The 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) 637-5870 December 2001

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 Bank 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.

The Philippines Environment Monitor 2000 presented a snapshot ofgeneral environmental trends in the country. The 2002 edition, currentlyunder preparation, will focus on air quality management.

The Environment’s 11th hour!!!

As highlighted in the 2000 Environment Monitor, the environment and natural resources of thePhilippines is under increasing pressure. 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 running out. As the clock approaches midnight, the problem gets more critical. In the case of 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

garbage 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 same 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.

This document was prepared by a World Bank Team consisting of Messrs./Mdmes. Anjali Acharya, Bebet Gozun, Patchamuthu Illangovan (TeamLeader), John Morton, and Maya Villaluz. The document was peer reviewed by Messrs. Carl Bartone, Dan Hoornweg, L. Panneer Selvam, AllanRotman, and Thomas E. Walton of The World Bank; and Mr. N.C. Vasuki, Chief Executive Officer, Delaware Solid Waste Authority, USA. Commentsand suggestions offered by the following are 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 (NSWMC); Ms. Sonia Mendoza and Mr. Bert Guevara represent-ing the NGOs and League of Barangays in the NSWMC, respectively. Comments were also provided by the following World Bank staff and consult-ants: Messrs./Mdmes. Joven Balbosa, Bhuvan Bhatnagar, Rob Crooks, Giovanna Dore, Jack Fritz, Heidi Hennrich-Hanson, Emma Hooper, MaryJudd, and Kanchalika Klad-Angkul.

Ms. Luisa Sambeli Española 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 by Mr. Brian Luof Liquid Graphics. The document was printed at Inkwell Publishing Company.

Printed on Recycled Paper

PrefaceAbbreviations and Acronyms

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

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

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SOURCES AND GENERATION .............................. 4-5Waste SourcesWaste GenerationWaste Composition

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND COLLECTION ........................... 6-7RecyclingCollectionTransfer and Transport

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL............................. 8-13CompostingOpen and Controlled DumpingSanitary LandfillsLandfill Gas Collection and Use

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING,TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL.................................................................. 14-17

GenerationRecyclingTreatment and Disposal

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

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

Case Study: The Two Faces of Payatas ................................................. 27Glossary of Terms .................................................................................. 28Philippines at a Glance

Table of Contents

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.

PREFACE

Robert V. PulleyCountry Director, PhilippinesEast Asia and Pacific RegionThe World Bank

Zafer EcevitSector DirectorEnvironment and Social DevelopmentEast Asia and Pacific RegionThe World Bank

Bln. BillionBOD Bio-chemical Oxygen DemandBTU British Thermal UnitCALABARZON Provinces of Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, and QuezónCCBPI 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

Abbreviations and Acronyms

1

Solid Waste Management in the Philippines– At a Glance, 2001 –

Indicator Value

Solid waste generated by households (tons/year) 10 millionToxic and hazardous waste generated by industrial/commercial sector (tons/year) 2.4 millionHazardous and infectious waste generated by

hospitals (tons/year) 6,750Share of municipal waste generated that is Urban – 70%

collected Rural – 40%Waste recycling and re-use as a percent of

total waste generated (Metro Manila) 12%Recycled material sold as a percentage of

total waste generated (Metro Manila) 5%No. of proper solid waste disposal sites

• Landfills 1• Closed landfills 2• Controlled dumps 17

No. of hospital waste incinerators 43No. of hazardous waste treatment facilities 28Share of municipal solid waste disposed in landfills

and controlled dumps 2%Share of hospitals with access to incinerators in

Metro Manila 50%Share of hazardous waste treated or recycled 5%Per capita allocation in LGUs (range PhP) 12 – 250Share of solid waste management in LGU budget 1% - 12%

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - DOWN IN THE DUMPS!

SOLID 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-posal facilities 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 Genera-tion. A Filipino generatesbetween 0.3 and 0.7 ki-lograms of garbage dailydepending upon incomelevels. The current an-nual generation of 10million tons is expectedto increase by 40 percentat the end of the decade.The National CapitalRegion and SouthernTagalog Region producethe highest amount ofwaste, accounting for 23and 13 percent of thecountry’s production,respectively.

• Recycling and Collec-tion. Inadequate collec-tion vehicles and lack ofdisposal sites have con-tributed to a reduction inthe collection efficiencyof household waste. Sev-enty percent of the gar-bage is collected in ur-

a small portion is recycled.The rest is disposed in opendumps. Carmona in CaviteProvince and San Mateo inRizal Province were the firstlandfills to be constructed.These sites have since beenclosed, which triggered thecurrent garbage crisis inMetro Manila. In SanFernando, La Union,Valenzuela, and Duma-guete, open dumping hasbeen replaced by controlleddumping. The only sanitarylandfill in the country is lo-cated in Cebu, which is cur-rently experiencing operat-ing problems.

• Toxic and HazardousWastes. Just over 5 percentof the estimated hazardouswaste generation of nearly2.4 million tons is recycledor treated annually. Hospi-tals in the country generate6,750 tons/year of hazard-

ban areas, while only 40 percent is collected in ruralareas. Many of the poor neighborhoods in the countryare under-served. Separate collection of segregatedwaste is still minimal. Thirteen percent of MetroManila’s waste is recycled, while it is much less inother areas.

• Treatment and Disposal. Nationally, only 2 percent ofthe waste generated is disposed in sanitary landfills orcontrolled dumps. Nearly 10 percent is composted, and

ous and infectious waste. Some of this waste is inciner-ated. However, the Clean Air Act of 2000 prohibits theoperation of all incinerators after November 2003.

Waste recycling and disposal have always attractedwide attention in the Philippines. Many non-govern-mental organizations (NGOs) have been active sincethe early 1990s through recycling programs such asZero Waste Recycling Movement and Linis Ganda. Inrecent times, many civil society and community orga-

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - DOWN IN THE DUMPS!

nizations have opposed improper management of opendumps and landfills, the siting of future facilities, andincineration of waste. Their sustained efforts led to thedrafting of RA 9003 also known as the Ecological SolidWaste Management Act of 2000 (ESWMA), which wassigned into law early this year. This law replaces thepiecemeal provisions previously covered in severallaws, and for the first time, provides an integrated na-tional framework for environmentally-friendly solidwaste management. The Act has set very ambitiousgoals, and their achievement will be a major challengefor all sectors of the society. The finalization of thelaw’s implementing rules and regulations need to beexpedited.

While public awareness has been growing, it is not yetsufficiently mature to support appropriate and suitablemanagement practices. The “Not In My BackYard”(NIMBY) syndrome has compelled many local govern-ments to abandon or defer plans to establish compostingplants, controlled dumps, and sanitary landfills. A casein point is the situation in Metro Manila. Since the pub-licly-demanded closure of the Carmona and San Mateolandfills, the metropolis has been buried in its own wastewith few alternatives aside from open dumping. This willlikely exacerbate public sentiment against sanitary land-fills, the most suitable and cost-effective option for thesafe disposal of Metro Manila’s residual waste in thecontext of an integrated system.

Except for a handful of Local Government Units(LGUs), the performance of cities and municipalitiesin the provision of services to collect and dispose solidwaste has been poor. This can be attributed to LGUs’weak capacity, inadequate budget, limited understand-ing of appropriate and cost-effective practices, andweak enforcement of regulations. Further, the lack ofa cost-sharing formula between the national govern-ment and LGUs for financing capital costs is also ham-pering the establishment of proper disposal facilities.The City Development Strategies being piloted by afew cities and municipalities provide an opportunityfor LGUs to integrate solid waste management inter-ventions in the overall investment planning and insti-tutional development framework.

There are ten key challenges that the country needsto address to achieve the goals of the ESWMA.These include:

1. Strengthening enforcement and providing better in-centives. The current lax enforcement situation needsto be improved to make the ESWMA an effective pieceof legislation. In addition, providing incentives wouldreduce waste generation at source and improve man-agement of waste disposal facilities.

2. Building the capacity of national and local institu-tions. Capacity building for LGUs and barangaysand improving strategic planning at all levels of gov-ernment will be necessary.

3. Addressing the NIMBY syndrome. This has pre-vented the siting of solid waste management (SWM)facilities and could be addressed through betterawareness and consultation, and the demonstrationof safe landfill practices.

4. Raising public awareness on the benefits of propersolid waste management. Support and participationof the people in SWM programs will be key to thesuccessful implementation of the ESWMA.

5. Increasing expenditures on SWM. A back-of-the-envelope analysis indicates that the Philippines willneed to spend an additional PhP150 billion (US$3billion) over the next 10 years for SWM.

6. Mainstreaming the utilization of new fundingsources and employing cost-effective approaches.New funding sources such as national governmentcost sharing; private sector participation; and userfees should be explored along with cost saving mea-sures, such as shared facilities and producing powerusing landfill gas.

7. Obtaining reliable information for national, regional,and local planning. Without proper data, long-termplanning decisions cannot be made.

8. Ensuring proper management of closed dumps andsanitary landfills. The environmental and health risksof closed dumps and landfills will need to be mini-mized.

9. Protecting the vulnerable and the under-served. Thisincludes scavengers and poor communities.

10. Expanding coverage of infectious medical and haz-ardous waste treatment. Effective implementationof the law will require a concerted effort that fo-cuses exclusively on the practicalities of establish-ing safe and effective disposal practices in the shortand long term.

