C',

C,ia)J

.... 0.

A 52

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

. .. . . ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~AA

. . .......... .......... >

. . . ........... .. ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? A

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

*5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

mu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~olo/4-o)JO)JUOWF 1 ~P

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Bln. BillionBOD Bio-chemical Oxygen DemandBTU British Thermal UnitCALABARZON Provinces of Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, and Quez6nCCBPI Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.CDS City Development StrategiesDA Department of AgricultureDENR Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesDILG Department of Interior and Local GovernmentDOH Department of HealthDOST Department of Science and TechnologyDPWH Department of Public Works and HighwaysDTI Department of Trade and IndustryEMB Environmental Management BureauESWMA Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000GHG Green House GasesGTZ German Agency for Technical CooperationHW Hazardous WastesIEC Information, Education, and CommunicationIRR Implementing Rules and RegulationsITDI Industrial Technology Development InstituteIWEP Industrial Waste Exchange ProgramJICA Japanese International Cooperation AgencyLLDA Laguna Lake Development AuthorityLGU Local Government UnitLOGOFIND Local Government Finance and Development ProjectMln. MillionMEIP Metropolitan Environmental Improvement ProgramMGB Mines and Geosciences BureauMM Metro ManilaMMDA Metro Manila Development AuthorityMRF Materials Recovery FacilityMSE Micro and Small EnterprisesMSW Municipal Solid WasteNCR National Capital RegionNEDA National Economic and Development AuthorityNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNIMBY Not In My Back YardNSWMC National Solid Waste Management CommissionPCG Philippine Coast GuardPET Polyethylene TerephthalatePhP/P Philippine PesosPIA Philippine Information AgencyPPCP Polystyrene Packaging Council of the PhilippinesSLF Sanitary LandfillSWM Solid Waste ManagementTDF Tire-Derived FuelTESDA Technical Education and Skill Development AuthorityTHW Toxic and Hazardous WasteTIRE Totally Integrated Recycling EffortWHO World Health Organization

UThe World Bank Group

1818 H. Street, N.W. Country Office ManilaWashington D.C. 20433 23rd Floor, The Taipan PlaceU.S.A. Emerald Avenue, Ortigas CenterTel.: (202) 477-1234 Pasig City, PhilippinesFax: (202) 477-6391 Tel.: (632) 637-5855 to 64

Fax: (632) 637-5870December 2001

The Environment's Ilth hour!!!

As highlighted in the 2000 Environment Monitor, the environment and natural resources of thePhilippines is under increasing presstre. The challenge is to act now to ensure a future that preserves

the quality of life, health, resources, and natural treasures of the country In the spirit of this challenge, aclock has been chosen as the symbol of the Monitor.

The clock shown in the 2001 Monitor is in the 11th hour to represent this urgency and the fact that timeis nunning out. As the clock approaches midnight, the problem gets more critical In the case Df solid

waste, the clock stands at 11:50 indicating that time is running very short. The reasons for this are thelack of progress on developing safe disposal facilities and visibility of the effects including the Manila

gatbage crisis, the Payatas tragedy and the common sight of garbage strewn in rivers, streets and onprivate and public land in many areas of the country. At the samne time, solid waste is being produced at

increasing rates and without action the problems in Manila will become even more critical andthose in other areas of the country will grow On the positive side, several recent measures have

prevented the clock from creeping closer to midnight, including the passage ofgroundbreaking framework legislation (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act) and the

success of citizen-led-initiatives such as recycling and awareness programs.In the future, careful implementation of the new legislation represents the greatest hope for reversing

the clock on this critical issue facing the Philippines.

The Philippines Environment Monitor 2000 presented a snapshot ofM: n X a f ¢ : : k q 5 0 0general environmental trends in the country The 2002 edition, currently

under preparation, will focus on air quality management.

This document wos prepared by a World Bock Teem consisting of1Messrs./Mfdmes. Anjali Acherya, Bebet Gozun, Patchamuthu Illangovan (TeemLeader), John Morton, end Meye Villeluz. The document was peer reviewed by Messrs. Cerl Bertone, Den Hoornweg, L. Panneer Selvam, AllenRotmen, end Thomes E. Welton of The World Beck; end Mr N.C. Vesuki, Chief Executive Officer, Delewere Solid Waste Authority, USA. Commentsend suggestions offered by the following ore gratefully acknowledged: Mr. Ramon Paje, Undersecretary, Department of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR); Mr. Julian D. Amador, Director/Officer-in-Charge, Environmental Management Bureau; Mr. Albert A. Magalang, ExecutiveDirector Office of the Secretariat, National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMIC); Ms. Sonia Mendoza and Mfr Bert Guevara represent-ing the NGOs and League of Barangays in the ANSWMC, respectively. Comments were also provided by the following World Bank staff and consult-ants: Messrs./Mdmes. Joven Balbosa. Bhuvan Bhatnagar Rob Crooks, Giovanna Dare, Jack Fritz, Heidi Hennrich-Hanson, Emma Hooper MaryJudd, and Kanchalika Klad-A ngkul.

Ms. Luisa Sambeli Espaflola coordinated the production of this Monitor Ms. Agatha Ancheta assisted in data collection. Mr Jeffrey Lecksell wasresponsible for preparing the map. Dissemination of the Monitor is coordinated by Ms. Leonora Gonzales. The cover was designed byVMr Brian Luof Liquid Graphics. The document was printed at Inkwell Publishing Company.

The views expressed in the Philippines Environment Monitor 2001 are entirely those of the authors and should not be cited without prior permission. They donot necessarily reflect the views oF The World Beck Group, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. The material contained herein has beenobtained from sources believed reliable but it is not necessarily complete and cannot be guaranteed.

'§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 ........... ................ 6-7Recycling

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 environmentaltrends 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, andnatural resources conservation. Unlike economic indicators, environmental changes, however, occur over aperiod of time, and therefore, annual variations are difficult to measure or assess. Thus, the series is designed totrack changes in general environmental trends every five years. In the intervening years, the Monitor will focuson 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 thecountry. Population growth, rising living standards, and inadequate attention have caused many of the currentwaste 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 endangerhuman 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 thePayatas dumpsite tragedy in 2000. In the absence of a clear national framework on waste management, localgovernments who are duty bound to manage solid wastes in their areas of jurisdiction, have resorted to solidwaste disposal practices, such as open dumps, controlled dumpsites, and open or curbside street piles, which areoperationally 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. Thislaw 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 ambitiousgoals. The challenge now facing the country is its implementation.

The Environment Monitor 2001 consists of six sections. The first three sections discuss the currentstatus 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 thelaws, institutions and budget is presented in the fifth section; and the Monitor concludes with an assessment ofthe 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 ofgovernment agencies, universities and nongovernmental organizations, unpublished data from individuals, anddocuments of the World Bank. However, solid waste data in many countries is often times unreliable due toinconsistencies in data recording, definitions, collection methods, and seasonal variations. The Philippines is noexception. Given the diversity and timeliness of the sources of data used, the information in this report has beenassessed for its reliability, and as needed estimates have been made. Data, information and support provided bythe 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 EcevitCountry Director, Philippines Sector DirectorEast Asia and Pacific Region Environment and Social DevelopmentThe World Bank East Asia and Pacific Region

The World Bank

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - DOWN IN THE DUMPS!

S OLID WASTE or basura has emerged as the most visible environmental priority in the cities andmunicipalities 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 seeuncollected garbage piling up on the streets or being burned. In the meantime, human health costsare rising because of improper handling and disposal of household, hospital, and industrial wastes.

Sources and Gener a-a_ a small portion is recycled.tion. A Filipino generates Solid Waste Management in the Philippines The rest is disposed in openbetween 0.3 and 0.7 ki- - At a Glance, 2001 - dumps. Carmona in Cavitelograms of garbage daily Province and San Mateo independing upon income Indicator Value Rizal Province were the firstlevels. The current an- Solid waste generated by households (tons/year) 10 million landfills to be constructed.nual generation of 10 Toxic and hazardous waste generated by These sites have since beenmillion tons is expected industrial/commercial sector (tons/year) 2.4 million closed, which triggered theto increase by 40 percent Hazardous and infectious waste generated by current garbage crisis inat the end of the decade. hospitals (tons/year) 6,750 Metro Manila. In SanThe National Capital Share of municipal waste generated that is Urban - 70% Fernando, La Union,Regi Naand Southern collected Rural -40% Valenzuela, and Duma-Region and Southern Waste recycling and re-use as a percent of

Tagalog Region produce total waste generated (Metro Manila) 12% guete, open dumping hasthe highest amount of Recycled material sold as a percentage of been replaced by controlledwaste, accounting for 23 total waste generated (Metro Manila) 5% dumping. The only sanitaryand 13 percent of the No. of proper solid waste disposal sites landfill in the country is lo-country's production, Landfills 1 cated in Cebu, which is cur-

Closed landfills 2 ctdi eu hc scrrespectively. * Controlled dumps 17 rently experiencing operat-

No. of hospital waste incinerators 43 ing problems.* Recycling and Collec- No. of hazardous waste treatment facilities 28tion. Inadequate collec- Share of municipal solid waste disposed in landfills * Toxic and Hazardoustion vehicles and lack of and controlled dumps 2% Wastes. Just over 5 percentdisposal sites have con- Share of hospitals with access to incinerators in of the estimated hazardoustributed to a reduction in Share of hazardous waste treated or recycled 5% waste generation of nearlythe collection efficiency Per capita allocation in LGUs (range PhP) 12 - 250 2.4 million tons is recycledof household waste. Sev- Share of solid waste management in LGU budget 1% - 12% or treated annually. Hospi-enty percent of the gar- n;= . - tals in the country generatebage is collected in ur- W 6,750 tons/year of hazard-ban areas, while only 40 percent is collected in rural ous and infectious waste. Some of this waste is inciner-areas. Many of the poor neighborhoods in the country ated. However, the Clean Air Act of 2000 prohibits theare under-served. Separate collection of segregated operation of all incinerators after November 2003.waste is still minimal. Thirteen percent of MetroManila's waste is recycled, while it is much less in Waste recycling and disposal have always attractedother areas. wide attention in the Philippines. Many non-govern-

mental organizations (NGOs) have been active since* Treatment and DisposaL Nationally, only 2 percent of the early 1990s through recycling programs such asthe waste generated is disposed in sanitary landfills or Zero Waste Recycling Movement and Linis Ganda. Incontrolled dumps. Nearly 10 percent is composted, and recent times, many civil society and community orga-

