious that with this situation, many LGUs in the country will not be

able to comply with the de adline for alternative dispo sal facilities for controlleddumping facilities, i.e. conversion to SLFs, by the Janu ary 25, 2006 de adlineimposed under RA 9003.

The same condition shows the status of establishment of MRFs in all

barang ays a s provided under S ec. 32. The total number of operating MRFs atthe end of 2004 numbers is only 842 sites s erving 1,140 barangays. This is only

a mere 2.7% of the total number of 41,975 barangays that are required by RA

9003 to est ablish an MRF. It is worthy to note that a good number of MRFs

established are located in the more economically-developed and highly-populated are as of NCR, Region III, IV, V, VI and VII.

D. Policy Proposals and Recommendations

1.0Use of volume of waste generated or material balance principle in theoperationalisation of an effective SWM system particularly on disposal facilities at

the local levels

The key implementation issue confronted by LGUs in the whole SWM

syst em is the dispos al system and facility provision of the Act. Based on therealities faced by m any LGUs in the e stablishment of an effective SWM system in

the country a key factors that should determine the op erationalisation of the

provisions of the Act should be the based amount of waste or volume generatedfor disposal by ea ch LGU.

It has be en es timated that only a s mall fraction of LGUs in the country

generates more than 100 tons of garbage per day compared to more than a1,000 LGUs that generate les s than 10- 15 tons per day. Such low volume of

waste gen erated is further compos ed of almost 60-70% biodegrada ble and

recyclable wastes . This me an s that a good portion of the solid waste gener atedby almost two-thirds of our LGUs can be diverted, recycled or reu se .

27The Puerto Princesa SLF has just started operation in November 2005.


23/36

23

The fact that m any of LGUs survey by different studies cited in this paper

showed that most LGUs would be able to divert their wast e away from disposal

facility. Likewise, out of the 30% non-biodegrada ble wast e ge ner ated only a

small portion of these residual wastes and other types of waste will be destinedto be dispos ed in a disposal facility.

Table 8. LGUs SWM Status under Regional Economies

Economy SWM Facilities (2)

Controlled LFs MRFsRegion GRDPPer

Capita(1)

Growth2004

%

OpenDumps

No.Operating

No.Proposed

No.Operating

No.Served

Barangays

NCR 241 7.6 1 4 223 126

CAR 139 4.1 12 3 2 53 19

R1 56 5.7 63 26 11 106 99R2 59 10.7 56 10 4 35 94

R3 80 2.1 86 4 26 32 192

RIV-A 97 3.3 92 85 2 61 75

RIV-B 98 4.6 34 15 20 20 127

R5 48 6.3 59 12 31 37 88

R6 97 7.9 54 5 7 52 54

R7 96 7.2 130 43 16 48 48

R8 50 6.9 7 11 13 8 17

R9 72 4.9 25 4 12 26 27

R10 96 6.0 54 31 41 45

R11 95 6.9 29 23 31 62 53

R12 82 6.4 24 16 1 9 26

R13 43 5.8 51 29 35 29 50

ARMM 23 5.4 1

Total 100 6.1 777 321 211 842 1,140(1) GRDP (Gross Regional Domestic Product) 2004, National Average (P13,590) = 100, NSCB

(2) Open Dumps & Controlled Landfills are as of end July 2005, MRFs (Materials Recovery Facilities)are as of December 2004. NSWMC

Because of this situation, the operation of a controlled dump facility or a

sanitary disposal facility (a hybrid-CDF with key feature s of an engineer ed landfill) within an integrated SWM system (particularly wa ste diversion, recycling,

compo sting and wa ste segregation systems in place) in an LGU will be sufficient

to contain and man age the LGUs with less than 10 -25 tons per d ay of waste.

Such a proposal would largely ben efit the poor and low-income classe s of LGUs,i.e. 4th-6th class municipalities and 4th-5th class cities, totaling more than 1,000

LGUs.