Most importantly, the Philippines should avoid anotherSmokey Mountain or Payatas open dump situation fromre-emerging!

3

WASTE GENERATION MAP

4

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SOURCES AND GENERATION

Solid waste streams are generally characterized bytheir sources, generation rates, types of wastes, andcomposition.

WASTE SOURCES

Solid wastes originate from a wide range of domestic(residential), industrial, agricultural, institutional, munici-pal, and commercial sources including households, manu-facturers, hospitals, street sweeping activities, and mar-kets. In the Philippines, the predominant sources of solidwaste are household and commercial activities.

WASTE GENERATION

Ten million tons of municipal solid waste was gen-erated in 2000… Waste generation rates are affectedby socio-economic development, degree of industri-alization, and climate. Generally, the greater a country’seconomic prosperity and the larger its urban popula-tion, the greater the amount of solid waste generated.It is estimated that in 2000, the 76 million Filipinosgenerated over ten million tons of municipal solidwaste and this is expected to increase by 40 percentduring the current decade (see table 2).

Metro Manila accounts for a quarter of the nationalwaste generation… Metro Manila produces about 2.5million tons/year or a quarter of the country’s gener-ated waste as a whole. The generation rate in Manilahas grown 4.5 percent annually in the last four years.1

It has been estimated that people living in urban areasincluding Metro Manila produces between 0.5-0.7 kg/day, while those in rural areas generate 0.3 kg/person/day.2 These values are comparable to other lowermiddle income countries. Metro Manila currently is amajor contributor to national GDP, and therefore, hasthe highest consumption rates and consequent wastegeneration. Eventually, as the rest of the country de-velops, Metro Manila’s share will begin to decline asother urban centers generate more waste.

1MMDA Survey, December 2000.2Urban Environment and Solid Waste Management Study, GHK/MRMInternational Ltd. 1994; CALA Urban Development and EnvironmentStudy, 1996; JICA/MMDA, 1999.

Table 1: Sources and Types of Solid Wastes

Source Types of solid wastes

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

Industrial Housekeeping wastes, packaging, foodwastes, construction and demolition materi-als, hazardous wastes, and ashes.

Commercial Paper, cardboard, plastics, wood, foodwastes, glass, metals, special wastes, andhazardous wastes.

Institutional Same as commercial

Construction Wood, steel, concrete, dirt, etc.

Municipal services Street sweepings, landscape and tree trim-mings, and general wastes from parks,beaches, sludge.

Processes Industrial process wastes, scrap materials, off-specification products, slag, tailings.

Agriculture Spoiled food wastes, agricultural wastes,and hazardous wastes.

Source: What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. Urban Development SectorUnit, East Asia and Pacific Region, World Bank, May 1999.

Table 2: National Waste Generation, 2000-2010Region Waste Generation

2000 2010Mln. % of Mln. % ofT/yr. total T/yr. total

National Capital Region 2.45 23.0 3.14 22.3Cordillera AR 0.17 1.6 0.21 1.5Ilocos 0.50 4.7 0.63 4.5Cagayan Valley 0.32 3.0 0.40 2.8Central Luzon 0.96 9.0 1.32 9.4Southern Tagalog 1.42 13.3 2.11 15Bicol 0.54 5.1 0.65 4.6Western Visayas 0.82 7.7 1.00 7.1Central Visayas 0.74 7.0 1.01 7.2Eastern Visayas 0.43 4.0 0.51 3.6Western Mindanao 0.40 3.8 0.53 3.8Northern Mindanao 0.37 3.4 0.47 3.4Southern Mindanao 0.70 6.6 0.97 6.9Central Mindanao 0.33 3.1 0.41 2.9ARMM 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:

national capital region: 0.71 kg/person/dayurban population: 0.5 kg/person/dayrural population: 0.3 kg/person/day

It was assumed that the urban population would increase their waste production rate by 1percent per year due to rising income levels (based on GHK/MRM International Report).Urban and rural population, and growth rates by region are based on National StatisticalOffice, data for 2000.

5

WASTE COMPOSITION

Waste composition is influenced by factors such as lo-cation, living standards, and weather. The composi-tion of solid waste affects the selection and operationof collection and disposal equipment and facilities, thefeasibility of resource and energy recovery, and thedesign of disposal facilities.

Metro Manila’s waste is highly organic and recy-clable... Forty-nine percent of Metro Manila’s munici-pal waste is biodegradable and includes large amountsof kitchen waste and to a lesser extent, garden waste.This high percentage of biodegradable waste indicatesthat it could be used as compost. There is also a greatpotential for recycling, as 42 percent of the waste ismade of recyclable items such as paper, plastic, andmetal.

HOUSEHOLD SEGREGATION

Household segregation involves sorting garbage at itssource according to its characteristics or re-use poten-tial, where common kitchen waste, recyclables (pa-per, bottles, glass, etc.) and hazardous wastes (batter-ies, etc.), are placed in separate containers. Thoughwaste in the country has high composition of organicmatter and recyclables, household segregation is notwidely practiced. The ESWMA now mandates house-hold segregation.

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 improperincineration contributes significantly to urban air pollution. Greenhouse gases are generated from the decomposition of organicwastes 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 municipalwaste. Insect and rodent vectors are attracted to the waste and can spread disease such as cholera and dengue fever. Using waterpolluted by solid waste for bathing, food, irrigation, and drinking can also expose individuals to disease organisms and othercontaminants. Waste workers and pickers are seldom protected from direct contact and injury, and the co-disposal of hazardousand medical wastes with municipal wastes poses a serious health threat. Exhaust fumes from vehicles, dust stemming from disposalpractices, 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, May1999.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SOURCES AND GENERATION

Table 3: Country Comparisons inMunicipal Waste Generation Rate

Waste GenerationCity and Country Rate (kg/cap/day)

Industrialized countries:New York, USA 1.80Hamburg, Germany 0.85Rome, Italy 0.69Middle-income countries:Cairo, Egypt 0.50Kano, Nigeria 0.46Manila, Philippines 0.60Tunis, Tunisia 0.56Low-income countries:Calcutta, India 0.51Karachi, Pakistan 0.50Jakarta, Indonesia 0.60

Source: What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. Urban Development SectorUnit, East Asia and Pacific Region, World Bank. May 1999.

Chart 1: Municipal Waste Composition inMetro Manila, 1999

Paper19%

Plastic17%

Metal6%

GardenWaste

7%Others9%

Kitchenwaste42%

Source: The Study on Hazardous Waste Management in the Republic of thePhilippines, JICA, June 2001.

6

RECYCLING

Recycling opportunities are not fully harnessed…In the Philippines, only a small portion of the solidwaste is recycled or composted, despite the existenceof a relatively large market for compost and used prod-ucts made from recycled plastics, glass bottles, scrappaper, and scrap metals. Recovery of recyclable ma-terials occurs at three stages: at the household level,during collection time, and at open dumpsites. Junkdealers buy recyclable wastes from households, whilewaste pickers manually sort through waste at source,transfer stations, and dumpsites. Palero or garbagetruck helpers also recover recyclables from the collec-tion trucks to augment their income.

Recycling efforts in Metro Manila are on the rise…In 1997, only 6 percent of solid waste was recycled inMetro Manila.3 By December 2000, it increased to 13percent due to the concerted effort by Metro Manila De-velopment Authority (MMDA)4 and NGOs to promotewaste segregation at the source, composting, and recy-cling. Additional support was also provided with thepassage of the MMDA Ordinance in 1999, which man-dates source segregation. With the operation of two newrecycling and composting facilities handling 200 tons/day each, recycling is expected to further increase.

A growing number of LGUs in the country are nowimplementing integrated waste management, whichincludes waste reduction, composting, recycling,and re-use.5 Estimates had shown that trade in wastematerials has increased in volume by 39 percent,and in value by 47 percent in 2000 compared to 1998(see table 4)6.

COLLECTION

The country-wide collection efficiency in the Philip-pines is estimated to be 40 percent, although majortowns and cities show average collection rates of upto 70 percent.7 The poorer areas of cities, municipali-ties, and rural barangays are typically unserved or un-der-served.

3JICA-MMDA 1999.4MMDA Ordinance 1999.5PPSO Report of DENR Performance.6Report of the Metro Manila Federation of Environment Multi-PurposeCooperative, Bong Teves, March 1, 2000.7Pasig River Rehabilitation Program, DENR/DANIDA, 1990-1991.

Box 2: Recycling Initiatives

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottles andAluminum CansTo promote the recycling of PET plastics and re-duce plastic waste, the Department of Science andTechnology (DOST)-Industrial Technology Develop-ment Institute (ITDI) and PET manufacturers andusers formed the PET Recycling Task Force. The sameefforts were also made by Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil-ippines, Inc. (CCBPI), Rotary Clubs and Now Trad-ing Concepts, which manage 13 PET and alumi-num can recovery centers. Empty coke PET contain-ers may be redeemed at fifty centavos per container.In just eight months of operation, 1,100,337 PETbottles and 1,363,115 aluminum cans have beenrecovered and re-used.