I

i I T.M10 7i I I. li Mi

nizations have opposed improper management of open 1. Strengthening enforcement and providing better in-dumps and landfills, the siting of future facilities, and centives. The current lax enforcement situation needsincineration of waste. Their sustained efforts led to the to be improved to make the ESWMA an effective piecedrafting of RA 9003 also known as the Ecological Solid of legislation. In addition, providing incentives wouldWaste Management Act of 2000 (ESWMA), which was reduce waste generation at source and improve man-signed into law early this year. This law replaces the agement of waste disposal facilities.piecemeal provisions previously covered in several 2. Building the capacity of national and local institu-laws, and for the first time, provides an integrated na- tions. Capacity building for LGUs and barangaystional framework for environmentally-friendly solid and improving strategic planning at all levels of gov-waste management. The Act has set very ambitious emient will be necessary.goals, and their achievement will be a major challenge 3. Addressing the NIMBY syndrome. This has pre-for all sectors of the society. The finalization of the vented the siting of solid waste management (SWM)law's implementing rules and regulations need to be facilities and could be addressed through betterexpedited. awareness and consultation, and the demonstration

of safe landfill practices.While public awareness has been growing, it is not yet 4. Raising public awareness on the benefits of propersufficiently mature to support appropriate and suitable solid waste management. Support and participationmanagement practices. The "Not In My BackYard" of the people in SWM programs will be key to the(NIMBY) syndrome has compelled many local govern- successful implementation of the ESWMA.ments to abandon or defer plans to establish compostimg 5. Increasing expenditures on SWM. A back-of-the-plants, controlled dumps, and sanitary landfills. A case envelope analysis indicates that the Philippines willin point is the situation in Metro Manila. Since the pub- need to spend an additional PhP150 billion (US$3licly-demanded closure of the Carmona and San Mateo billion) over the next 10 years for SWM.landfills, the metropolis has been buried in its own waste 6. Mainstreaming the utilization of new fundingwith few altematives aside from open dumping. This will sources and employing cost-effective approaches.likely exacerbate public sentiment against sanitary land- New funding sources such as national governmentfills, the most suitable and cost-effective option for the cost sharing; private sector participation; and usersafe disposal of Metro Manila's residual waste in the fees should be explored along with cost saving mea-context of an integrated system. sures, such as shared facilities and producing power

using landfill gas.Except for a handful of Local Government Units 7. Obtaining reliable information for national, regional,(LGUs), the performance of cities and municipalities and local planning. Without proper data, long-termin the provision of services to collect and dispose solid planning decisions cannot be made.waste has been poor. This can be attributed to LGUs' 8. Ensuring proper management of closed dumps andweak capacity, inadequate budget, limited understand- sanitary landfills. The environmental and health risksing of appropriate and cost-effective practices, and of closed dumps and landfills will need to be mini-weak enforcement of regulations. Further, the lack of mized.a cost-sharing formula between the national govern- 9. Protecting the vulnerable and the under-served. Thisment and LGUs for financing capital costs is also ham- includes scavengers and poor communities.pering the establishment of proper disposal facilities. 10. Expanding coverage of infectious medical and haz-The City Development Strategies being piloted by a ardous waste treatment. Effective implementationfew cities and municipalities provide an opportunity of the law will require a concerted effort that fo-for LGUs to integrate solid waste management inter- cuses exclusively on the practicalities of establish-ventions in the overall investment planning and insti- ing safe and effective disposal practices in the shorttutional development framework. and long term.

There are ten key challenges that the country needs Most importantly, the Philippines should avoid anotherto address to achieve the goals of the ESWMA. Smokey Mountain or Payatas open dump situation fromThese include: re-emerging!

2

WASTE GENERATION MAP

§ ~~~PHILIP>PINsES t} > 2tt :', tt

ENVIRONMENT MONITO3R 2001 1!MUNICIPALi ~Waste G;eneration i4 7t

4p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tt ItAl .AT, SWVt , [N WlN >

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

C -IINA td.i¢i.~'-' t& e l%

* ~ ~ ~ ~ H il tt 1- IfNFtS'8 9 +

} ies4.s t,* iSt u, e=9 .ttSpef.tfA,^X

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

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

-~~~~~~~~~~AT WA w.a;FF tttvL *t#STR ' a- ,>,. . + - W . | % . t Ar~~~~~cm-

>'^tw . .2is+ J fJi ' i : a v~~~OENEATIO TONVYt

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

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

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

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

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

> S * wf _2o~~~~~~~~~t

* ' r t ... ,.},,,j_ ti .... *PW - . I N D 0 N MMW40 5 i ^.r,vz_,

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

1$S.'Stf{f4;Y 1t- EEtT S3$ i

Solid waste streams are generally characterized bytheir sources, generation rates, types of wastes, and Table 1: Sources and Types of Solid Wastescomposition. Source Types of solid wastes

WASTE SOURCES Residential Food wastes, paper, cardboard, plastics, tex-tiles, leather, yard wastes, wood, glass, met-als, ashes, and household hazardous waste.

Solid wastes originate from a wide range of domestic(residential), industrial, agricultural, institutional, munici- Industrial Housekeeping wastes, packaging, food

pal, and commercial sources including households, manu- wastes, construction and demolition materi-r . * . * * * - . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~als, hazardous wastes, and ashes.

facturers, hospitals, street sweeping activities, and mar-kets. In the Philippines, the predominant sources of solid Commercial Paper, cardboard, plastics, wood, food

wastes, glass, metals, special wastes, andwaste are household and commercial activities. hazardous wastes.

WASTE GENERATION Institutional Same as commercialConstruction Wood, steel, concrete, dirt, etc.

Ten million tons of municipal solid waste was gen- Municipal services Street sweepings, landscape and tree trim-affected . *1mings, and general wastes from parks,

erated in 2000... Waste generation rates are affected beaches, sludge.

by socio-economic development, degree of industri-by socio-eonomic deelopment,degree ofindustri-Processes Industrial process wastes, scrap materials, off-alization, and climate. Generally, the greater a country's specification products, 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 Management in Asia. Urban Development Sector

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

waste and this is expected to increase by 40 percent

during the current decade (see table 2). Table 2: National Waste Generation, 2000-2010

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 Nhas grown 4.5 percent annually in the last four years.t~ National Capital Region 2.45 23.0 3.14 22.3

has grown 4.5 percent annually in the last four years.' Cordillera AR 0.17 1.6 0.21 1.5It 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/ Cagayan Valley 0.32 3.0 0.40 2.8Central Luzon 0.96 9.0 1.32 9.4

day, while those in rural areas generate 0.3 kg/person/ Southern Tagalog 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 Western Visayas 0.82 7.7 1.00 7.1Central Visayas 0.74 7.0 1.01 7.2

major contributor to national GDP, and therefore, has Eastern Vtsayas 0.43 4.0 0.51 3.6

the highest consumption rates and consequent waste Western Mindanao 0.40 3.8 0.53 3.8

generation. Eventually, as the rest of the country de- Northern Mindanao 0.37 3.4 0.47 3.4generation. Eventually, as the rest of the country de- Southern Mindanao 0.70 6.6 0.97 6.9

velops, Metro Manila's share will begin to decline as Central Mindanao 0.33 3.1 0.41 2.9

other urban centers generate more waste. ARMM 0.26 2.5 0.39 2.7Caraga 0.26 2.4 0.31 2.2

National 10.67 100 14.05 100

Assumptions:Waste production rates2:

'MMDA Survey, December 2000. national capital region: 0.71 kg/person/day~~~ December ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~urban population: 0.5 kg/person/day2Urban Environment and Solid Waste Management Study, GHK/MRM rural population: 0.3 kg/person/day

Intemational Ltd. 1994; CALA Urban Development and Environment It was assumed that the urban population would increase their waste production rate by 1percent per year due to rising income levels (based on GH-K/MRM International Report).

Study, 1996; JICA/MMDA, 1999. Urban and rural population, and growth rates by region are based on National Statistical

Office, data for 2000.

4

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SOURCES AND GENERATION

WASTE COMPOSITIONTable 3: Country Comparisons in

Waste composition is influenced by factors such as lo- Municipal Waste Generation Ratecation living standards, and weather. The composi- Waste Generationationow, City and Country Rate (kg/cap/day)

tion of solid waste affects the selection and 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. Rome, Italy 0.69Middle-income countries: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 0.60Tunis, Tunisia 0.56

pal waste is biodegradable and includes large amounts Low-income countries:

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 Waste Management in Asia. Urban Developmnent Sector

potential for recycling, as 42 percent of the waste is Unit East Asia and Pacific Region, World Bank. May 1999

made of recyclable items such as paper, plastic, andmetal. Chart 1: Municipal Waste Composition in

Metro Manila, 1999HOUSEHOLD 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- Mt a6ies, etc.), are placed in separate containers. Thoughwaste in the country has high composition of organicmatter 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 Waste Management in the Republic of thePhilippines, JICA. June 2001.

Box 1: Environmental and Health Impacts of Improper Solid Waste Management

The indiscriminate dumping of wastes contaminates surface and groundwater supplies. In urban areas, solid waste clogs drains,

creating stagnant water for insect breeding and floods during rainy seasons. Uncontrolled burning of wastes and improper

incineration contributes significantly to urban air pollution. Greenhouse gases are generated from the decomposition of organic

wastes in landfills, and untreated leachate pollutes surrounding soil and water bodies.

Health and safety issues also arise from improper solid waste management. Human fecal matter is commonly found in municipal

waste. Insect and rodent vectors are attracted to the waste and can spread disease such as cholera and dengue fever. Using water

polluted by solid waste for bathing, food, irrigation, and drinking can also expose individuals to disease organisms and other

contaminants. Waste workers and pickers are seldom protected from direct contact and injury, and the co-disposal of hazardous

and medical wastes with municipal wastes poses a serious health threat. Exhaust fumes from vehicles, dust stemming from disposal

practices, and open burning of waste also contribute to overall health problems.

Source: What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia, Urban Development Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region, World Bank, May

1999.