24/36

24

The JICA institutional and financial performance evaluation study cited

LGUs or communities in les s active economic regions the problem of garbag edispos al will not pos e a serious problem yet to the local society for the

foreseeable future so long as the people all handle their garbage properly.

Recommendations:

a. Upgrading technical criteria of controlled dump facility for LGUs with less than20 tons per d ay wast e generated for dispos al (final disposal to a facility) and an

integrated SWM system (i.e. 25% diversion of wast e, in-place recycling, reus e

and composting system, MRFs and waste segregation facilities);

OR,

a hybrid sanitary disposal facility that supports the key features of an engineered

landfill, i.e. drainage facilities, leach ate treatment systems, and cell-disposalfacilities, but without the expensive features of lining materials, e.g. clay or

synthetic liners

28

subject to sound hydrogeoloical studies and/or ground holdingand carrying capacity of proposed and existing LGU sanitary disposal facilities.

b. Complimentary to proposed pha sed complianc e for SLF as proposed by

submitted in the proposed Department Administrative Order on Phase-Compliance (Se e Annex 1).

c. Formulation of the s mall facility exemption provision (Rule XIV, Sec. 1z of

IRR for RA 9003) in the alternative dispos al facility provision provided und er the

Act using the waste volume and waste diversion formula as basis for exemptions.A detailed proposal has b een pres ented in October 2003 by a study made by the

USAIDs EcoGov Project.29

2.0 Phased implementation of RA 9003 according to socio-economic levels of

development or growth status

The degree of solid waste generated by a population or community ishighly tied to the level of economic growth and status of the population and

community. This me an s that the more affluent a community or hous ehold the

more s olid waste is generated. This ha s bee n proven in initial JICA study on

Metro Manila Solid Waste in 1998. It showed that while Metro Manila gener atedalmost 10,000 tons of waste per day, the per capita wast e generated by

hous ehold showed that households from class A-B generated more waste per

hous ehold than the lower-income clas ses . The more rec ent JICA institutionaland financial performance study on SWM in the Philippines similarly supported

the same observation.

28This is similar to the Category 1 proposal in the Draft Department Administrative Order for Phase-

Compliance being discussed by the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC) with

simpler technical design requirements (i.e. non-compulsory use of clay liner or synthetic liners) subject to

sound hydrogeological studies and/or ground holding and carrying capacities for proposed and existing

LGU sites.29

Francis M. Sabugal. Integrated Solid Waste Management Relevant to the Requirements of RA 9003:

Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2002, EcoGovernance Project, Quezon City. November 2003.


25/36

25

Based on the studies analysis, that maximisation of the laws implementation

will be achieved when economies of scale or mechanisms for market forces areinvolve. These include among others: a) an effective garbage s egregation at the

source; b) appropriate MRF sites are operative; and, c) recycled materials are

produced in economically sufficient volume to me et market requirements. The

JICA study concludes that such situation will only be viable in large cities onlyand not in small cities.

Recommendations:

a. Stage implementation of provisions of RA 9003 based on economic growth

statu s and market potential. For example:

Stage 1 ( Full implementation of RA 9003 provisions) - all HUCs and 1st class-

3rd

class cities and 1st

class municipalities with population totaling more than

100,000 households. Period of implementation: 5-years grace period tocomply after January 25, 2006 deadline. No assistance or limited assistance

from NSWMC. Phas ed-compliance will be applied

Stage 2 (Progressive implement ation) all other classes of LGUs with

progres sive implementation of RA 9003 provisions as indicated in their 10-

year SWM plan. Period of implementation ( within 10 years or fullimplementation of 1st 10-year SWM plan). Limited and contracted assistance

from NSWMC. Phase compliance will be applied.

Stage 3 (Partial/Assisted Implementation) all 4th

-6th

class es of LGUs withprioritised as sistance to b e provided by the national government. Full

assistance from NSWMC and other agencies. Period of implementation (10

year s and beyond). For the me antime they will be covered by the guidelinesaffecting volume ba sed compliance for disposal facilities

3.0 Other recommendations

a. Simplified process of accreditation of technical service providers and EIAapprovals for dispos al facility;

b. Formulation of the exemption provision under the alternative disposal facilityprovision of the law;

c. Revised policy for financial and funding and market development for solidwaste managem ent.