Polystyrene Based MaterialsPolystyrene (PS) is widely used as packaging ma-terial in fast food outlets, schools, and packing in-dustries. Faced with an increasing PS generation,20 PS manufacturers formed the Polystyrene Pack-aging Council of the Philippines (PPCP) and to-gether set up a PS recycling plant in Sta. Maria,Bulacan. In 1996, PPCP, Ayala Foundation, Metro-politan Environmental Improvement Program(MEIP), Department of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR), and some private and govern-ment agencies started the project at fast food out-lets within the Makati Commercial Center. Between1997 and 2000, the amount of PS packaging ma-terial recovered and recycled nearly doubled from67,540 kgs to 123,001 kgs.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND COLLECTION

Table 4: Waste Recovery in Metro Manila

Material ValueYear Purchased (million pesos)

1998 69,400 95.2

1999 95,600 124.5

2000 101,850 132.5

Source: Report of the Metro Manila Federation of EnvironmentMulti-Purpose Cooperative, Bong Teves, March 1, 2001.

7

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-complete collection could be attributed to the limitednumber and inappropriate collection vehicles, absenceof transfer points, traffic congestion, and lack of enforce-ment of and compliance with, rules and regulations. Withthe closure of the San Mateo and Carmona sanitary land-fills, and the difficulty in siting a new landfill, waste col-lection has further decreased.

TRANSFER AND TRANSPORT

Transfer systems serve to reduce the hauling distancesfor collection trucks, thus enabling a lower collectioncost. Such stations are appropriate for large cities,where there are long hauling distances to the final dis-posal site.

In Metro Manila, solid wastes collected by dump trucksare taken to a transfer station in Las Piñas, where itwas transferred to larger trucks before taken to theCarmona landfill. With the closure of the Carmonaand San Mateo landfills, the Las Piñas transfer stationhas been converted into a materials recovery facility,where compostable and recyclable materials are re-covered. In addition, Marikina City also operates itsown transfer station.

8The study of SWM for Metro Manila, Final Report, JICA/MMDA, March1999.

Box 3: Linis Ganda:A Case Study in Recycling

In 2000, Metro Manila Linis Ganda, Inc., a NGO, pur-chased 101,850 tons of waste paper, corrugated boards,cutlets, plastics, and metals worth PhP132.5 million. Theserecyclable materials were, in turn, sold to factories. LinisGanda organized the Federation of Multi-purpose Coop-eratives, an association of 17 environmental cooperativeswith 572 member junk shops employing more than 1,000eco-aides. Members of the cooperative are granted loanswithout collateral; eco-aides are also given seed money tobuy recyclables.

Only 4.5 percent of waste generated in Metro Manilaare recycled by Linis Ganda. The group hopes to in-crease its recycling activities to 15 percent. The expan-sion would require 1000 additional junk shops and 2,500eco-aides.

Table 5: Examples of User Fees in thePhilippines

City User Fees

Cagayan de Oro City Commercial and Industrial: P1500-2000 (maximum)

Lipa City Household: P10/month billed with wa-ter supply

Olongapo City Household: P30 – P40/month collectedthrough 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 collectedthrough business permits

Source: Report from each city, August 2001.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND COLLECTION

8

TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

Treatment methods include composting, anaerobic di-gestion, incineration, and sanitary landfilling (see Box4). Disposal only includes the final deposition of re-jects from composting or digestion. Other materialswill be land applied as a recovered resource.

Composting and landfilling are the most suitabletechnologies… Household solid waste reachingopen dumpsites in the Philippines is high in mois-ture and organic content, and low in calorific value,similar to most developing countries in Asia.Composting and sanitary landfilling are thus themost suitable technologies for treatment and dis-posal, while incineration (or burning) is relativelyineffective and expensive.

Efficient and proper disposal systems for solidwastes are lacking… Illegal open dumping remainsthe most prevalent form of disposal in the country.Controlled dumps and sanitary landfills are few.Composting, though gaining in popularity, remains lim-ited to only a few neighborhoods and local govern-ments. Incineration is restricted to treatment of infec-tious medical and hazardous wastes.

COMPOSTING

Composting has largely been a community-based ac-tivity promoted by NGOs, people’s organizations, and,in some instances, by local governments through thebarangays. It can be done by households, homeowners’associations or barangays. Composting systems canrange from simple backyard compost pits to moremechanized processes.

While many communities produce soil conditionersfor their own use, others have opted to produce com-post or organic fertilizers commercially. The Depart-ment of Agriculture is now actively promoting the useof organic fertilizers. Coupled with the growing de-mand for organically grown food, the market for com-post and organic fertilizers is also growing, but no de-mand estimates are available nor is the quality of com-post known. Government support and encouragementfor composting activities is also limited.

Box 4: Treatment and DisposalOptions for Municipal Solid Waste

Disposal in controlled dump or sanitary landfill: Thewaste is placed, compacted and covered on an areaof land in a controlled fashion. Controlled dumpshave basic environmental amenities: site is fenced,scavenging is organized, waste is covered by soildaily, fires are extinguished and stormwater is re-routed around the site so it does not mix with thewaste. They are more environmentally sound thanopen dumps but do not provide full protection againstenvironmental and public health hazards. Sanitarylandfills are similar but built and operated with fullenvironmental controls including a liner, leachatetreatment, and the flaring of gas produced by thedecomposition of the waste. Both methods of disposalare cost-effective and relatively simple to operate.

Composting: The decomposition of organic wastes un-der controlled conditions to produce soil conditioners,compost or organic fertilizers. Generally done to re-duce the amount of waste going into landfill. Necessi-tates source separation of the organic portion of the solidwaste and a market for the end products.

Anaerobic Digestion: The breakdown of organic mat-ter by bacteria in the absence of oxygen, resulting in theproduction of biogas that can be combusted as a fuelsource and a sludge that can be further composted foruse as a soil enhancer. Generally done to reduce theamount of waste going into landfills. Necessitates sourceseparation of the organic portion of the solid waste andresidue should be re-used, treated or disposed.

Incineration: Generally it allows unsorted, non- bulkysolid wastes to be fed directly into the furnace andcombusted. The process produces ash, which gener-ally is landfilled as well as gas and liquid emissionsthat require treatment. Significantly reduces theamount of waste to be landfilled and requires verylittle land. However, high moisture content and lowcalorific value makes the municipal solid waste inthe Philippines technically unsuitable for incineration.In addition, the high capital and operating costs tofully combust the waste in an environmentally soundway, make it cost prohibitive for use in treatment ofmunicipal solid waste in the Philippines.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

9

OPEN AND CONTROLLED DUMPING

Uncontrolled open dumps have no environmental safe-guards, pose major public health threats, and affect thelandscape of a city. In contrast, controlled dumps havebasic environmental amenities and place, compact, andcover waste in a controlled fashion.

Until recently, the Metro Manila region, except forMarikina and Malabon, which had its own disposalsite, disposed of its waste in the Payatas open dump,and the Carmona and San Mateo landfills. With theclosure of the two landfills, Metro Manila now dis-poses its garbage in open and controlled dumpsites inCatmon, Malabon; R10 Vitas, Tondo; and BarangayLingonan, Valenzuela.

The Payatas dumpsite in Quezon City was partiallyreopened and only accepts waste generated in QuezonCity (about 1,200 tons/day). There are also 12 smallopen dumpsites in Metro Manila.

For the rest of the country, it was estimated in 1999that each of the 1,607 LGUs operates and maintainsits own temporary or permanent dumpsite. Of these,226 open dumpsites have been identified by the Na-tional Solid Waste Management Commission(NSWMC) as of July 2001. About 37 percent ofthese have been inspected by the NSWMC for,among other things, complaints by residents, re-quests for assistance by local chief executives, andenvironmental compliance with prescribed site re-quirements. According to Environmental Manage-

Box 5: Composting Facility of BarangaySun Valley, Parañaque City

In 1997, the Barangay Council at Brgy. Sun Valleyin Parañaque City established a composting facil-ity for biodegradable waste collected from 800households of the area. As of 2000, a total of 2,500households (50 percent) were participating. Aboutone ton of waste per day was being processed atthe facility, resulting in a 35 percent reduction inthe amount of waste that has to be collected anddisposed.

The Barangay invested around PhP500,000 to setup and operate the facility, which has two compostreactors, a mixer, a shredder, and four pedicabsused for the collection of biodegradables. Asidefrom using lactobacilli activators, vermi-compostingis also practiced.

A less expensive scheme to compost the biodegrad-able waste from the poorer communities within thebarangay was recently implemented. Processing ofal l the biodegradable waste is done in thecommunity’s basketball court. The processed mate-rials are placed in sacks and transported to thebarangay center.

Harvested compost is sold at P5.00/kg or P120/50kg bag. Vermicast is sold at P35/kg. To get themost value from its compost, the barangay is nowfinalizing an agreement with the municipality ofMaragondon in Cavite to use their farmlands forgrowing organic vegetables.

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

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

10

ment Bureau (EMB), 17 open dumps have beenconverted to controlled dumps (see Box 7).