5

RECYCLINGBox 2: Recycling Initiatives

Recycling opportunities are not fully harnessed...In the Philippines, only a small portion of the solid Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottles and

waste is recycled or composted, despite the existence Aluminum Cansof a relatively large market for compost and used prod- To promote the recycling of PET plastics and re-ucarmatdveyromrgecycledfplastpcs,tg ndss bottles,pscrap duce plastic waste, the Department of Science anducts made from recycled pRecs, glass botles, scrap Technology (DOST)-lndustrial Technology Develop-

paper, and scrap metals. Recovery of recyclable ma- ment Institute (ITDI) and PET manufacturers and

terials occurs at three stages: at the household level, users formed the PET Recycling Task Force. The same

during collection time, and at open dumpsites. Junk efforts were also made by Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil-

dealers buy recyclable wastes from households, while ippines, Inc. (CCBPI), Rotary Clubs and Now Trad-

waste pickers manually sort through waste at source, ing Concepts, which manage 13 PET and alumi-

transfer stations, and dumpsites. Palero or garbage num can recovery centers. Empty coke PET contain-

truck helpers also recover recyclables from the collec- ers may be redeemed at fifty centavos per container.

tion trucks to augment their income. In just eight months of operation, 1,100,337 PETbottles and 1,363,115 aluminum cans have been

Recycling efforts in Metro Manila are on the rise.., recovered and re-used.

In 1997, only 6 percent of solid waste was recycled inMetro Manila.3 By December 2000, it increased to 13 Polystyrene Based Materials

percent due to the concerted effort by Metro Manila De- terial in fast food outlets, schools, and packing in-

velopment Authority (MMDA)4 and NGOs to promote dustries. Faced with an increasing PS generation,

waste segregation at the source, composting, and recy- 20 PS manufacturers formed the Polystyrene Pack-

cling. Additional support was also provided with the aging Council of the Philippines (PPCP) and to-passage of the MMDA Ordinance in 1999, which man- gether set up a PS recycling plant in Sta. Maria,

dates source segregation. With the operation of two new Bulacan. In 1996, PPCP, Ayala Foundation, Metro-

recycling and composting facilities handling 200 tons/ politan Environmental Improvement Program

day each, recycling is expected to further increase. (MEIP), Department of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR), and some private and govern-

A growing number of LGUs in the country are now ment agencies started the project at fast food out-

implementing integrated waste management, which lets within the Makati Commercial Center. Between1997 and 2000, the amount of PS packaging ma-

includes waste reduction, composting, recycling, terial recovered and recycled nearly doubled from

and re-use.5 Estimates had shown that trade in waste 67,540 kgs to 123,001 kgs.

materials has increased in volume by 39 percent, ' :

and in value by 47 percent in 2000 compared to 1998(see table 4)6.

COLLECTIONThe country-wide collection efficiency in the Philip- Table 4: Waste Recovery in Metro Manilapines is estimated to be 40 percent, although major

towns and cities show average collection rates of up Material Valueto 70 percent.7 The poorer areas of cities, municipali- Year Purchased (million pesos)ties, and rural barangays are typically unserved or un-der-served. 1998 69,400 95.2

1999 95,600 124.5

3 JICA-MMDA 1999. 2000 101,850 132.54 MMDA Ordinance 1999.5 PPSO Report of DENR Performance.6Report of the Metro Manila Federation of Environment Multi-Purpose Source: Report of the Metro Manila Federation of EnvironmentCooepratie BogTvs ac ,20Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Bong Teves, March 1, 2001.Cooperative, Bong Tevea, March 1, 2000.7Pasig 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 wastecollection is done either by self-administration, throughprivate contractors or by the residents themselves. Themanner and frequency of collection and the choice ofequipment depends on the size of roads, density ofpopulation to be covered, and affordability. In neigh-borhoods with narrow roads, household waste isdumped into communal receptacles placed strategicallyon 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 89.7percent of the generated waste. Seventy-three percent ofthis amount or 3,500 tons/day was collected.8 The in- Box 3: Linis Ganda:complete collection could be attributed to the limited A Case Study in Recyclingnumber and inappropriate collection vehicles, absence In 2000, Metro Manila Linis Ganda, Inc., a NGO, pur-

of transfer points, traffic congestion, and lack of enforce- chased 101,850 tons of waste paper, corrugated boards,

ment of and compliance with, rules and regulations. With cutlets, plastics, and metals worth PhP1 32.5 million. Thesethe closure of the San Mateo and Carmona sanitary land- recyclable materials were, in turn, sold to factories. Linis

fills, and the difcultynsitingaewlandfillwasGanda organized the Federation of Multi-purpose Coop-fills, and the difficulty in siting a new landfill, waste col- eratives, an association of 17 environmental cooperativeslection has further decreased. with 572 memberjunk shops employing more than 1,000

eco-aides. Members of the cooperative are granted loans

TRANSFER AND TRANSPORT without collateral; eco-aides are also given seed money tobuy 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. Such stat s acrease its recycling activities to 15 percent. The expan-

cost. Such statlons are appropriate for large citles, | sion would require 1000 additionaljunk shops and 2,500

where there are long hauling distances to the final dis- | eco-aides.posal site. l_l

In Metro Manila, solid wastes collected by dump trucks T iare taken to a transfer station in Las Pifias, where it Tae 5 a pl fsewas transferred to larger trucks before taken to the PhilippinesCarmona landfill. With the closure of the Carmona City User Fees

and San Mateo landfills, the Las Pifias transfer station Cagayan de Oro City Commercial and Industrial: P1500-

has been converted into a materials recovery facility, 2000 (maximum)where compostable and recyclable materials are re- Lipa City Household' P10/month billed with wa-

| ~~~~~~ter supplyIcovered. In addition, Marikina City also operates its tl o y Huhl

IOlongapo City Householod P30 -P40/month collected own transfer station. through electricity bills

Commercial: P75-P500/month (de-pending on the kind of business, floorarea, and waste generated

Batangas City Household: P10/month collectedthrough electricity bills

|________________ Commercial: P300-P3000 collected

'The study of SWM for Metro Manila, Final Report, JICA/MMDA, March through business permits1999. Source: Report from each city, August 2001.

7

TREATMENT AND DISPOSALBox 4: Treatment and Disposal

Treatment methods include composting, anaerobic di- Options for Municipal Solid Wastegestion, incineration, and sanitary landfilling (see Box4). Disposal only includes the final deposition of re- Disoosal in controlled dump or sanitary landfill: The

jects from composting or digestion. Other materials waste is placed, compacted and covered on an area

will be land applied as a recovered resource. of land in a controlled fashion. Controlled dumpshave 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... thouePhodisolidpis waste rching mrouted around the site so it does not mix with the

open dumpsies in the Pilippines shihnmis waste. They are more environmentally sound thanture and organic content, and low in calorific value, at.Te r oeevrnetlysudtatureiand torgi ontdvenand lowintriesic vsalu, open dumps but do not provide full protection against

simpostiar ato most nidevelop dfiin c naries in Asa environmental and public health hazards. SanitaryComposting and sanitary landfilling are thus the landfills are similar but built and operated with full

most suitable technologies for treatment and dis- environmental controls including a liner, leachateposal, 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 solidwastes 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. compost or 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- tates source separation of the organic portion of the solidments. Incineration is restricted to treatment of infec- waste and a market for the end products.

tious medical and hazardous wastes. Anaerobic Digestion: The breakdown of organic mat-

COMPOSTING 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

Composting has largely been a community-based ac- use as a soil enhancer. Generally done to reduce the

tivity promoted by NGOs, people's organizations, and, amount of waste going into landfills. Necessitates source

in some instances, by local governments through the separation of the organic portion of the solid waste and

barangays. It can be done by households, homeowners' residue should be re-used, treated or disposed.

associations or barangays. Composting systems canrange from simple backyard compost pits to more Incineration: Generally it allows unsorted, non- bulky

mechanized processes. solid wastes to be fed directly into the furnace andcombusted. The process produces ash, which gener-

While many communities produce soil conditioners ally is landfilled as well as gas and liquid emissions

for their own use, others have opted to produce com- that require treatment. Significantly reduces thepost or organic fertilizers commercially. TheDepart-amount of waste to be landfilled and requires very

post or organic fertilizers commercially. The Depart- little land.; However, high moisture content and low

ment of Agriculture is now actively promoting the use X l Hof organic fertilizers. Coupled with the growing de- calorific value makes the municipal solid waste in

oandfor organicafertilzers.nCooupled,t the garor dm- the Philippines technically unsuitable for incineration.

mand f . organically grownfo , tm t fo r- In addition, the high capital and operating costs topost and organic fertlizers IS also growing, but no de- fully combust the waste in an environmentally sound

mand estimates are available nor is the quality of com- way makst cos poit e in tatmn ofost known Govemmet supportand encoragementway, .make It cost prohibitive for use in treatment of

post known. Government support and encouragement municipal solid waste in the Philippines.

for composting activities is also limited.

8

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

Table 6: Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Methods in Selected Countries, 1997

Land-filling Open Dumping Composting Incineration Other-

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

Since 7997, the amount of waste disposed of in landfilts in the Philippines has decreased to about 2%.:.lncludes animal feeding, dumping in water, ploughing into soil, and open burning.Table adapted from UN-ESCAP/ADB. State of the Environment ,n Asia and the Pacific, 2000Source: Ministry of Environment, Singapore, Annual Report, 1997.