26/36

26


27/36

27

Annex 1: PROPOSED PHASED COMPLIANCE AND GUIDELINES

The following propos al for phas ed compliance takes into consideration the

ba sic features which ne ed to be satisfied by a dispos al facility.

1. Planned capacity with phased cell development

2. Site preparation and containment engineering

3. Comp action of waste to minimum sp ecified target den sities

4. Specified operational procedures to protect amenities including vectorcontrol

5. Fence, gate and other site infrastructure with surfaced primary accessroad

6. Full record of waste volumes, types and source

7. Special provisions and procedures for dealing with special waste

8. Fully trained staff and experienced site management

9. Provision for aftercare following site restoration and closure

10.No wast e picking

The site should attain full or partial hydrogeological isolation using a

combination of the natural features of the site, liner and appropriate drainage

system.In addition to this, the amount of waste diversion for Level 1 and Level 2

SLF should initially be at 25%of the waste generated at the time of the

application for NTP or IEE. By the time the facility is constructed and operated,

the percentage of diversion would be 35% and to progressively increase by 10%for each succeeding year of operation until full diversion is attained and

sustained.


28/36

28

Level 1 - Level 1 shall be applied to LGUs generating wastes equal or less than

30 MT a day. It shall also apply to a cluster of LGUs whose collective waste

generation is less than or equ al to 30 tons pe r day.

Level 2 - Level 2 sh all be applied to LGUs generating waste equ al to 30 but les s

than 70 MT a day. It shall also apply to a cluster of LGUs who se collective wast egeneration is equal to 30 but less than 70 MT a day.

Level 3 Level 3 shall be applied to LGUs generating waste equal to 70 or

greater than 70 MT a day. It shall also apply to a landfill operated by a cluster of

LGUs collectively generate waste at 70 tons or greater per day.

Facilities Level 1 Level 2 Level 3(SLF)

Soil Cover X X X

Embankment X X X

Drainage Facility X X X

Gas Venting X X X

Leachate Collection X X X

Leachate TreatmentNatural

AttenuationPond system

Physico-

biological/

mechanical

Leachate Re-

circulationX

Liner

Clay liner

Clay liner and/or

synthetic liner

Permit Modified NTP IEE IEE

Site DesignBased on hydrogeological

considerationsBased on IEE


29/36

29

ANNEX 2:

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.______

Series of 2005

Subject: Providing for the Guidelines on the Categorized Final Disposal

Facilities

Section 1. Background

During the initial 5 years of the implementation of the Ecological Solid

Waste Management Act (RA 9003), there were indications of an

accelerated take-off on compliance, as national, local and private sectorsefforts on solid waste increased particularly on waste recycling, reduction

and re-use. The disposal aspect however lagged mainly due to the

combined effect of the prevailing institutional, technical, financial,

environmental and socio-political issues which have not been sufficientlyaddressed to this date. The same issues which led to the countrys

setbacks in operating the Carmona, San Mateo and Cebu sanitary landfills

of the 1990s clearly stres s this point.With less than 2 months left before the deadline on the closure of

controlled dumps, only a few LGUs have made their own significant

strides towards the development and operation of their respectiveengineered disposal facilities. These are Bais, Negros Oriental, Capas,

Tarlac, Puerto Princes a, Palawan and Rodriguez, Rizal. The Bais SLF in

Negros Oriental is a small facility built with assistance from the Germangovernment. The CDC SLF was built and is currently being operated by a

German company. The recently opened Puerto Princesa SLF was

constructed through an ADB loan. The Rodriguez disposal site30

serves as

the main waste repository for most of the Metro Manila LGUs. Likewise,German government assistance has facilitated the on-going construction

of the small SLF in Dalagu ete , Cebu.