SANITARY LANDFILLS

Environmental and social concerns caused the clo-sure of two landfills in Metro Manila... In recentyears, Metro Manila has been continuously grapplingwith a garbage disposal crisis. The two landfills oper-ated by the MMDA—Carmona in Cavite Province andSan Mateo in Rizal Province were designed as sani-tary landfills but not constructed or operated as ones.These are now closed. Collectively, the two landfillsaccommodated between 40 and 50 percent of MetroManila’s daily garbage output. Since their closure,piles of uncollected garbage could be found through-out Metro Manila, threatening the health and safety ofresidents.

On the average, the San Mateo and Carmona landfillsreceived daily 1,800 and 73010 tons of solid waste, re-spectively. Both sites were closed due to environmentaland social concerns10 such as foul odor and contamina-tion of adjoining ground water and surface water.

Both sites contain over 23 million cubic meters of de-grading waste. Leachate from the two sites continuesto contaminate ground water. Recent studies11 indi-cate that the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) qual-ity of effluent from leachate treatment plants at bothsites exceeded permissible standards (San Mateo –10,000 mg/l; Carmona – 3,500 mg/l12,13). This indi-cates that the treatment systems employed at both sitesare not functioning properly.

No restoration plans are in place for the twosites… Normally when sanitary landfills are closedor capped, the facility owner is required to imple-ment a post-closure program. This includes stormwater drainage, leachate treatment and monitoring,and gas flaring or recovery and landscaping. Al-though it is a regulatory requirement, such a pro-

10A waste density of 250 kg/m3 has been assumed.11Environmental Management Bureau, 1998.12Analysis of leachate quality in San Mateo 1999 and Carmona 1996-97.13Monitoring data from EMB. Standards for effluents for Class C inlandwater bodies is 50 mg/l.

Box 6: Dangers of Controlled Dumps andLandfills: Leachate and Gas

As water percolates through the solid waste in landfills, itabsorbs chemicals and microorganisms present in the pu-trefying materials. The uncontrolled discharge of liquidformed in solid waste dumps or landfills, known as leachate,contaminates ground and surface waters, and thus, poseenvironmental and public health risks to the local area.

Various gases are produced because organic matter inthe landfill decomposes through the action of anaerobicmicroorganisms—bacteria that flourish in the absence ofair. While some of these gases are relatively harmless,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-monly flared or combusted for energy in order to reducethe risk of explosion and mitigate its effect as a green-house gas.

Source: Adapted Solid Waste Management for Local Govern-ments, DENR, 1996.

Table 7: Status of Dumpsites inMetro Manila, 2001

Type of Dumpsite Location Status

Catmon, Malabon In operation

Open Payatas, Closed July 10, 2000dumpsite Quezon City but partly reopened

in Feb. 2001

R 10, Vitas, Tondo In operation

Controlled Brgy. Lingonan In operationdumpsite Valenzuela

Sanitary San Mateo, Rizal Closed Dec. 2000landfill Carmona, Cavite Closed Apr. 1998

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

Table 8: Waste disposed at San Mateo andCarmona landfills (m3 per year)

Year San Mateo Carmona*

1991 258,880 –1992 344,562 –1993 572,715 133,8711994 1,259,792 552,9351995 1,799,300 957,5181996 1,865,994 2,114,1171997 2,174,942 1,761,4291998 2,965,007 293,6311999 2,734,347 –2000 3,270,090 –

Source: PMO-MMDANote: * Carmona Sanitary Landfill closed in April 1998.

11

gram is not in place at either of the sites. Whilethese sites had landfill gas vents, there were no gasrecovery facilities. The poor construction and faultyoperation of the sites resulted in a negative percep-tion of sanitary landfills among the general public.This, combined with the NIMBY syndrome, hascaused problems in the siting of landfills in thecountry, especially for Metro Manila, where theproblem is particularly acute.

The Cebu Landfill is facing operational difficul-ties… The only active sanitary landfill in the coun-try which began operations in September 1998, islocated in Cebu. It receives 400 tons daily and wasdesigned to have a life of 6-7 years. Technical prob-lems have closed down its materials recovery facil-ity due to mismatch of equipment between collec-tion vehicles and the recycling facility. This condi-tion constrained recycling efforts and increased thedaily volume of waste disposed in the landfill.

Landfill gas is vented through a series of horizon-tal and vertical pipes. However, the leachate treat-ment pond serves only as an impounding basin,which discharges partially treated leachate to thesurrounding area, causing the adjacent communi-ties to complain. Unless immediate corrective ac-tion is taken, this landfill could be closed.

LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION AND USE

Landfills produce large quantities of greenhousegases… Landfill gas, a gas similar to natural gas,is produced during the decomposition of wastes inlandfills and dumps and typically contains 50 per-cent of the potent greenhouse gas methane. Meth-ane affects global warming 21 times more than car-bon dioxide. Waste disposal sites are estimated 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 othercountries. For example, in Mexico and Thailand,pilot demonstration projects are being implementedto encourage the development of similar projectsnationwide and regionwide.

Box 7: Open to Controlled Dump – Pioneering Efforts of San Fernando,

La UnionThe city of San Fernando, La Union is located in Region Iand has a population of 102,000. It generates an averageof 52 tons of waste per day of which 45 percent is currentlycollected. Disposal was a big issue, particularly for citycouncil, which wanted to promote the city as a viable in-vestment area in Northern Luzon.

Encouraged by a study tour on Solid Waste Managementin the USA, the Mayor and city officials initiated the shift oftheir city’s waste disposal system from open dumping tocontrolled dumping, while preparing for a full-fledged sani-tary landfill.

To reduce the volume of waste to be disposed, collectedwaste undergoes secondary sorting at the disposal site. Thisrecovery of recyclable and re-usable materials is under-taken by the barangay, providing them with additional rev-enue. At the same time, the residents in the city were taughtto segregate their wastes at source.

The site is managed in cells where the residual waste is firstcompacted and then covered with soil. To improve theaesthetics of the site, ylang ylang trees, known for its fra-grant flowers, were planted all over. Bougainvillea treesand other ornamental plants were also planted along theperiphery of the site.

The controlled dumpsite in San Fernando now serves as amodel for other local governments in the country. It has beenvisited by over 9,000 representatives of national and localgovernments, NGOs, the private sector, and donor institu-tions. It is living proof that waste management can be imme-diately improved if only there is political will to do so.

The construction of the sanitary landfill would be supportedby a loan being obtained from the Land Bank of the Philip-pines through the World Bank-assisted Local GovernmentFinance and Development (LOGOFIND) Project.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

12

The Philippines can harness opportunities to con-vert landfill gas to energy… Collection and utili-zation of landfill gas presents an opportunity to: (i)supplement LGUs’ revenues from solid wastes; (ii)control localized emissions, such as volatile organiccompounds (VOCs), found in landfill gas; (iii) mini-mize the risks from explosion that may arise fromthe build-up of methane and other flammable gases;and (iv) reduce emissions of greenhouse gases aspart of the Government’s commitment to the KyotoProtocol.

During the next decade, wastes generated inMetro 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-veloped as part of new disposal sites. These wouldbe most suitable in sanitary landfills in urban ar-eas, where large quantities of waste may exist. Forexample, if landfill gas facilities are installed in allof the disposal sites that would be accepting wastefrom Metro Manila, these facilities could collectapproximately 500 million m3 of methane and pro-duce 1,000 GWh of energy over the next 10 years.14

This amount of energy is enough to power 8,500homes. Similarly, over the same period of time, asmaller city like Cebu could capture 35 million m3

of methane and power 600 homes.15 As landfillscan produce gas for decades, landfill gas facilitiescould also be developed in closed disposal sites.This is a particularly attractive option for the closedlandfills at Carmona and San Mateo.

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

14Calculated 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.15Ibid

Table 9: Methane Emissions in the Philippines in 1990

Source Emissions (Gg) %

Agriculture 904 61Waste 324 22-solid waste 173 12-wastewater 151 10Energy 228 15Land Use and Forestry 18 1Total 1,474 100

Source: Asia Least-cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy, Philippines, ADB/GEF/UNDP, October 1998.

Table 10: Potential Benefits of Landfill Gas to EnergyProjects in Disposal Sites in Metro Manila.14

San Mateo Carmona Payatas

Facility capacity (MW) 5.2 2.2 3.3

No. of houses powered 3,874 1,639 2,459

Rate of return oninvestment (%) 20 19 17

Methane avoided(mill m3/yr.) 17.0 6.0 8.0

Volatile Organic Compounds(VOCs) emissions avoided(tons/yr.) 25.9 9.4 12.5

Source: USEPA, 1999.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

13

Box 8: Some International Experiencesin Landfill Gas Utilization

United States: The landfill gas industry in the USis the largest in the world. It grew rapidly from86 operational projects in 1990 to 330 today.With a combined capacity of 900 MW, approxi-mately two-thirds of those projects use landfill gasfor electricity generation. Many of the remainingprojects use the gas for a wide variety of purposesincluding commercial fuel (high and medium BTUand liquefied natural gas), leachate evaporation,boilers, and greenhouses.

Chile: Chile currently has four facilities that col-lect landfill gas and feed it into a gas distributionnetwork for its direct use as gas fuel. In Santiago,landfill gas is able to satisfy 40 percent of the de-mand of the city’s gas distribution network, and isalso sent to a nearby food processing plant foruse as a fuel source for the plant’s boilers. In thecity of Valparaiso, the landfill gas is mixed withmanufactured gas for use by households and in-dustry.