OPEN AND CONTROLLED DUMPING

Box 5: Composting Facility of BarangayUncontrolled open dumps have no environmental safe- Sun Valley, Parahaque Cityguards, pose major public health threats, and affect thelandscape of a city. In contrast, controlled dumps have In 1997, the Barangay Council at Brgy. Sun Valleybasic 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 atthe facility, resulting in a 35 percent reduction in

site, disposed of 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 compostLingonan, Valenzuela. reactors, a mixer, a shredder, and four pedicabs

Lingonan, used for the collection of biodegradables. Asidefrom using lactobacilli activators, vermi-composting

The Payatas dumpsite in Quezon City was partially is also practiced.reopened and only accepts waste generated in QuezonCity (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 thethat each of the 1,607 LGUs operates and maintains community's basketball court. The processed mate-its own temporary or permanent dumpsite. Of these, rials are placed in sacks and transported to the226 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. Vermicast is sold at P35/kg. To get thethese have been inspected by the NSWMC for, most value from its compost, the barangay is nowamong other things, complaints by residents, re- finalizing an agreement with the municipality ofquests for assistance by local chief executives, and Maragondon in Cavite to use their farmlands forenvironmental compliance with prescribed site re- growmg organic vegetables.

quirements. According to Environmental Manage-

9

ment Bureau (EMB), 17 open dumps have beenconverted to controlled dumps (see Box 7). Table 7: Status of Dumpsites in

Metro Manila, 2001

SANITARY LANDFILLS Type of Dumpsite Location StatusCatmon, Malabon In operation

Environmental and social concerns caused the clo- Open Payatas, Closed July 10, 2000

sure of two landfills in Metro Manila... In recent dumpsite Quezon City but partly reopened

years, Metro Manila has been continuously grappling in Feb. 2001with 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 Closed Dec. 2000

These are now closed. Collectively, the two landfills landfill Carmona, Cavite Closed Apr. 1998

accommodated between 40 and 50 percent of MetroManila's daily garbage output. Since their closure, Table 8: Waste disposed at San Mateo andpiles of uncollected garbage could be found through- Carmona landfills (m3 per year)out Metro Manila, threatening the health and safety of Year San Mateo Carmona*residents.

1991 258,8801992 344,562 -

On the average, the San Mateo and Carnona landfills 1993 572,715 133,871

received daily 1,800 and 73010 tons 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 surface water. 1998 2,965,007 293,6311999 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 Note:CanrmonaMSaniary Landfill closed in Apnl 1998.

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 andsites exceeded permissible standards (San Mateo - Landfills: Leachate and Gas10,000 mg/l; Carmona - 3,500 mg/,' 2 "3 ). This indi-cates that the treatment systems employed at both sites As water percolates through the solid waste in landfills, itare not functioning properly. absorbs chemicals and microorganisms present in the pu-

trefying materials. The uncontrolled discharge of liquidformed in solid waste dumps or landfills, known as leachate,

No restoration plans are in place for the two contaminates ground and surface waters, and thus, posesites... Normally when sanitary landfills are closed environmental and public health risks to the local area.or capped, the facility owner is required to imple- Various gases are produced because organic matter inment a post-closure program. This includes storm the landfill decomposes through the action of anaerobicwater drainage, leachate treatment and monitoring, microorganisms-bacteria that flourish in the absence ofand gas flaring or recovery and landscaping. Al- air. While some of these gases are relatively harmless,though it is a regulatory requirement, such a pro- others, like methane, are highly flammable. The migra-

tion and emission of these flammable gases should be con-trolled to prevent explosions in the event of their build-upon or near the landfill. Methane, in particular, is com-

"'A waste density of 250 kg/m3 has been assumed. monly flared or combusted for energy in order to reduce"Environmental Management Bureau, 1998. the risk of explosion and mitigate its effect as 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 inlandwater bodies is 50 mg/1. Source: Adapted Solid Waste Management for Local Govern-

ments, DENR, 1996.

10

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

gram is not in place at either of the sites. Whilethese sites had landfill gas vents, there were no gas Box 7: Open to Controlled Dump -recovery facilities. The poor construction and faulty Pioneering Efforts of San Fernando,operation of the sites resulted in a negative percep- La Uniontion of sanitary landfills among the general public. The city of San Femando, La Union is located in Region IThis, combined with the NIMBY syndrome, has and has a population of 102,000. It generates an average

caused problems in the siting of landfills in the of 52 tons of waste per day of which 45 percent is currentlycountry, especially for Metro Manila, where the collected. Disposal was a big issue, particularly for city

problem is particularly acute. council, which wanted to promote the city as a viable in-vestment area in Northern Luzon.

The Cebu Landfill is facing operational difficul- Encouraged by a study tour on Solid Waste Management

ties... The only active sanitary landfill in the coun- in the USA, the Mayor and city officials initiated the shift of

try which began operations in September 1998, is their city's waste disposal system from open dumping tolocated in Cebu. It receives 400 tons daily and was controlled dumping, while preparing for a full-fledged sani-

designed to have a life of 6-7 years. Technical prob- tary landfill.lems have closed down its materials recovery facil- To reduce the volume of waste to be disposed, collected

ity deommcoeup nbtwaste undergoes secondary sorting at the disposal site. Thisity due to mismatch of equipment between conlec- recovery of recyclable and re-usable materials is under-

taken by the barangay, providing them with additional rev-tion constrained recycling efforts and increased the enue. At the same time, the residents in the city were taughtdaily volume of waste disposed in the landfill. to segregate their wastes at source.

The site is managed in cells where the residual waste is firstLandfill gas is vented through a series of horizon- compacted and then covered with soil. To improve the

tal and vertical pipes. However, the leachate treat- aesthetics of the site, ylang ylang trees, known for its fra-

ment pond serves only as an impounding basin, grant flowers, were planted all over. Bougainvillea treeswhich discharges partially treated leachate to the and other omamental plants were also planted along the

surrounding area, causing the adjacent communi- periphery of the site.

ties to complain. Unless immediate corrective ac- The controlled dumpsite in San Fernando now serves as a

tion is taken, this landfill could be closed. model for other local govemments in the country. It has beenvisited by over 9,000 representatives of national and local

LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION AND USE governments, NGOs, the private sector, and donor institu-tions. It is living proof that waste management can be imme-

Landfills produce large quantities of greenhouse diately improved if only there is political will to do so.

gases... Landfill gas, a gas similar to natural gas, The construction of the sanitary landfill would be supported

is produced during the decomposition of wastes in by a loan being obtained from the Land Bank of the Philip-

landfills and dumps and typically contains 50 per- pines through the World Bank-assisted Local Governmentcent of the potent greenhouse gas methane. Meth- Finance and Development (LOGOFIND) Project.ane affects global warming 21 times more than car-bon dioxide. Waste disposal sites are estimated toaccount for 12 percent (see table 9) of the methanereleased to the atmosphere in the Philippines. Themethane produced by landfills can be effectivelycontrolled by collecting and converting the gas toenergy that can be sold profitably. Production ofenergy 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 k . lcountries. For example, in Mexico and Thailand,pilot demonstration projects are being implementedto encourage the development of similar projects -

nationwide and regionwide.

11

-. S -1 .1 ; j iii i;

The Philippines can harness opportunities to con-vert landfill gas to energy... Collection and utili- Table 9: Methane Emissions in thezation of landfill gas presents an opportunity to: (i) Philippines in 1990supplement LGUs' revenues from solid wastes; (ii)control localized emissions, such as volatile organic Source Emissions (Gg)

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 1 5Protocol. Land Use and Forestry 18 1

Protocol. Total 1,474 100

During the next decade, wastes generated in Source: Asia Least-cost Greenhouse Gas Abaternent Strategy, Philippines, ADB/GEF/

Metro Manila can generate 1,000 GWh of energyand power 8,500 homes... There are several op-tions for the development of landfill gas facilitiesin the Philippines. For example, they could be de- Table 10: Potential Benefits of Landfill Gas to Energyveloped as part of new disposal sites. These would Projects in Disposal Sites in Metro Manila.14

be most suitable in sanitary landfills in urban ar- San Mateo Carmona Payalas

eas, where large quantities of waste may exist. Forexample, if landfill gas facilities are installed in allof 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- Rate of return on

duce 1,000 GWh of energy over the next 1 0 years. 14 investment (%) 20 19 17

This amount of energy is enough to power 8,500homes. Similarly, over the same period of time, a Methane avoided

smaller city like Cebu could capture 35 million m3 (mill m3 /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 closedlandfills 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 iscapable of producing enough power to supply 5,500homes (see Table 10). The use of landfill gas forenergy could supplement the costs of implement-ing urgently needed rehabilitation plans for bothsites. If designed and managed well, revenues could

4 Calculated using the EPA E Plus landfill gas model with inputparameters and electricity price as described by USEPA 1999.Assumption on electricity generation was taken from other feasibilitystudies of landfill gas projects.'5 bid

12

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

help mitigate current environmental problems, re-duce future risks like explosions, and contribute to Box 8: Some International Experiencesthe socio-economic uplift of communities through in Landfill Gas Utilizationthe provision of electricity.

United States: The landfill gas industry in the USA national strategy for landfill gas manage- is the largest in the world. It grew rapidly from

ment... To investigate the potential of landfill gas 86 operational projects in 1990 to 330 today.

utilization, the Government should formulate an With a combined capacity of 900 MW, approxi-

appropriate national strategy. Such a framework mately two-thirds of those projects use landfill gas

could consider approaches for: (i) incorporating for electricity generation. Many of the remaining

landfill gas management in the planning, design, projects use the gas for a wide variety of purposes

and construction of future landfill sites, the opera- including commercial fuel (high and medium BTU

tion of existing landfills, and the rehabilitation of and liquefied natural gas), leachate evaporation,

closed landfills; (ii) introducing landfill gas man- boilers, and greenhouses.

agement in the process of converting open dumps Chile: Chile currently has four facilities that col-

to sanitary landfills; (iv) targeting the most suitable lect landfill gas and feed it into a gas distribution

disposal sites and technological options consider- network for its direct use as gas fuel. In Santiago,

ing the quality of operation and condition of the landfill gas is able to satisfy 40 percent of the de-

landfill, gas generation potential, and financial vi- mand of the city's gas distribution network, and is

ability of different technological options; (v) deter- also sent to a nearby food processing plant for

mining the most viable institutional arrangements, use as a fuel source for the plant's boilers. In the

including public-private partnerships; (iv) minimiz- city of Valparaiso, the landfill gas is mixed with

ing the legislative and regulatory barriers; and (iv) manufactured gas for use by households and in-

obtaining financing via the private sector or using dustry.

climate change institutional mechanisms such asgrants from theGlobal Environmntal Facility i Mexico: Although open dumping is still preva-

grants fo thGlblEvomnlent, Mexico's solid waste sector and the technolo-the short term and credits from the global carbon gies used have gradually grown in sophistication

trade envisioned under the Kyoto Protocol in the in the last 1 5 years resulting in increased collec-

long term. tion efficiency and a larger proportion of waste

disposed in sanitary landfills. However, there arecurrently no landfill gas facilities in Mexico. Toencourage the development of these facilities, theGovernment of Mexico is undertaking a projectwith the assistance of The World Bank and theGlobal Environment Facility. The project will de-

- ^ .>. X ; . ,* J 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.