The rest of the more than 1600 LGUs continue to dispose of their wasteon open dumps or on a small number of controlled dumps. Considering

their financial, technical and institutional capabilities, it is now considered

unlikely these LGUs or cluster of LGUs will be able to develop theirrespective sanitary landfills or disposal facilities as defined under RA

9003. These LGUs will, in all probability, continue using open dumps with

some attempting to convert them to a controlled dump.

Given the above premise and to effectively address the LGUs MSW

disposal problem within their limited capability, the most practical

approach is to progressively move in phases from the basic waste

30An ECC was recently issued allowing the adjacent 14 hectare lot to be developed as a sanitary landfill


30/36

30

containment to the more sophisticated method of disposal. It is in this light

that the guidelines for categorized final disposal facilities are being issuedby the National Solid Waste Management Commission to support the local

government units planning and implementation strategies on ecological

solid waste man agem ent.

Section 2. Legal Basis

2.1 The Dep artment of Environment and Natural Resourc es is mand ated

under Section 3, (e) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA9003 to provide technical and other capability building assistance and

support to LGUs in the development and implementation of local solid

waste manage ment plans and programs.

2.2 The National Solid Waste Management Commission, pursuant to Section

1, (t), sub item 2 of the IRRs shall undertake the study and review ofcriteria and guidelines for siting, design, operation and maintenance ofsolid waste management facility.

2.3 The proposed guidelines for the categorization of disposal facilities areessentially consistent with the objectives of Sections 37, 40, 41 and 42 of

the Act which respectively refers to the Closure of Open Dumps, Criteria

for Siting, Establishment and the Operation of Sanitary Landfills, by

providing the basic environmental and engineering safeguards.

2.4 Rule XIV of the IRRs also provides additional and detailed criteria forsiting, establishment, and operation. Significantly, the proposed guidelinesare rationalized based on the use of potential solid waste generation for

setting the entry level of LGUs into the various categories of disposal

facilities.

Section 3. Technical Basis

3.1 Pa rameters us ed in es tablishing wast e disposal categories

The potential daily waste that can be generated by the 1,610 LGUs in

2006 was estimated using projected NSO population data and applyingthe following per capita generation rates 31: 0.3 kg/day for rural are as, 0.5

kg/day for urban areas, 0.7 kg/day for the National Capital Region32 and

0.4 kg/day for capitals. Four (4) potential LGU groupings are evident inTable 1. These are the < 15 tons per day (tpd), the 16 to 75 tpd, the 76 to

200 tpd and the > 200 tpd. A comparison with the income class

classification shows that the LGUs with less than 75 tpd fall under the low

31Must be adjusted per LGU if per capita waste generation data is available

32The Philippines Environment Monitor 2001, World Bank


31/36

31

income bracket33

. The LGUs with disposable waste range exceeding 75

tpd generally include major cities34

and some urbanized municipalities. Ona regional basis, most of the LGUs falling within the 76 to 200 tpd range

belong to either NCR or Region 4. The rest correspond to the cities and

urbanized municipalities in Regions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and

Caraga. The LGUs exceeding 200 tpd consist of Metro Manila cities(NCR) and those in Regions 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11.

In an ideal situation, recyclables, compostables and hazardous wastes will not be

allowed to be dumpe d in waste dispos al facilities. Therefore, the criteria for

disposal facilities need not be as stringent compared to a situation where mixedwast es are s ent to the SLF. Even recognizing that the ideal is unlikely to be

achieved, it is still possible to set a range of situations where different criteria for

dispos al facilities can apply. We propose below 4 categories of disposalfacilities, specifying realistic categories and reasonable conditions for meeting

the legal requirements.

In summary, it is submitted that an LGU or a cluster of LGUs may establish adisposal facility other than a fully developed sanitary landfill subject to the

following considerations:

1. The open dump or controlled dump of the LGU must be closed (subject tothe guidelines being developed by the NSWMC);

2. The waste disposal facility of the LGU must have none of thechar acteristics of an op en or controlled dump;

3. The environmental protection measures, safeguards and standards for theestablishment and operation of the waste disposal facility must be more

than that prescribed by the Act for controlled dump s.