Mexico: Although open dumping is still preva-lent, Mexico’s solid waste sector and the technolo-gies used have gradually grown in sophisticationin the last 15 years resulting in increased collec-tion efficiency and a larger proportion of wastedisposed 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-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.

Sources:US: Introduction to Landfill Gas Use and the US LandfillGas Industry, USEPA- LMOP, June 25, 2001.Chile: Bartone and Ahmed, Landfill Gas and CompostingStrategy for LCR, World Bank, 2001. Biogas Recoveryfrom Sanitary Landfill Sites in Santiago, Chile: A CaseStudy, Julio Monreal, September 1998 and personalcommunication with Francisco Zapeda.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

help mitigate current environmental problems, re-duce future risks like explosions, and contribute tothe socio-economic uplift of communities throughthe provision of electricity.

A national strategy for landfill gas manage-ment… To investigate the potential of landfill gasutilization, the Government should formulate anappropriate national strategy. Such a frameworkcould consider approaches for: (i) incorporatinglandfill gas management in the planning, design,and construction of future landfill sites, the opera-tion of existing landfills, and the rehabilitation ofclosed landfills; (ii) introducing landfill gas man-agement in the process of converting open dumpsto sanitary landfills; (iv) targeting the most suitabledisposal sites and technological options consider-ing the quality of operation and condition of thelandfill, gas generation potential, and financial vi-ability of different technological options; (v) deter-mining the most viable institutional arrangements,including public-private partnerships; (iv) minimiz-ing the legislative and regulatory barriers; and (iv)obtaining financing via the private sector or usingclimate change institutional mechanisms such asgrants from the Global Environmental Facility inthe short term and credits from the global carbontrade envisioned under the Kyoto Protocol in thelong term.

14

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

HAZARDOUS WASTES

Hazardous wastes are wastes which, by themselves orafter coming into contact with other wastes, have char-acteristics, such as chemical reactivity, toxicity, cor-rosiveness or a tendency to explode, that pose a risk tohuman health or the environment.

Hazardous wastes are generated from a wide range ofindustrial, commercial, agricultural, and to a much lessextent, domestic activities. They may take the form ofsolids, liquids or sludges, and can pose both acute andchronic public health and environmental risks.

GENERATION

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.16

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. Themajor waste classes include inorganic chemical wastes,alkali wastes, putrescibles, acid wastes, and oils.17

Thirty-four percent of the estimated hazardous wasteproduction is in the National Capital Region (NCR),while 27 percent is in Region IV.

MEDICAL WASTES

The 18,500 hospitals (with 90,000 beds) in the coun-try generate about 6,750 tons of infectious wastes an-nually or 18 tons daily.18 Forty-seven percent of thiswaste is generated in the NCR, while Region IV ac-counts for 12 percent.

Chart 2: Hazardous Waste Generation,by Type

16The Study on Hazardous Waste Management in the Republic of thePhilippines, JICA, June 2001.17Ibid18Team computation, 2001.

RECYCLING

About 25 percent of the total registered hazardous wastegenerated is recycled. 56 percent of the recycled wastesare oils and 49 percent are inorganic chemicals.

TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

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

About half of the registered hazardous waste gener-ated each year (or approximately 140,000 tons/year),

Other27%

Acid Waste10%

AlkaliWastes

20%

Inorganicchemicalwastes24%

Putrescible/organicwastes

11%

Oil8%

Source: The Study of SWM for Metro Manila, Final Report, JICA/MMDA, March 1999.

15

is treated off-site, and 3,600 tons or 2.5 percent of thatis recycled.

Five thousand tons of the waste treated on-site is re-portedly incinerated. There is, however, a need tochange this treatment process given the provisions ofthe Clean Air Act of 1999. By November 2003, incin-erators will be prohibited. Non-burn technologies arethus being studied for the disposal of hazardous wastesfrom hospital and industrial sources.

There are currently no landfill facilities for hazardouswaste in the Philippines. As a result, hazardous wastesources store their wastes, or dispose of them partiallytreated or untreated. Approximately 50,000 tons or 36percent of all hazardous waste treated off-site, is storedon-site or off-site due to the lack of proper treatmentand landfill facilities.

Hazardous Waste. There are 13 industrial wasteincinerators in the country: 7 in Region IV, 5 inMetro Manila, and 1 in Cebu. Plans for the con-struction of a centralized disposal facility for haz-ardous waste to service the Cavite, Laguna,Batangas, Rizal, and Quezon (CALABARZON)areas are also being discussed.

Medical Waste. There are currently 43 operationalhospital incinerators in the country. Of this num-ber, 22 are located in Metro Manila. Fifty percentof the medical waste generated is incinerated, whilethe rest is disposed of improperly. At present,MMDA is finalizing the establishment of a central-ized hospital waste treatment facility to serviceMetro Manila.

Technology solutions and policy direction are ur-gently needed in response to the incinerationban… For the past few years, there has been in-tense debate in the Philippines over the use of in-cinerators in waste management, leading to a pro-hibition on their use imposed by the Clean Air Act.The provision of the Act is to take effect in Novem-ber 2003.

Box 9: Cebu CommonTreatment Facility, Inc.

Located inside the Inayawan Sanitary Landfill, this2,781-square meter common treatment facility for toxicand hazardous waste from Cebu-based electroplatingindustries is the first in the country and second in Asia.It is co-owned and managed by the Cebu Chamber ofCommerce and Industry and the Cebu ElectroplatersAssociation.

The waste water from the electroplating plant is col-lected and then transported to the treatment plant. Af-ter neutralization and precipitation, the resulting sludgeis stored for recycling and mineral recovery. Fundedunder a bilateral agreement between the Philippines(through the DENR) and the Federal Republic of Ger-many (through the German Agency for Technical Co-operation-GTZ), commercial operations started in Oc-tober 1999 with the treatment of wastewater from sevenfirms.

Box 10: Government andIndustry Partnership

The Industrial Waste Exchange Program (IWEP) of thePhilippine Business for the Environment matches the dif-ferent waste-producing industries with recycling andwaste treating companies. This leads to considerablesavings for both parties involved in the exchange. Morethan 1,200 industrial waste producers are in their data-base. Successful exchanges have been brokered for vari-ous wastes such as scrap fabric, silica gel, used coolant,used oil, used drums, used paper, used plastic sacks,glass cutlets, solder waste, mold runner plastic, and saw-dust. Many other exchanges have been negotiated di-rectly between industries. It has recently launched a na-tionwide waste exchange network creating mini-indus-trial waste exchange centers in Cebu, Laguna, andCagayan de Oro.

Source: Philippine Business for the Environment, 2001.

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

16

Incineration: Combusts the waste under controlled con-ditions. To be effective and safe, it must be operated atspecific temperatures and under specific conditions. Ad-vantages include its ability to eliminate the health risksassociated with all types of hazardous medical wastes,and reduce the volume of the waste. Its disadvantagesinclude high costs, sophisticated operation and produc-tion of air pollution, including dioxins, that become moresevere if properly operated at an insufficient tempera-ture. The capital costs of such facility range fromUS$120,000- 200,000 for each ton/day of capacity.

Autoclaving: Steam heats the waste in an enclosed con-tainer at high pressure. The output is non-hazardous ma-terial that can normally be landfilled with municipalwaste. The main advantages are the ease and familiar-ity of its operation. Its disadvantages include the highcost of operation, production of air emissions and waste-water, and its inability to treat special medical waste such

as tissues and body parts. The capital costs range fromUS$40,000-125,000 for each ton/day of capacity.

Microwave and radiowave irradiation: Waste is disin-fected using a high energy electromagnetic field thatcauses high frequency oscillation of the liquid portionsof the cell material. The output is considered non-haz-ardous and can be disposed in a landfill with municipalwaste. Its main advantages are the reduction in volumeachieved and its minimal production of toxic pollutants.Its disadvantages include cost and sophistication, and

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

Box 11: Treatment and Disposal Options for Infectious Medical Waste

its ineffectiveness in treating special medical waste suchas tissues and body parts. The capital costs range fromUS$120,000-200,000 for each ton/day of capacity.

Chemical disinfection: The waste is shredded andchemicals are added to waste to kill or inactivate patho-gens. The output has to be disposed of using tech-niques such as safe landfilling. The advantage of thisprocess is the reduction of waste volume resulting fromshredding. However, chemical disinfection requires askilled operator, is costly, does not treat wastes such astissues and body parts, and produces a toxic wastestream.

Safe landfilling: The waste is placed in a pit excavated inmature municipal waste or in a special area constructed inthe landfill and covered immediately with soil or fresh mu-nicipal waste. For added health protection and odor sup-pression, lime can be spread over the waste. The area

should also be fenced off to prevent access by waste pick-ers or scavenging animals. The capital costs are low as ituses an existing municipal landfill. The advantages of thesemethods are their simplicity and low-cost. These are thenext best option to incineration for the treatment of bodyparts and tissues. However, the waste remains infectious,and therefore, can be very dangerous if not managed ex-tremely carefully.

Source: Adapted from Johannessen, et al., Healthcare Waste Man-agement Guidance Note, The World Bank, 2000.