A t - t .Sources:

US: Introduction to Landfill Gas Use and the US Landfill

- .,> y -':/~i v *< - | 6 $ 0 Gas Industry, USEPA- LMOP June 25, 2001.

.~ z . , , n | | | *: 1Chile: Bartone and Ahmed, Landfill Gas and Composting

Strategy for LCR, World Bank, 2001. Biogas Recoveryfrom Sanitary LandFill Sites in Santiago, Chile: A CaseStudy, Julio Monreal, September 1998 and personal

communication with Francisco Zapeda.

13

HAZARDOUS WASTESChart 2: Hazardous Waste 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. organicwastes

11% Acid WasteHazardous wastes are generated from a wide range of 10%

industrial, commercial, agricultural, and to a much lessextent, 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 Alkali24% Wastes

20%GENERATION

Source: The Study of SWM for Metro Manila, Final Report, 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 industriesproduce 278,393 tons of hazardous waste per year. The

major waste classes include inorganic chemical wastes,alkali wastes, putrescibles, acid wastes, and oils. 1

7

Thirty-four percent of the estimated hazardous waste

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

MEDICAL WASTESRECYCLING

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 hazardous waste

nually or 18 tons daily.'8 Forty-seven percent of this generated is recycled. 56 percent of the recycled wastes

waste is generated in the NCR, while Region IV ac- are oils and 49 percent are inorganic chemicals.

counts for 12 percent.TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

There are currently 28 hazardous waste treatment fa-cilities registered with DENR-EMB nationwide, 21 ofwhich are operating full-time.

'6lhe Study on Hazardous Waste Management in the Republic of thePhilippines, JICA, June 2001. About half of the registered hazardous waste gener-"7[bid5Team computation, 2001. ated each year (or approximately 140,000 tons/year),

,14

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

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-

Located inside the lnayawan Sanitary Landfill, this portedly incinerated. There is, however, a need to

2,781 -square meter common treatment facility for toxic change this treatment process given the provisions of

and hazardous waste from Cebu-based electroplating the Clean AirAct of 1999. By November 2003, incin-

industries is the first in the country and second in Asia. erators will be prohibited. Non-bum technologies are

It is co-owned and managed by the Cebu Chamber of thus being studied for the disposal of hazardous wastes

Commerce and Industry and the Cebu Electroplaters from hospital and industrial sources.

Association.

The waste water from the electroplating plant is col- There are currently no landfill facilities for hazardous

lected and then transported to the treatment plant. Af- waste in the Philippines. As a result, hazardous waste

ter neutralization and precipitation, the resulting sludge sources store their wastes, or dispose of them partially

is stored for recycling and mineral recovery. Funded treated or untreated. Approximately 50,000 tons or 36

under a bilateral agreement between the Philippines percent of all hazardous waste treated off-site, is stored

(through the DENR) and the Federal Republic of Ger- on-site or off-site due to the lack of proper treatment

many (through the German Agency for Technical Co- and landfill facilities.

operation-GTZ), commercial operations started in Oc-

tober 1 999 with the treatment of wastewater from seven Hazardous Waste. There are 13 industrial waste

firms. 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-

Box 10: Govemment and ardous waste to service the Cavite, Laguna,

Industry Partnership Batangas, Rizal, and Quezon (CALABARZON)areas are also being discussed.

The Industrial Waste Exchange Program (IWEP) of thePhilippine Business for the Environment matches the dif- Medical Waste. There are currently 43 operational

ferent waste-producing industries with recycling and hospital incinerators in the country. Of this num-

waste treating companies. This leads to considerable ber, 22 are located in Metro Manila. Fifty percent

savings for both parties involved in the exchange. More of the medical waste generated is incinerated, while

than 1,200 industrial waste producers are in their data- the rest is disposed of improperly. At present,

base. Successful exchanges have been brokered for vari- MMDA is finalizing the establishment of a central-

ous wastes such as scrap fabric, silica gel, used coolant, ized hospital waste treatment facility to service

used oil, used drums, used paper, used plastic sacks, Metro Manila.

glass cutlets, solder waste, mold runner plastic, and saw-

dust. Many other exchanges have been negotiated di- Technology solutions and policy direction are ur-

rectly between industries. It has recently launched a na- Tenoly soluti onsa policy irc tion

tionwide waste exchange network creating mini-indus- gently n eeded in wreso se ther inc ne ion

trial waste exchange centers in Cebu, Laguna, and ban.. For the past few years, there has been in-

Cagayan de Oro. tense debate in the Philippines over the use of in-

cinerators in waste management, leading to a pro-

Source: Philippine Business for the Environment, 2001. 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 l l a g l m-

Box 11: Treatment and Disposal Options for Infectious Medical Waste

Incineration: Combusts the waste under controlled con- its ineffectiveness in treating special medical waste such

ditions. To be effective and safe, it must be operated at as tissues and body parts. The capital costs range from

specific temperatures and under specific conditions. Ad- US$1 20,000-200,000 for each ton/day of capacity.

vantages include its ability to eliminate the health risks

associated with all types of hazardous medical wastes, Chemical disinfection: The waste is shredded and

and reduce the volume of the waste. Its disadvantages chemicals are added to waste to kill or inactivate patho-

include high costs, sophisticated operation and produc- gens. The output has to be disposed of using tech-

tion of air pollution, including dioxins, that become more niques such as safe landfilling. The advantage of this

severe if properly operated at an insufficient tempera- process is the reduction of waste volume resulting from

ture. The capital costs of such facility range from shredding. However, chemical disinfection requires a

US$120,000- 200,000 for each ton/day of capacity. skilled operator, is costly, does not treat wastes such as

tissues and body parts, and produces a toxic waste

Autoclaving: Steam heats the waste in an enclosed con- stream.

tainer at high pressure. The output is non-hazardous ma-

terial that can normally be landfilled with municipal Safe landrilling: The waste is placed in a pit excavated in

waste. The main advantages are the ease and familiar- mature municipal waste or in a special area constructed in

ity of its operation. Its disadvantages include the high the landfill and covered immediately with soil or fresh mu-

cost of operation, production of air emissions and waste- nicipal waste. For added health protection and odor sup-

water, and its inability to treat special medical waste such pression, lime can be spread over the waste. The area

as tissues and body parts. The capital costs range from should also be fenced off to prevent access by waste pick-

US$40,000-i 25,000 for each ton/day of capacity. ers or scavenging animals. The capital costs are low as it

uses an existing municipal landfill. The advantages of these

Microwave and radiowave irradiation: Waste is disin- methods are their simplicity and low-cost. These are the

fected using a high energy electromagnetic field that next best option to incineration for the treatment of body

causes high frequency oscillation of the liquid portions parts and tissues. However, the waste remains infectious,

of the cell material. The output is considered non-haz- and therefore, can be very dangerous if not managed ex-

ardous and can be disposed in a landfill with municipal tremely carefully.

waste. Its main advantages are the reduction in volume

achieved and its minimal production of toxic pollutants. Source:AdaptedfromJohannessen, etal., Healthcare Waste Man-

Its disadvantages include cost and sophistication, and a9ement Guidance Note, The World Bank, 2000.

Incineration is not an effective option to dispose fectious medical waste such as syringes, body parts

of municipal solid waste in the Philippines because and tissues, and treat certain classes of hazardous

of the unsuitable technical characteristics of the waste such as insecticides, pesticides, waste solvents,

waste (high moisture and organic content and low types of hydraulic fluids and some oily sludges. The

calorific value), high construction and operating broad-based ban on incineration will influence the

costs, and attendant environmental risk due to weak way that infectious medical and hazardous wastes

monitoring and enforcement. However, many are disposed, and may well present risks to health

countries, including the Philippines, use incinera- and the environment if it encourages unsafe and un-

tors as an option to completely destroy certain in- regulated treatment and disposal practices.

16

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

At the same time, allowing unregulated operation could be used to treat infectious medical wastes at

of incinerators in the Philippines for infectious prices equivalent or slightly higher than incinera-

medical and hazardous wastes is potentially dan- tion, but not all waste streams could be effectively

gerous. The country currently has limited capacity treated. Similarly, cleaner production and chemi-

to operate incinerators and monitor their emissions. cal precipitation have been used to reduce the gen-

Without proper operation there is a danger that they eration of hazardous waste in manufacturing pro-

could not only ineffectively treat the waste but pro- cesses. Assuming viable treatment technologies are

duce significant quantities of pollutants such as di- identified soon, then it will have to be ensured that

oxins. such facilities are properly operated and environ-

mentally sound.

Effective implementation of the law will require a

concerted effort that focuses exclusively on the Alternatively, in the event that the incineration ban

practicalities of establishing safe and effective dis- is stayed or delayed for infectious medical and haz-

posal practices in the short and long term. If the ardous wastes, the government should ensure that

ban is fully implemented, then there will need to be the incinerators are operated as designed and regu-

a shift to alternative technologies (see Box 11). lated closely by DENR, and their performance dis-

Some could take years and some technologies could closed to the public. This would require substan-

potentially have a lower order of treatment effec- tial capacity building of DENR's monitoring and

tiveness. The choice of technology is dependent on oversight capability. Also, existing incineration

environmental and safety considerations and com- capacity should be optimized to encourage the use

mercial viability. Experience from Latin America of shared facilities in order to minimize operational

suggests that microwaving or autoclaving options and environmental risks.

17v. -

.%.~~~V"''- j ~ ~ ~ ~ Wo

17t &

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 emphasized proper collection

and safe disposal of household garbage and industrial and hospital wastes. A summary of the different pieces 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.

Box 12: Summary of SWM Legislation

Commonwealth Act No. 383 - Anti-Dumping Law (1938)Prohibits dumping of refuse, waste matter or other substances into rivers. Punishment is imprisonment of not more than six months

and/or a fine of not more than P200.Republic Act 4226, Hospital Licensing Law (1965)Provides guidelines to protect and promote public health by ensuring quality hospital services appropriate to its level of health care.