33This refers to the 4

th, 5

thand 6

thclass municipalities

34This refers to the 3

rd, 2

nd, 1

stclass municipalities and cities

Table 1

LGU Waste Gen eration Features based on Projected 2006 Population

Waste Gen Range (tpd)No. ofLGUs

%of LGU

Total

Waste

Gen (tpd)

% Total WasteGen

1 up to 15 1163 72.24% 8,948 26.62%

16 up to 75 386 23.98% 10,548 31.38%

76 up to 200 40 2.48% 4,442 13.21%

> 200 21 1.30% 9,675 28.78%

1610 100.00% 33,613 100.00%


32/36

32

IV. Categories of Disposal Facilities

Four (4) categories of waste disposal facilities are proposed which consider

potential waste generation of LGUs reckoned from the projected 2006

population. Each LGU or cluster of LGUs may develop and operate their

respective facilities and progressively move from a lower to a higher level facilityas the amount of disposable waste increases over time. The disposal categories

to be adopted by the LGUs of cluster of LGUs may be lowered with moreexten sive diversion via recycling and composting.

Given the current financial and technical capacities of LGU, the categorized

disposal facilities will enable LGUs to satisfy in a more practical and sustainablebasis the requirements of RA 9003 with respect to waste disposal. All disposal

categories have been developed and designed to meet the environmental

standards.

Category 1

Category 1 disposal facility shall be applied to LGUs generating waste less thanor equal to 15 tpd. It shall also apply to a cluster of LGUs with a collectivedisposable wast e of less than or equ al to 15 tpd.

Category 2

Category 2 disposal facility shall be applied to LGUs generating waste greater

than 15 tpd but less than or equal to 75 tpd. It shall also apply to a cluster of

LGUs with a collective disposable waste greater than 15 tpd but less than orequal to 75 tpd.

Category 3

Category 3 disposal facility shall be applied to LGUs generating waste greater

than 75 tpd but less than or equal to 200 tpd. It shall also apply to a cluster of

LGUs with a collective disposable waste greater than 75 tpd but less than orequal to 200 tpd.

Category 4

Category 4 disposal facility shall be applied to LGUs generating waste greaterthan 200 tpd. It shall also apply to a cluster of LGUs with a collective disposable

waste gre ater than 200 tpd.

V. Summary of Features of the Categorized Final Disposal Facilities

The summary of the basic features of the proposed levels of disposal facilities is

presented in Table 2.

Each category of disposal facility must satisfy the basic siting criteria of Section

40 of the Act and m eet the following requirement s.


33/36

33

Table 2

Summary of Features of Proposed Categories of Disposal Facilities

Features Category 1

15 tpd

Category

2> 15 tpd, 75 tpd

Category 3

> 75 tpd, 200 tpd

Category 4

> 200 tpd

Daily and

Intermediate Soil

Cover

Embankment/Cell

Separation

Drainage Facility

Gas Venting Leach ate Collection

Leachate Treatment Pond System Pondsystem

Pond system

Combination of

physical,

biological &

chemicalLeachate Re-

circulation

At a later stag e

of operation

At a later

stage of

operation

At a laterstage of

operation

Treatment

Clay liner 35 36

Clay liner and/or

synth etic liner37 38

35Clay liner be at least 60 cm thick and has a permeability of 10-5 cm/sec36

Clay liner must be at least 75 cm thick and has a permeability of 10-6

cm/sec37

Clay liner at least 75 cm thick clay liner with a permeability of 10-7

cm/sec or better, if not available, anequivalent replacement would be a composite liner consisting of at least 1.5mm thick HDPE membrane overat least 60 cm thickness of compacted fine materials with permeability no more than 10

-6cm/sec.

38 Synthetic liner at least 1.5mm thick HDPE membrane over at least 60 cm thickness of

compacted clay materials with permeability no more than 10-7 cm/sec.