Incineration is not an effective option to disposeof municipal solid waste in the Philippines becauseof the unsuitable technical characteristics of thewaste (high moisture and organic content and lowcalorific value), high construction and operatingcosts, and attendant environmental risk due to weakmonitoring and enforcement. However, manycountries, including the Philippines, use incinera-tors as an option to completely destroy certain in-

fectious medical waste such as syringes, body partsand tissues, and treat certain classes of hazardouswaste such as insecticides, pesticides, waste solvents,types of hydraulic fluids and some oily sludges. Thebroad-based ban on incineration will influence theway that infectious medical and hazardous wastesare disposed, and may well present risks to healthand the environment if it encourages unsafe and un-regulated treatment and disposal practices.

17

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

At the same time, allowing unregulated operationof incinerators in the Philippines for infectiousmedical and hazardous wastes is potentially dan-gerous. The country currently has limited capacityto operate incinerators and monitor their emissions.Without proper operation there is a danger that theycould not only ineffectively treat the waste but pro-duce significant quantities of pollutants such as di-oxins.

Effective implementation of the law will require aconcerted effort that focuses exclusively on thepracticalities of establishing safe and effective dis-posal practices in the short and long term. If theban is fully implemented, then there will need to bea shift to alternative technologies (see Box 11).Some could take years and some technologies couldpotentially have a lower order of treatment effec-tiveness. The choice of technology is dependent onenvironmental and safety considerations and com-mercial viability. Experience from Latin Americasuggests that microwaving or autoclaving options

could be used to treat infectious medical wastes atprices equivalent or slightly higher than incinera-tion, but not all waste streams could be effectivelytreated. Similarly, cleaner production and chemi-cal precipitation have been used to reduce the gen-eration of hazardous waste in manufacturing pro-cesses. Assuming viable treatment technologies areidentified soon, then it will have to be ensured thatsuch facilities are properly operated and environ-mentally sound.

Alternatively, in the event that the incineration banis stayed or delayed for infectious medical and haz-ardous wastes, the government should ensure thatthe incinerators are operated as designed and regu-lated closely by DENR, and their performance dis-closed to the public. This would require substan-tial capacity building of DENR’s monitoring andoversight capability. Also, existing incinerationcapacity should be optimized to encourage the useof shared facilities in order to minimize operationaland environmental risks.

18

LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONS AND BUDGETS

LEGISLATION

The Philippine Constitution (Article II Section 16) stipulates that “the state shall protect and advance the right of thepeople 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 collectionand safe disposal of household garbage and industrial and hospital wastes. A summary of the different pieces of legislationand 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.

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 monthsand/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 publicplaces. All lot owners must maintain the cleanliness of idle lots. If they are unable to do so, the Government will undertake thesame 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 humanhealth 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 andenhancement of the environment. Section 4 requires the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements for any project orundertaking that may significantly affect the environment.Presidential Decree No. 1152, Philippine Environmental Code (1978)Requires the preparation and implementation of waste management programs 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 DevelopmentAuthority 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 theefficient and effective provision of services and facilities related to general hygiene and sanitation, beautification, and solidwaste 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 thePhilippines.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 bansincineration 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.

Box 12: Summary of SWM Legislation

19

RA 9003— The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 was passed by Congress in December 2000 and signed intolaw by the President of the Philippines on January 26, 2001 with the aim of adopting a systematic, comprehensive, and ecologicalsolid 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 ofthe Act. The commission will be headed by DENR and composed of representatives from the following agencies: Departmentof Science and Technology (DOST), Department of Health (DOH), Department of Agriculture (DA), Technical Education andSkill Development Authority (TESDA), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Public Works andHighways (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 onerepresentative each from NGOs, recycling, and packaging or manufacturing industries. A similar multi-sectoral SWM Boardwill 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 respective jurisdictions. Similarly, segregation and collection of biodegradable,compostable, and re-usable solid wastes should be conducted at the barangay level, and the collection of non-recyclablematerials 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 solidwaste facilities, waste characterization, waste generation projections, and other pertinent information should be regularlyupdated and published. Based on such report, a National Solid Waste Management Framework, which will include mediumand long-term plans, should be formulated and implemented. The Act also requires each province, city or municipality toprepare ten year plans, which should include the re-use, recycling, and composting of wastes generated in their respectivejurisdiction, 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 recyclablematerials and compost. The Act also stipulates that procedure, standards, incentives and strategies should be specified todevelop 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 needto be converted into controlled dumpsites within three years, and replaced with sanitary landfills in a span of five years afterthe 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 anyviolation of the law were also set. All revenues from the implementation of the law shall accrue to a SWM Fund (both nationaland local) earmarked to support research and development, provide awards and incentives, provide technical assistance, andconduct information, education, communication, and monitoring activities.

• Incentives: The Act catalogues the incentives that are to be offered to LGUs, enterprises, private entities, and NGOs toencourage 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 anddisposal 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 millionhas been appropriated to support the NSWMC.

Box 13: Key Features of the Ecological Solid WasteManagement Act of 2000 (ESWMA)

LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONS AND BUDGETS

20

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Over the years, successive laws and issuances mandated different agencies to manage solid and hazardouswastes. This has resulted in overlapping responsibilities. The Local Government Code of 1991 re-affirmed theprimary responsibility of local governments to plan and implement solid waste management programs withintheir locality. The ESWMA reinforces this responsibility and defines the national oversight mandate of theNational Solid Waste Management Commission. The new structure and the responsibilities of the differentagencies 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

Barangays

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

LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONS AND BUDGETS

21

LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONS AND BUDGETS

Department of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR). Sets standards, criteria, and guidelines forall aspects of solid waste management. Performs regu-latory as well as monitoring and enforcement func-tions with regard to air emissions and effluent of solidwaste management systems. Chairs the National SolidWaste Management Commission, which sets the over-all policy, prepares the national framework, and ap-proves local action plans.

Environmental Management Bureau (EMB). Chairsthe National Ecology Center composed of multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary experts tasked to fa-cilitate training and education on the ESWMA. Estab-lishes and manages an information database. Providessecretariat support to the Commission. EMB is a lineagency of DENR.

Box 14: City Development Strategy (CDS) –a promising approach to mainstream solid

waste management

The CDS aims to assist city governments and their stake-holders in formulating a common vision for their future,identifying strategies to attain this vision and priority pro-grams and projects, and facilitating resource mobilizationto finance the implementation of these programs andprojects. Guided by the principles of livability, competi-tiveness, bankability and good governance, the CDS fol-lows a participatory process, which involves all the stake-holders in the entire planning and decision making pro-cess. In so doing, it develops a consensus building pro-cess within the city and builds the city’s capacity for moreeffective urban governance.

Based on the experience of the first seven pilot citiesin the Philippines, solid waste was identified by thevarious sectors as one of their priority issues. Havinggone through the process together, it was easier toagree on what needs to be done. The issue of NIMBYwas thus addressed. In the case of San Fernando, LaUnion, the CDS process facilitated the acquisition ofan additional lot for sanitary landfill. It also pavedthe way for the people’s acceptance of the city’s inte-grated SWM program.

With the upscaling of the CDS in the Philippines (with 30additional cities participating), it is expected that a morecomprehensive solution to the issue of solid waste man-agement will be developed and implemented.

Source: Philippines CDS Project Team

Local Government Units (LGUs). Responsible forpreparation and implementation of local SWM planstogether with other stakeholders within their area.Principally responsible for proper waste manage-ment – ensuring segregation at source, composting,recycling, setting up of material recovery facilities,efficient collection, and environmentally sound dis-posal.

Department of Health (DOH). Regulates the stor-age of refuse in food establishments with respect toconstruction, maintenance, and placement of stor-age containers within their establishments. Providesguidelines for proper management and disposal ofhospital wastes, and other infectious wastes.

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). For-mulates and implements a coding system for pack-aging materials and products to facilitate recyclingand re-use. Publishes study on existing markets forrecyclables and recommends steps to expand thesemarkets.

Department of Agriculture (DA). Publishes an in-ventory of markets and demands for compost. Assistscompost producers to ensure compost produced con-form to standards.

Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA).Enforces pollution laws in Laguna de Bay region in-cluding illegal dumping of garbage.

Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA).Coordinates collection, transport, and disposal of solidwastes in Metro Manila. Responsible for daily opera-tion of its transfer stations, composting facilities, andlandfills.

Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. Moni-tors the implementation of the ESWM and overseesthe functions of the Commission.

Philippine Coast Guard (PCG). Responsible for pre-venting ocean dumping of solid wastes.

Private Sector. Serves as the Vice-Chair of theNSWMC, and plays a major role in the provision ofcollection, treatment and disposal services.

22

LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONS AND BUDGETS

BUDGET AND EXPENDITURE

Cities in both developing and industrialized countriesgenerally do not spend more than 0.5 percent of theirper capita gross national product on urban waste ser-vices. This does not include costs directly paid by busi-nesses and residents, beyond the normal municipaltaxes and fees.19

Expenditures in solid waste management also serve asa reliable proxy to service levels for collection anddisposal. However, in the Philippines, most LGUs donot correctly or fully account for their solid waste costs.No national data is available making it difficult to es-timate the current share of solid waste expenditures inthe national accounts.