General Order No. 13 (1972)Orders all residents to undertake the cleaning of their surroundings and prohibits anyone from throwing garbage in public

places. All lot owners must maintain the cleanliness of idle lots. If they are unable to do so, the Government will undertake the

same at the owner's expense.Presidential Decree No. 825, Garbage Disposal Law (1975)Provides penalties for improper disposal of garbage and other forms of uncleanliness. Penalties include imprisonment for be-

tween five days and one year and/or fines between P100 and P2000.Presidential Decree No. 856, Sanitation Code (1975)Requires cities and municipalities to provide an adequate and efficient system for collection, transportation, and disposal of refusein their areas of jurisdiction in a manner approved by the local health authority,Presidential Decree No. 600; as amended by PD 979, Marine Pollution Control Decree of 1976 (1976)Prevents and controls the pollution of the seas by prohibiting dumping of waste and other matter, which creates hazards to human

health or harms living resources and marine life.Presidential Decree No. 984, Rules and Regulations of the National Pollution Control LawProvides guidelines for the prevention and control of pollution from solid, toxic, and hazardous wastes.Presidential Decree No. 1151, the Philippine Environmental Policy (1978)Recognizes the right of the people to a healthy environment, and the duty of everyone to contribute to the preservation and

enhancement of the environment. Section 4 requires the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements for any project or

undertaking that may significantly affect the environment.Presidential Decree No. 1152, Philippine Environmental Code (1978)Requires the preparation and implementation of waste management prograrns by all provinces, cities, and municipalities.

(OP) Executive Order No. 432 (1990)Orders the strict implementation of PD 825 by all law enforcement agencies and officers. Enjoins the Metro Manila Development

Authority to do so for Metro Manila.Local Government Code RA 7160 (1991)Mandates LGUs to exercise powers and discharge functions and responsibilities as necessary or appropriate and incidental to the

efficient and effective provision of services and facilities related to general hygiene and sanitation, beautification, and solid

waste collection and disposal systems.Republic Act 6969- Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990, and its Implementing Rules andRegulations (DAO 29) (1992)Regulates the importation, use, movement, treatment and disposal of toxic chemicals and hazardous and nuclear waste in the

Philippines.Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 98-49 and 98-50Provides technical guidelines for municipal solid waste disposal, and adopts the landfill site identification and screening criteriafor municipal solid waste disposal facilities.Republic Act 8749 - The Clean Air Act of 1999Provides a comprehensive air pollution management and control program to achieve and maintain healthy air. Section 20 bans

incineration of municipal, bio-medical, and hazardous wastes but allows the traditional method of small-scale community burning.Republic Act 9003 - Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000Declares the adoption of a systematic, comprehensive, and ecological solid waste management program as a policy of the State.

Adopts a community-based approach. Mandates waste diversion through composting and recycling.

1 8

LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONS AND BUDGETS

Box 13: Key Features of the Ecological Solid Waste

Management Act of 2000 (ESWMA)

RA 9003- The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 was passed by Congress in December 2000 and signed into

law by the President of the Philippines on January 26, 2001 with the aim of adopting a systematic, comprehensive, and ecological

solid waste management program. The Implementating Rules and Regulations are currently being finalized.

• Institutional Arrangements: The Act provides for the establishment of a National Solid Waste Management Commission

(NSWMC) to oversee the implementation of solid waste management plans, and prescribe policies to achieve the objectives of

the Act. The commission will be headed by DENR and composed of representatives from the following agencies: Department

of Science and Technology (DOST), Department of Health (DOH), Department of Agriculture (DA), Technical Education and

Skill Development Authority (TESDA), Department of Interior and Local Govemment (DILG), Department of Public Works and

Highways (DPWH), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Philippine Infor-

mation Agency (PIA), League of Provincial Governors, League of City Mayors, Association of Barangay Councils, and one

representative each from NGOs, recycling, and packaging or manufacturing industries. A similar multi-sectoral SWM Board

will also be created in each Province and Local Government Unit (LGU). LGUs will be primarily responsible for the implemen-

tation and enforcement of the Act within their respectivejurisdictions. Similarly, segregation and collection of biodegradable,

compostable, and re-usable solid wastes should be conducted at the barangay level, and the collection of non-recyclable

materials and handling of special wastes will be the responsibility of the municipality or city.

* Strategic Planning Framework: A National Solid Waste Management Status Report featuring 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 Management Framework, 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 composting of wastes generated in their respective

jurisdiction, using the National Framework as their guide.

* Re-use: The Act requires all LGUs to divert at least 25 percent of all solid wastes from waste disposal facilities through re-use,

recycling, composting, and other resource recovery activities within five years from the effectivity of the Act, Similarly, segre-

gation of solid wastes at source is made mandatory.

* Recycling: The Act mandates the Department of Trade and Industry to prepare an inventory of existing markets for recyclable

materials and compost. The Act also stipulates that procedure, standards, incentives and strategies should be specified to

develop local market for recyclable materials and compost. The Act also places restriction on the use of environmentally non-

acceptable packaging material.

* Sanitary Landfills and Controlled Dumps: The Act prohibits new open dumps for disposal. Existing open dumpsites will need

to be converted into controlled dumpsites within three years, and replaced with sanitary landfills in a span of five years after

the Act has become effective. The Act provides guidelines for the establishment of sanitary landfills.

* Participation: To encourage popular participation, the Act also allows Citizen Suits, where anyone can file a civil, criminal,

and administrative action against any person, government agency or official who violates or fails to comply with the law.

* Fees: The Act specifies that fees should be levied on all waste generators for SWM services. Fines and penalties for any

violation of the law were also set. All revenues from the implementation of the law shall accrue to a SWM Fund (both national

and local) earmarked to support research and development, provide awards and incentives, provide technical assistance, and

conduct information, education, communication, and monitoring activities.

* Incentives: The Act catalogues the incentives that 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 domestic capital equipment,

provision of grants to LGUs to build their technical capabilities and incentives to communities hosting shared treatment and

disposal facilities.

* Appropriations: For the initial operating expenses of the NSWMC, National Ecology Center, and the LGUs, the Act appropri-

ates PhP20 million for 2001. Thereafter, the expenses will be financed through the regular budget. For 2002, PhP10 million

has been appropriated to support the NSWMC.

19

- I I S 0 i I * 3

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

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:

Chart 3: Institutional Arrangements Mandated by the ESWMA

Office of the President

National Sold Waste Management Commission

* Chaired by the Secretary, DENR* Outlines policies* Prepares National SWM Framework* Oversees implementation of the ESWM Act* Approves SWM Plans of local governments* Prepares National SWM Status Report

National Ecology Center Secretariat of the NSWM

* Chaired by Director, EMB * Located at EMB* Provides technical support to LGUs * Headed by an Executive Director* Establishes and manages SWM database * Responsible for day-to-day management

Provincial Solid Waste Management Boards

* Review and integrate city and municipal SWM plans into the SWM plan the* Coordinate efforts of component cities and municipalities implementing ESWMA* Encourage the clustering by LGUs with common problems

City/Municipal Solid Waste Management Boards

* Prepare, submit and implement local 10 year SWM plans* Review plan every 2 years* Adopt revenue generating measures to promote support* Provide necessary logistical and operational support* Coordinate efforts of its component barangays* Manage the collection and disposal of residual and special wastes* Encourage setting up of Multi-purpose Environmental Cooperatives

IBarangays

* Handle the 100% collection of biodegradable and reusable wastes* Establish Material Recovery Facility* Conduct information and education campaigns

20

LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONS AND BUDGETS

Department of Environment and Natural Resources Local Government Units (LGUs). Responsible for

(DENR). Sets standards, criteria, and guidelines for preparation and implementation of local SWM plans

all aspects of solid waste management. Performs regu- together with other stakeholders within their area.

latory as well as monitoring and enforcement func- Principally responsible for proper waste manage-

tions with regard to air emissions and effluent of solid ment - ensuring segregation at source, composting,

waste management systems. Chairs the National Solid recycling, setting up of material recovery facilities,

Waste Management Commission, which sets the over- efficient collection, and environmentally sound dis-

all policy, prepares the national framework, and ap- posal.

proves local action plans.Department of Health (DOH). Regulates the stor-

Environmental Management Bureau (EMB). Chairs age of refuse in food establishments with respect to

the National Ecology Center composed of multi- construction, maintenance, and placement of stor-

sectoral and multi-disciplinary experts tasked to fa- age containers within their establishments. Provides

cilitate training and education on the ESWMA. Estab- guidelines for proper management and disposal of

lishes and manages an information database. Provides hospital wastes, and other infectious wastes.

secretariat support to the Commission. EMB is a lineagency of DENR. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). For-

mulates and implements a coding system for pack-aging materials and products to facilitate recycling

Box 14: City Development Strategy (CDS) - and re-use. Publishes study on existing markets for

a promising approach to mainstream solid recyclables and recommends steps to expand these

waste management markets.

The CDS aims to assist city govemments and their stake- Department of Agriculture (DA). Publishes an in-

holders in formulating a common vision for their future, ventory of markets and demands for compost. Assistsidentifying strategies to attain this vision and priority pro- compost producers to ensure compost produced con-grams and projects, and facilitating resource mobilization form to standards.to finance the implementation of these programs and

projects. Guided by the principles of livability, competi-tiveness, bankability and good governance, the CDS fol- Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA).lows a participatory process, which involves all the stake- Enforces pollution laws in Laguna de Bay region in-holders in the entire planning and decision making pro- cluding illegal dumping of garbage.cess. In so doing, it develops a consensus building pro-cess within the city and builds the city's capacity for more Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA).

effective urban governance. Coordinates collection, transport, and disposal of solid

Based on the experience of the first seven pilot cities wastes in Metro Manila. Responsible for daily opera-

in the Philippines, solid waste was identified by the tion of its transfer stations, composting facilities, andvarious sectors as one of their priority issues. Having landfills.gone through the process together, it was easier to

agree on what needs to be done. The issue of NIMBY Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. Moni-was thus addressed. In the case of San Fernando, LaUnion, the CDS process facilitated the acquisition of tors the implementation of the ESWM and oversees

an additional lot for sanitary landfill. It also paved the functions of the Commission.the way for the people's acceptance of the city's inte-grated SWM program. Philippine Coast Guard (PCG). Responsible for pre-

With the upscaling of the CDS in the Philippines (with 30 venting ocean dumping of solid wastes.

additional cities participating), it is expected that a morecomprehensive solution to the issue of solid waste man- Private Sector. Serves as the Vice-Chair of the

agement will be developed and implemented. NSWMC, and plays a major role in the provision ofcollection, treatment and disposal services.