34/36

34

VI. Facility Operating Requirements

All waste disposal facilities, regardless of category, shall meet the following

operating requirements, except as otherwise provided:

Planned capacity with phased cell development.

Site preparation and containment engineering.

Comp action of waste to minimum sp ecified target densities.

Specified operational procedures to protect amenities.

Fence, gate and other site infrastructure with surfaced primary accessroad. Full record of waste volumes, types and source.

Separate cells for MSW, THW or HCW. Handling and management ofthese types of wastes should be in accordance with the provisions of

the Joint Administrative Order (DENR-DOH) #02 and RA 6969.

Facility operation by a pool of fully-trained staff

Provision for aftercare following site restoration and closure. Prohibition of waste pickers at the immediate disposal area.


35/36

35

Annex 3 List of Materials and References

Joint LMP-LCP Policy Issue Paper of Technical Working Group on Solid Waste

Management, LMP-LCP paper (unpublished), February 2005, Manila.

Commission on Audit 2003 Audited Financial Reports of Cities, Municipalitiesand Provinces.

Department of Finance-Bureau of Local Government Finance, Status of Income

and Expenditure DataBases (2001-2004).

Adriana Bianchi, W. Cruz and M. Nakamura (eds).Local Approaches toEnvironmental Compliance, World Bank Institute. Wa shington. 2005

Philip Rushbrook and Michael Pugh. Solid Waste Landfills in Middle-and Lower-Income Countries: A Technical Guide to Planning, Design and Operation. World Bank

Technical Paper No. 426. World Bank, Washington. 1999.

Developing and Implementation of a Su stainable Funding Mechanism for Solid

Wast e Mana gement Design Sch ematics for Material Recovery Facility: Bais City

(Final Report). Solid Waste Management Association of the Philippines(SWAPP). Makati. 2004


Waste Management Design Schematics for Material Recovery Facility: BayawanCity (Final Report). Solid Waste Man agement Association of the Philippines

(SWAPP). Makati. 2004


Wast e Management Design Sch ematics for Material Recovery Facility: Tacurong

City (Final Report). Solid Wast e Man agement Association of the Philippines(SWAPP). Makati. 2004

Lisette C. Cardenas. Developing a Sustainable Funding Mechanism for Solid

Waste Management Services: The Philippine Experience, Solid WasteManagement Ass ociation of the Philippines (SWAPP). Makati. 2004

Noboyuki Yamamura. Institutional and Financial Performance Evaluation onSolid Wast e Management in the Philippines, JICA Philippines . November 2005.

Zenaida M. Sumalde. Cost of Implementing Solid Waste ManagementPrograms by Local Government Units (PowerPoint Presentation). SWAPP 2004

Conference. Zamboanga City.


36/36

Todd R. Pepp er. Memorandum Report on RA 9003 Ecological Solid Wast e

Management Act of 2000. Ess ex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority, Cana da. 11August 2003.

Reynar R. Rollan. Inputs to Phas e Compliance in Solid Waste Disposal (draft

report). Philippine EcoGovernance Project Phase 2. Pasig City. 2005.

Elmer S. Mercado. Strengthening Local Governance with a StrengthenedLeague:LMP Organizational Review(draft report). Philippine EcoGovernance Project,

Quezon City. July 2004.

LCP Issue Notes on Solid Waste Management Implementation. League of Cities

of the Philippines. 2005.

LGPMS Solid Waste Man ag ement Monitoring Report. LGPMS. 2005

Basic Study on the Sel ection of High Priority Cities/Municipalities for theEstablishment of Suitable SWM System in the Philippines, JICA Philippines,Manila, November 2004.

Francis M. S abugal. Integrated Solid Waste Managem ent Relevant to theRequirements of RA 9003: Ecological Solid Waste Man agement Act of 2002,

EcoGovernance Project, Quezon City. November 2003.

Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9003. Dep artment of Environmentand Natural Resource s. (pamphlet).

making ra 9003 work putting real issues, real solutions in a real world a joint policy position...

Documents