The budget for solid waste management as a percent-age of total LGU budget varies greatly. Data fromsome cities outside the NCR indicates that in 2001, itranges from 1.2 percent to 11.7 percent. Current datafor three cities within Metro Manila show Marikina at10.8 percent, Muntinlupa at 9.8 percent, and Valenzuelaat 3.9 percent. The per capita allocation varies be-tween less than a dollar (Iloilo and Roxas) to nearlyUS$5 (Muntinlupa). Generally, a substantial portionof the budget for solid waste management is allocatedfor collection and transport. Only a small portion isprovided for the management of the disposal site.

MMDA’s solid waste management budget is prima-rily for disposal, since collection is the mandate ofLGUs. The 1997 Asian economic crisis led to a re-duction in MMDA’s expenditures on solid waste man-agement. However, by 2000, expenditures increased,amounting to PhP424 million, more than five timesthe 1994 levels.

User fees are not widely used by LGUs. Those levy-ing such fees are able to cover part of the operationand maintenance costs. None, however, are using thefees as a means for financing capital investments.

19What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia – World Bank (1999).

Table 11: MMDA SWM Expenditures(in million pesos)

Year Actual expenditures

1994 73.41995 136.51996 303.71997 405.91998 296.91999 234.92000 424.3*

Source: PMO-MMDANote: *budget allocation

Table 12: City Budgets Allocated forSWM (2001)

Per capita % ofallocation Total 2001

City (Pesos) Budget

Dagupan 87.17 4.1Antipolo 148.66 11.6Iloilo 12.50 7Tagaytay 151.51 1.2Island Garden City of Samal 85.39 3.4Dipolog 60.69 2.1San Fernando, La Union 162.97 7.0Marikina 192.55 10.8Valenzuela 76.84 3.9Muntinlupa 250.45 9.8Roxas 23.21 1.4

Source: Report from each city, August 2001.

Table 13: Commonly Used CostRecovery Measures Worldwide

(also see Table 5 )

Type Description

User Fees Direct: Paid by waste generatorsaccording to level of service providedIndirect: Regardless of services level,generators pay a flat fee.

Surcharge Incremental fee levied on property taxor 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 t ipping feedepending on the truck size.

23

11 Strengthening enforcement and providing betterincentives… The Philippines has a poor record of en-forcing environmental legislation due to lack of politicalwill, institutional capacity and incentives. It is impor-tant the political intent that was demonstrated when fram-ing the ESWMA should be continued through its imple-mentation by fully enforcing the different provisions ofthe Act. Otherwise, the intent of the Act will be compro-mised and the achievement of the above goals will re-main a distant dream, further exacerbating the currentsituation. At present, incentives for effective delivery ofSWM services are limited to recognition programs, suchas the Clean and Green and the Galing Pook20 Awards.Additional incentives should be put into place including:(i) provision of financial incentives for capital invest-ment (e.g. matching grants); (ii) imposition of user feesand tipping fees to encourage waste reduction and in-crease accountability of service delivery; and (iii) intro-duction of product standards for composting and grant-ing incentives to encourage market development. In ad-dition, the ESWMA also stipulates the granting of cer-tain concessions and tax exemptions for improving solidwaste management practices.

With the passage of RA 9003: Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (ESWMA), the Philippines now has acomprehensive 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 sustainableimpact. In doing so, the following challenges need to be addressed:

THE TEN CHALLENGES...

Action 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 dumpseffectivity 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

22 Building the capacity of national and local in-stitutions… The implementating rules and regulationswill detail the institutional roles and responsibilitiesof different organizations. However, the primary re-sponsibility for implementing the ESWMA lies withlocal governments, which include 77 provinces, 114cities, 1,495 municipalities, and over 42,000 barangays.• Strategic Planning. As required by the ESWMA,

over the next few years, strategic plans at the na-tional, provincial, LGU, and barangay levels needto be prepared. This will require the strengthen-ing of technical capacity in the country to preparesuch plans and guide their implementation.

• National Government. The National Ecology Cen-ter and the Secretariat of the National Solid WasteManagement Commission will need to bestrengthened to provide advisory and extensionservices to LGUs and barangays. Their capacityfor obtaining, maintaining, and analyzing data onsolid waste in the country should also be enhanced.

• Local Governments. LGUs will need to upgradetheir technical and managerial capacity to expandtheir role beyond the current responsibility ofmainly household collection. Also, LGUs need toput in place financial systems to fully account forsolid waste management expenditures, which willenable them to benchmark service efficiency and

20The Galing Pook Award, was first given in 1993, which recognizes andreplicates exemplary programs of LGUs that have effectively addressedpressing problems in their areas.

Table 14: ESWMA Goals

24

THE TEN CHALLENGES...

fulfill contractual obligations in a transparentmanner.

• Barangays. Communities need to be made awareof the benefits of proper waste disposal, as wellas their responsibilities in waste avoidance, seg-regation, collection, recycling, and composting.

33 Addressing the NIMBY syndrome… This per-spective is creating a major barrier to the siting of re-gional or local landfills and materials recovery facili-ties. Public awareness and support for solid waste man-agement facilities can be encouraged through betterconsultation and more widespread implementation ofprograms, such as the current information, education,and communication campaigns. Additionally, the es-tablishment and promotion of landfills or demonstra-tion landfills that are properly managed from an envi-ronmental and social point of view will give the pub-lic greater confidence that landfills can be safely con-structed and operated in their locality.

44 Raising public awareness on the benefits ofproper SWM… The success of the ESWMA largelydepends on the support of the people. Solid waste isoften perceived as a purely government function, whilepublic consultation on landfill siting and solid wastemanagement programs is often lacking. This discour-ages citizens from playing their role in SWM, such asparticipating in recycling programs.

55 Increasing expenditures on SWM… The LGUbudgets for solid waste management have been typi-cally limited to household collection, transportationto open dumpsites, and minimal operational expendi-tures for disposal. The ESWMA requires additionalfinancing for: building capacity to implement the newinstitutional arrangements; conversion to and opera-tion of controlled dumps and sanitary landfills; shiftto environmentally-friendly packaging; recycling pro-grams; materials recovery facilities; and infectiousmedical and hazardous waste non-burn treatment anddisposal technologies. Preliminary estimates (exclud-ing investments by businesses) indicate that additionalspending on solid waste management will have to in-crease by PhP150 billion (Table 15) over the next tenyears, or additional per capita cost of PhP200 per year.Currently, LGUs annually spend between PhP12 and250 per capita. Much of the incremental expenditurewill be dedicated to infrastructure investments in the

next five years (Chart 3). The average annual costs ofimplementing the law amount to 0.5 percent21 of the2000 gross domestic product (GDP). If this would befunded solely by the Government, it would require theprogrammed public expenditure in the national bud-get to increase annually by 3 percent from its currentlevel, and the local government programmed expen-diture to increase by at least 15 percent. It is thereforeimportant for the Government to increase the budgetfor solid waste management and to supplement thatfunding by encouraging the involvement of the pri-vate sector through the establishment of a functionalregulatory system, ensuring financial transparency inthe sector, and introducing user fees.

66 Mainstreaming the utilization of new fundingsources and employing cost-effective approaches…

• National Government Cost Sharing. The Philip-pine Government will need to revisit its currentpolicy22 of not providing any cost-sharing grantsto LGUs to address pollution-related or “brown”environmental issues such as solid waste. Thereare environmental externalities associated withwaste disposal and treatment, which go beyond alocal government’s jurisdiction. These often as-sume a regional or national dimension, and there-fore, LGUs need assistance. In many countries,national governments offer various incentives andsubsidies to local authorities to invest in properwaste disposal facilities. These take the form ofmatching grants provided by the national govern-ments for capital investments only. Local gov-ernments usually assume responsibility for opera-tion and maintenance costs through their ownbudgets or user fees.

• Private Sector Participation. The encouragementof private sector participation can provide invest-ment to supplement or replace government fund-

21Source: National Income Accounts, DBM GDP 3170 Billion PhP For Information on programmed public expenditure in National Budget refer to Philippines-at-a-Glance section.22The Investment Coordinating Committee (ICC) of the Nationl Economicand Development Authority (NEDA) has adopted a policy of cost sharingbetween the national government and local governments for projects thathave social and environmental benefits. While this is being implementedfor green projects (forest management, protected areas, and wildlife) andblue environment (coastal and marine resources), there is no cost sharingfor capital investments in the brown environment (urban issues).

25

THE TEN CHALLENGES...

ing. Currently, the private sector is only involvedas contractors for hauling, while the informal sec-tor has a small role in material recovery enter-prises. Private sector participation can be encour-aged through a regulatory environment that en-sures private operators are able to recover theirinvestments through garbage and tipping fees, andavoid graft and corruption through improved andtransparent contractual practices based on perfor-mance standards.

• User Fees: Investment and/or operational costscan be recovered by LGUs or the private sectorby charging residential, industrial, and commer-cial users for garbage disposal. Successful feeprograms require political support, a quality ser-vice with consumers who understand the value ofthe service and are willing to pay for it, and anefficient fee collection system.