Source: Philippines CDS Project Team

21

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S - I

BUDGET AND EXPENDITURETable 11: MMDA SWM Expenditures

Cities in both developing and industrialized countries (in million pesos)

generally do not spend more than 0.5 percent of their Year Actual expendituresper 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 136.51996 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. Table 12: City Budgets Allocated for

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

age of total LGU budget varies greatly. Data from allocation Total 2001

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 148.66 11.6Ililo 12.50 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 2.1San 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 9.8Roxas 23.21 1.4

provided for the management of the disposal site.Source: Report from, each city, 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 sr Measue W

agement. However, by 2000, expenditures increased, (also see Table 5)amounting to PhP424 million, more than five times Type Description

the 1994 levels. User Fees Direct: Paid by waste generatorsaccording to level of service provided

User fees are not widely used by LGUs. Those levy- Indirect: Regardless of services level,

ing such fees are able to cover part of the operation generators pay a flat fee.

and maintenance costs. None, however, are using the Surcharge Incremental fee levied on property tax

fees as a means for financing capital investments. or water or electricity tariffs. This doesnot take into account service levels.

Tipping Fees Fee collected by landfill operatorfrom waste hauler or localgovernment. MMDA levies betweenPhP150-430 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 Waste Management Act of 2000 (ESWMA), the Philippines now has a

comprehensive and integrated solid waste management policy and legal framework. The implementing rules and regula-

tions are currently being 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:

Table 14: ESWMA GoalsAction Goal Status

Generation andCollection * Listing of non-environmentally acceptable products within one year of Unknown

effectivity of the law with phase out period to be set by Commission* Segregation of waste in all households upon effectivity of the law

Recycling andComposting * At least 25 percent of waste recycled and recovered within five years of 12 percent in Metro

effectivity of the law Manila;

* Inventory of markets for recyclables and compost within 6 months of 6 percent nationally

effectivity of the law (estimate)

Disposal * All open dumps converted to controlled dumps within three years of 17 controlled dumps

effectivity of the law 2 closed landfills

* All controlled dumps converted to sanitary landfills within five years 1 sanitary landfill

Medical WasteDisposal * Non-burn technologies for treatment and disposal (Clean Air Act) by 2003 43 incinerators

National SWM StatusReport * Within six months of effectivity Incomplete report

* To be updated every two years

i Strengthening enforcement and providing better Building the capacity of national and local in-

incentives... The Philippines has a poor record of en- stitutions... The implementating rules and regulations

forcing environmental legislation due to lack of political will detail the institutional roles and responsibilities

will, institutional capacity and incentives. It is impor- of different organizations. However, the primary re-

tant the political intent that was demonstrated when fram- sponsibility for implementing the ESWMA lies with

ing the ESWMA should be continued through its imple- local governments, which include 77 provinces, 114

mentation by fully enforcing the different provisions of cities, 1,495 municipalities, and over 42,000 barangays.

the Act. Otherwise, the intent of the Act will be compro- Strateg-ic Planning. As required by the ESWMA,

mised and the achievement of the above goals will re- over the next few years, strategic plans at the na-

main a distant dream, further exacerbating the current tional, provincial, LGU, and barangay levels need

situation. At present, incentives for effective delivery of to be prepared. This will require the strengthen-

SWM services are limited to recognition programs, such ing of technical capacity in the country to prepare

as the Clean and Green and the Galing Pook25 Awards. such plans and guide their implementation.

Additional incentives should be put into place including: * National Government. The National Ecology Cen-

(i) provision of financial incentives for capital invest- ter and the Secretariat of the National Solid Waste

ment (e.g. matching grants); (ii) imposition of user fees Management Commission will need to be

and tipping fees to encourage waste reduction and in- strengthened to provide advisory and extension

crease accountability of service delivery; and (iii) intro- services to LGUs and barangays. Their capacity

duction of product standards for composting and grant- for obtaining, maintaining, and analyzing data on

ing incentives to encourage market development. In ad- solid waste in the country should also be enhanced.

dition, the ESWMA also stipulates the granting of cer- * Local Governments. LGUs will need to upgrade

tain concessions and tax exemptions for improving solid their technical and managerial capacity to expand

waste management practices. their role beyond the current responsibility ofmainly household collection. Also, LGUs need to

2eThe Galing Pook Award, was first given in 1993, which recognizes and put in place financial systems to fully account for

replicates exemplary programs of LGUs that have effectively addressed solid waste management expenditures, which will

pressing problems in their areas. enable them to benchmark service efficiency and

23

fulfill contractual obligations in a transparent next five years (Chart 3). The average annual costs of

manner. implementing the law amount to 0.5 percent21 of the

Barangays. Communities need to be made aware 2000 gross domestic product (GDP). If this would be

of the benefits of proper waste disposal, as well funded solely by the Government, it would require the

as their responsibilities in waste avoidance, seg- programmed public expenditure in the national bud-

regation, collection, recycling, and composting. get to increase annually by 3 percent from its currentlevel, and the local government programmed expen-

3 Addressing the NIMBY syndrome... This per- diture to increase by at least 15 percent. It is therefore

spective is creating a major barrier to the siting of re- important for the Government to increase the budget

gional or local landfills and materials recovery facili- for solid waste management and to supplement that

ties. Public awareness and support for solid waste man- funding by encouraging the involvement of the pri-

agement facilities can be encouraged through better vate sector through the establishment of a functional

consultation and more widespread implementation of regulatory system, ensuring financial transparency in

programs, such as the current information, education, the sector, and introducing user fees.

and communication campaigns. Additionally, the es-tablishment and promotion of landfills or demonstra- ( Mainstreaming the utilization of new funding

tion landfills that are properly managed from an envi- sources and employing cost-effective approaches...

ronmental and social point of view will give the pub-lic greater confidence that landfills can be safely con- National Govcrnment Cost Sharing. The Philip-

structed and operated in their locality. pine Government will need to revisit its current

I] policy22 of not providing any cost-sharing grantsŽ Raising public awareness on the benefits of to LGUs to address pollution-related or "brown"

proper SWM... The success of the ESWMA largely environmental issues such as solid waste. There

depends on the support of the people. Solid waste is are environmental externalities associated with

often perceived as a purely government function, while waste disposal and treatment, which go beyond a

public consultation on landfill siting and solid waste local government's jurisdiction. These often as-

management programs is often lacking. This discour- sume a regional or national dimension, and there-

ages citizens from playing their role in SWM, such as fore, LGUs need assistance. In many countries,

participating in recycling programs. national governments offer various incentives and

/< Increasing expenditures on SWM... The LGUsubsidies to local authorities to invest in properbD Increasing expenditures on SWM..n The LGU waste disposal facilities. These take the form of

budgets for solid waste management have been typi matching grants provided by the national govern-

cally limited to household collection, transportation ments for capital investments only. Local gov-

to open dumpsites, and minimal operational expendi- ernments usually assume responsibility for opera-

tures for disposal. The ESWMA requires additional tion and maintenance costs through their own

financing for: building capacity to implement the new budgets or user fees.

institutional arrangements; conversion to and opera- * Private Sector Participation. The encouragement

tion of controlled dumps and sanitary landfills; shift of private sector participation can provide invest-

to environmentally-friendly packaging; recycling pro- ment to supplement or replace government fund-

grams; materials recovery facilities; and infectiousmedical and hazardous waste non-burn treatment and 2

'Source: National Income Accounts, DBM

disposal technologies. Preliminary estimates (exclud- GDP 3170 Billion PhP

ing investments by businesses) indicate that additional For Information on programmed public expenditure in National

spending l Budget refer to Philippines-at-a-Glance section.on solid waste management will have to in- 2 2The Investment Coordinating Committee (ICC) of the Nationl Economic

crease by PhP 150 billion (Table 15) over the next ten and Development Authority (NEDA) has adopted a policy of cost sharing

years, or additional per capita cost of PhP200 per year. between the national govemment and local govemments for projects that

Currently, LGUs annually spend between PhP 12 and have social and environmental benefits. While this is being implementedfor green projects (forest management, protected areas, and wildlife) and

250 per capita. Much of the incremental expenditure blue environment (coastal and marine resources), there is no cost sharing

will be dedicated to infrastructure investments in the for capital investments in the brown environment (urban issues).

24

THE TEN CHALLENGES...

Table 15: Estimated Incremental Costs for Implementing the ESWMAbetween 2002 and 2011 (in real terms)'

Item Cost (PhP billion)

Institutional and Regulatory Arrangements for Planning, Monitoring, Enforcement, and Evaluation' 20

Investments Required to Improve Waste Collection and Recycling 58

* Enhanced Collection for Complete Coverage3 5

* Waste Separation at Household (4 bins) and collection4 13

* Collection Vehicles and Haulage Trucks5 30

* Material Recovery Facility' 10

Investments Required for Treatment and Disposal 72

* Shift to Controlled Dumps - Construction, Operation, and Maintenance7 4

* Shift to Sanitary Landfills - Construction, Operation, and Maintenance7 67

* Non-burn Technologies for Infectious Medical Waste Treatment8 1

Total 150

This excludes investments that need to be made by the private sector to shift to environmentally-friendly packaging and treatment and disposal of industrial hazardous waste.

The ESWMA requires the establishment of a National Commission, Technical Secretariat at EMB, an Ecology Center, Provincial Solid Waste Management Board and [GUICity Solid Waste

Management Board. In addition, a national framework, provincial plans, LGU plans, an annuat report, eco-labeling scheme and market mechanism for recyclables need to be in place and

regularly updated.'Incremental costs for achieving 100 percent collection coverage including under-served poor areas.

The Act requires that households or gesup of households to have four different bins. For purposes of costing this is assumed to be at the barangay level and will be replaced every thre

years.Incremental costs for modernizing the collection neet in LGUs.The Acts goal is to achieve 25 percent waste diversion, and this is to be realized through material recovery facilities (MRF) to be set-up in each barangay. The cost of an urban MRF is

approximately PhP500,000, while that of a rural MRF is assumed to be PhP75,000.I The unil cost coefficients are based on actual costs (conversion of San Fernando Disposal Site to controlled dump) and from conceptual designs (for sanitary landfills in Laguna and Cavite).

Assumes all existing open dumps and controlled dumps are converted and the additional disposal needs from enhanced collection mandated under the ESWM are met by the construction

of LGU-Ievel sanitary landfills.This is mandated by the Clean Air Act.

Source: Team Estimates, 2001

ing. Currently, the private sector is only involved tions, which can optimize waste haulage. It will also

as contractors for hauling, while the informal sec- be important for barangays to establish shared ma-

tor has a small role in material recovery enter- terials recovery facilities, as these will be prohibi-

prises. Private sector participation can be encour- tively expensive (50 percent of all barangays have

aged through a regulatory environment that en- annual incomes of less than PhP500,000). Estab-

sures private operators are able to recover their lishment of these facilities could be encouraged

investments through garbage and tipping fees, and through demonstration projects and national or re-

avoid graft and corruption through improved and gional programs that provide an instrument for co-

transparent contractual practices based on perfor- ordination of the LGUs.

mance standards. * Revenues from Landfill Gas Recovery. The gas

User Fees: Investment and/or operational costs produced by landfills can be recovered and either

can be recovered by LGUs or the private sector used as a gas fuel source or combusted to pro-

by charging residential, industrial, and commer- duce electricity. These facilities can be installed

cial users for garbage disposal. Successful fee in operating and closed landfills, and can provide

programs require political support, a quality ser- an LGU or landfill operator with an additional

vice with consumers who understand the value of source of funds to supplement other methods to

the service and are willing to pay for it, and an cover the costs of solid waste management.

efficient fee collection system.Shared Facilities. Substantial cost savings can be 7 Obtaining reliable information for national,

achieved through the establishment of regional fa- regional, and local planning... There are many

cilities that service multiple LGUs. These include gaps in the data available from the local and na-

material recovery facilities and sanitary landfills. The tional-levels. Without proper data, long-term plan-

latter shouldbe served by LGU-specific transfer sta- ning decisions cannot be reliably made, and the risk

25

Chart 4: Incremental Annual Costs of Implementing the EWSMA between 2002-2011

25-

20

c -15Chr I rmeap. t. x e m S 3e)

0 3

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ YA

CD 3 A

- -- Institutional and Regulatory Arrange ments - - - - Treatm ent and Disposal

_2 _- Improved Collection and Recycling 42. Total Incrernental Costs

of crises such as that being experienced by Metro tary conditions and environmental risks (contaminated

Manila is higher. A comprehensive information groundwater and air pollution) and safety risks (ex-

management system along with the establishment plosions and the collapse of garbage piles). Active in-

of local, regional, and national monitoring databases terventions by Government will be needed to help these

linked to decision support systems would greatly communities, including opportunities to expand their

help governments at all levels in making informed, role in waste recycling. For example, social assess-

and sound long-term decisions. ments could be required as part of the development

(<> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~and closure of any disposal site. Programs to help the

e Ensuring proper management of closed dumps communities on operational and closed landfills could

and sanitary landfills ........ The poor management prac- be developed. Equity considerations can be incorpo-

tices at Carmona and San Mateo landfills caused ad- rated into the development of collection systems.

verse public reactions and the landfills' closure. The .

landfill in Cebu is also experiencing major difficul- il ({) Expanding coverage of medical and haz-

ties. Landfill operators should put in place better man- ardous waste treatment. .. The main challenges in-

agement practices that are closely monitored by LGUs clude expanding on-site and off-site treatment fa-

and DENR. Further, the Carmona and San Mateo land- cilities and addressing the issues posed by the imple-

fills, and the Payatas and Smokey Mountain open mentation of the ban on incineration by the Clean

dumps continue to pose significant environmental risks Air Act. Globally, incineration remains a common

to adjacent communities, especially the poor. There is means of treating infectious medical waste and haz-

an urgent need to properly contain these sites and the ardous waste. Implementation of the ban will re-

numerous open dumps to prevent leachate contamina- quire adoption of alternate technologies, which will

tion of water bodies. Methane gas generated by closed take time. In the intervening period, every effort

landfills could be collected and converted to power to should be made to ensure that disposal measures,

reduce the risk of methane gas explosions, while pro- would not result in widespread unsafe and unregu-

viding electricity to local communities. Iated practices. The government, civil society and

mA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~the private sector will need to collaborate to developm2 Protecting the vulnerable and under-served ..,. ................ workable and pragmatic approaches that are cost-

Poor communities are most likely to be adversely af- effective and environmentally sound. In the event,

fectedby, ordonotadequatelybenefitfrom, solidwaste the incineration ban is stayed or delayed for infec-

management strategies. In particular, the poor are cur- tious medical and hazardous wastes, the governmentrently under-served in terms of collection. Some live should ensure that incinerators are carefully oper-

on or near garbage disposal sites (e.g. Payatas and ated, closely regulated, and function in the context

Smokey Mountain) and thus, are exposed to unsani- of an integrated waste management system.

26

CASE STUDY: THE Two FACES OF PAYATAS - POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT

The Payatas open dumpsite, located in Quezon City, has been receiving Metro Manila's garbage, hospital waste, and indus-

trial waste for over 20 years. Right from the beginning, it attracted waste pickers who earn a living by scavenging. The waste

pickers then became illegal settlers in the same location, in appalling, unsanitary living conditions. The adverse environmental

and health conditions created by the dump meant that the site was always under threat of closure, Though plans to close down

the area began in 1999, the attempt was thwarted by both the settlers and middlemen who depended on the dump for their

livelihoods. In July 2000, tragedy struck at Payatas, when heavy rains caused part of the dump in the northern area to slide

carrying with it 60,000 cubic meters of waste. The slide killed 250 people belonging to 700 poor families. This case study

discusses the two sides of Payatas: the efforts to rehabilitate illegal squatter elsewhere; and the organized approach of the

scavengers to improve their lives.

REHABILITATION EFFORTS value to their products and stabilize their incomes. Ac-tivities supported include:

The accident highlighted the need to improve the liv- * Promoting home-based solid waste related micro-

ing conditions of the people in Payatas. Local com- enterprises, by encouraging investments in recy-

munities, with the help of NGOs, the private sector, cling processes that enhance the value of their

and local governments are undertaking three reloca- products, and transform recycled materials into

tion projects in the area: new/exportable products.* 200 families living in the danger zone are being Mobilizing savings through a regular savings pro-

relocated to Bagong Silangan, Quezon City-a gram open to all members of the communities and

two-hectare plot not far from Payatas donated by collected daily by community members. The sav-

the private sector. Atotal of 342 housing units will ings of their 6,115 members from June 1995 to

be provided at a cost of about PhP70,000 per unit. September 2000 amounted to PhP14.2 million.

A training center would also be constructed. Through these funds, they were able to purchase

* Another relocation site is a three-hectare lot in land, expand their businesses, pay for their

San Isidro, Montalban bought by the waste pick- children's tuition fees, buy medicines, and meet

ers at PhP150/sqm. All developments in the area emergency needs. Loans disbursed within the

are being undertaken by the relocatees, including same period amounted to PhP61.5 million-indi-the design and construction of roads, drainage cating that the total amount of money had been

systems, and the houses. So far, 16 shell houses loaned out and paid back four times, creating as-

have been constructed. sets and increasing wealth for households with an

* The Golden Shower Homeowner's Association, average income of only PhP3,500 per month.

formed in 1993, started a savings program, mapped, Encouraging the acquisition of land and construc-

enumerated and surveyed their settlements, and ar- tion of their own houses, and accompanied im-

ranged to put their land titles in order. Plans include provements in living conditions.

the purchase of 3.2 hectares of land which associa- Aside from these activities, the association also has

tion members already occupy They plan to improve programs for children including a center cooperatively

their homes, build new houses, and establish a com- managed by mothers. The center offers working chil-

munity recycling center. After the Payatas incident, dren a place to play, obtain first-aid, sleep, shower,

the Asian Development Bank, through the Japan and get something to eat. Alongside the center is a

Fund for Poverty Reduction, provided a US$1 mil- day care school where mothers take turns teaching and

lion grant to help people with home ownership and feeding children nutritious meals cooked in the court-

on-site improvement. yard outside. The children themselves have initiated asavings scheme for those who are on their own. The

WORKING TOGETHER TO BUILD BETTER LIVES savings scheme is aside from their families'. These

experiences have shown that making savings and credit

In 1993, the community living in Payatas organized the building block of a people-driven community de-

themselves into the Payatas Scavengers Association velopment movement, helps individuals understand

with the support of the Vincentian Missionaries So- their own situation and needs. It develops and promotes

cial Development Foundation. Through this associa- community strength, creates the bargaining chip of

tion, they work to secure their economic future by ac- collective assets, and truly turns poor communities into

cessing the resources and opportunities that will add 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 waterBiodegradable: Capable of decomposition by microorganisms or 1olunder 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: The process of picking up wastes from residences, busi-nesses, or at a collection point, loading them into a 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, and non-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-

Gas control and recovery system: A system designed to collect ondary raw materials (paper, metal, glass, plastics) are obtainedGas cnrladrcvrsytmAsytmdsgetoclet from MSW. The process could 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, humanblood, and blood products, isolation waste, pathological waste,and discarded needles and medical instruments. Source: Adaptedfrom Planning Guidefor Strategic Municipal Solid

Waste Management 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

THE PHILIPPINES AT A GLANCE

Society EconomyCapital ................ 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 populationo i GDP-composition by sectora

Death rate ............ 6.5 deaths/1,000 population,i Agriculture .. ........................ 16%

Net migration rate ...... 1.03 migrants/ 1,000 populationc I Industry .. ........................ 31%

Sex ratio ............ 0.99 male/femalec Services .. ........................ 53%

Total fertility rate ............ 3.6 children bom/womancPoverty (% 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 . .PhP3,302.6Bblive 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 5) ........ 28%, k 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%'iEmployment 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 kmWater . .......... 1,830 sq km Unemployment . ............. JlAMd

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

Coastline . .......... 36,289 kmClimate: 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, copperLand 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 Coordination Board (NSCB), 'National Economic and DevelopmentAuthority (NEDA),f

Human Development Report 2000, B National Income Accounts, Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

29