• Shared Facilities. Substantial cost savings can beachieved through the establishment of regional fa-cilities that service multiple LGUs. These includematerial recovery facilities and sanitary landfills. Thelatter should be served by LGU-specific transfer sta-

tions, which can optimize waste haulage. It will alsobe important for barangays to establish shared ma-terials recovery facilities, as these will be prohibi-tively expensive (50 percent of all barangays haveannual incomes of less than PhP500,000). Estab-lishment of these facilities could be encouragedthrough demonstration projects and national or re-gional programs that provide an instrument for co-ordination of the LGUs.

• Revenues from Landfill Gas Recovery. The gasproduced by landfills can be recovered and eitherused as a gas fuel source or combusted to pro-duce electricity. These facilities can be installedin operating and closed landfills, and can providean LGU or landfill operator with an additionalsource of funds to supplement other methods tocover the costs of solid waste management.

77 Obtaining reliable information for national,regional, and local planning… There are manygaps in the data available from the local and na-tional-levels. Without proper data, long-term plan-ning decisions cannot be reliably made, and the risk

Table 15: Estimated Incremental Costs for Implementing the ESWMAbetween 2002 and 2011 (in real terms)1

Item Cost (PhP billion)

Institutional and Regulatory Arrangements for Planning, Monitoring, Enforcement, and Evaluation2 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 Facility6 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 1Total 150

1 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.2 The ESWMA requires the establishment of a National Commission, Technical Secretariat at EMB, an Ecology Center, Provincial Solid Waste Management Board and LGU/City Solid WasteManagement Board. In addition, a national framework, provincial plans, LGU plans, an annual report, eco-labeling scheme and market mechanism for recyclables need to be in place andregularly updated.3 Incremental costs for achieving 100 percent collection coverage including under-served poor areas.4 The Act requires that households or group 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 threeyears.5 Incremental costs for modernizing the collection fleet in LGUs.6 The Act’s 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 isapproximately PhP500,000, while that of a rural MRF is assumed to be PhP75,000.7 The unit 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 constructionof LGU-level sanitary landfills.8 This is mandated by the Clean Air Act.

Source: Team Estimates, 2001.

26

THE TEN CHALLENGES...

of crises such as that being experienced by MetroManila is higher. A comprehensive informationmanagement system along with the establishmentof local, regional, and national monitoring databaseslinked to decision support systems would greatlyhelp governments at all levels in making informed,and sound long-term decisions.

88 Ensuring proper management of closed dumpsand sanitary landfills… The poor management prac-tices at Carmona and San Mateo landfills caused ad-verse public reactions and the landfills’ closure. Thelandfill in Cebu is also experiencing major difficul-ties. Landfill operators should put in place better man-agement practices that are closely monitored by LGUsand DENR. Further, the Carmona and San Mateo land-fills, and the Payatas and Smokey Mountain opendumps continue to pose significant environmental risksto adjacent communities, especially the poor. There isan urgent need to properly contain these sites and thenumerous open dumps to prevent leachate contamina-tion of water bodies. Methane gas generated by closedlandfills could be collected and converted to power toreduce the risk of methane gas explosions, while pro-viding electricity to local communities.

99 Protecting the vulnerable and under-served…Poor communities are most likely to be adversely af-fected by, or do not adequately benefit from, solid wastemanagement strategies. In particular, the poor are cur-rently under-served in terms of collection. Some liveon or near garbage disposal sites (e.g. Payatas andSmokey Mountain) and thus, are exposed to unsani-

tary conditions and environmental risks (contaminatedgroundwater and air pollution) and safety risks (ex-plosions and the collapse of garbage piles). Active in-terventions by Government will be needed to help thesecommunities, including opportunities to expand theirrole in waste recycling. For example, social assess-ments could be required as part of the developmentand closure of any disposal site. Programs to help thecommunities on operational and closed landfills couldbe developed. Equity considerations can be incorpo-rated into the development of collection systems.

1010 Expanding coverage of medical and haz-ardous waste treatment… The main challenges in-clude expanding on-site and off-site treatment fa-cilities and addressing the issues posed by the imple-mentation of the ban on incineration by the CleanAir Act. Globally, incineration remains a commonmeans of treating infectious medical waste and haz-ardous waste. Implementation of the ban will re-quire adoption of alternate technologies, which willtake time. In the intervening period, every effortshould be made to ensure that disposal measures,would not result in widespread unsafe and unregu-lated practices. The government, civil society andthe private sector will need to collaborate to developworkable and pragmatic approaches that are cost-effective and environmentally sound. In the event,the incineration ban is stayed or delayed for infec-tious medical and hazardous wastes, the governmentshould ensure that incinerators are carefully oper-ated, closely regulated, and function in the contextof an integrated waste management system.

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

25

20

15

10

5

0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Incr

emen

tal

Cos

ts (

billi

on o

f PhP

)

Institutional and Regulatory Arrangements

Improved Collection and Recycling

Y E A R

Treatment and Disposal

Total Incremental Costs

1

2

34

1

2

3

4

27

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 wastepickers then became illegal settlers in the same location, in appalling, unsanitary living conditions. The adverse environmentaland health conditions created by the dump meant that the site was always under threat of closure. Though plans to close downthe area began in 1999, the attempt was thwarted by both the settlers and middlemen who depended on the dump for theirlivelihoods. In July 2000, tragedy struck at Payatas, when heavy rains caused part of the dump in the northern area to slidecarrying with it 60,000 cubic meters of waste. The slide killed 250 people belonging to 700 poor families. This case studydiscusses the two sides of Payatas: the efforts to rehabilitate illegal squatter elsewhere; and the organized approach of thescavengers to improve their lives.

REHABILITATION EFFORTS

The accident highlighted the need to improve the liv-ing conditions of the people in Payatas. Local com-munities, with the help of NGOs, the private sector,and local governments are undertaking three reloca-tion projects in the area:• 200 families living in the danger zone are being

relocated to Bagong Silangan, Quezon City—atwo-hectare plot not far from Payatas donated bythe private sector. A total of 342 housing units willbe provided at a cost of about PhP70,000 per unit.A training center would also be constructed.

• Another relocation site is a three-hectare lot inSan Isidro, Montalban bought by the waste pick-ers at PhP150/sqm. All developments in the areaare being undertaken by the relocatees, includingthe design and construction of roads, drainagesystems, and the houses. So far, 16 shell houseshave been constructed.

• The Golden Shower Homeowner’s Association,formed in 1993, started a savings program, mapped,enumerated and surveyed their settlements, and ar-ranged to put their land titles in order. Plans includethe purchase of 3.2 hectares of land which associa-tion members already occupy. They plan to improvetheir homes, build new houses, and establish a com-munity recycling center. After the Payatas incident,the Asian Development Bank, through the JapanFund for Poverty Reduction, provided a US$1 mil-lion grant to help people with home ownership andon-site improvement.

WORKING TOGETHER TO BUILD BETTER LIVES

In 1993, the community living in Payatas organizedthemselves into the Payatas Scavengers Associationwith the support of the Vincentian Missionaries So-cial Development Foundation. Through this associa-tion, they work to secure their economic future by ac-cessing the resources and opportunities that will add

value to their products and stabilize their incomes. Ac-tivities supported include:• Promoting home-based solid waste related micro-

enterprises, by encouraging investments in recy-cling processes that enhance the value of theirproducts, and transform recycled materials intonew/exportable products.

• Mobilizing savings through a regular savings pro-gram open to all members of the communities andcollected daily by community members. The sav-ings of their 6,115 members from June 1995 toSeptember 2000 amounted to PhP14.2 million.Through these funds, they were able to purchaseland, expand their businesses, pay for theirchildren’s tuition fees, buy medicines, and meetemergency needs. Loans disbursed within thesame period amounted to PhP61.5 million—indi-cating that the total amount of money had beenloaned out and paid back four times, creating as-sets and increasing wealth for households with anaverage income of only PhP3,500 per month.

• Encouraging the acquisition of land and construc-tion of their own houses, and accompanied im-provements in living conditions.

Aside from these activities, the association also hasprograms for children including a center cooperativelymanaged by mothers. The center offers working chil-dren a place to play, obtain first-aid, sleep, shower,and get something to eat. Alongside the center is aday care school where mothers take turns teaching andfeeding children nutritious meals cooked in the court-yard outside. The children themselves have initiated asavings scheme for those who are on their own. Thesavings scheme is aside from their families’. Theseexperiences have shown that making savings and creditthe building block of a people-driven community de-velopment movement, helps individuals understandtheir own situation and needs. It develops and promotescommunity strength, creates the bargaining chip ofcollective assets, and truly turns poor communities intopotential development partners.

28

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Barangay: Pilipino term used to describe a community or vil-lage; also the smallest political unit in the country.

Biodegradable: Capable of decomposition by microorganismsunder natural conditions. Most organic materials, such as foodscraps and paper, are biodegradable.

Collection: The process of picking up wastes from residences, busi-nesses, or at a collection point, loading them into a vehicle, and trans-porting them to a processing site, transfer station or landfill.

Commercial waste: All municipal solid waste emanating frombusiness establishment such as stores, markets, office buildings,restaurants, shopping centers, and entertainment centers.

Composting: The controlled biological decomposition of the pu-trescible fraction of MSW in the presence of air to form a humus-like material.

Controlled dumps: A non-engineered disposal site at which MSWis deposited in accordance with minimum prescribed standards ofsite operation. It has minimal site infrastructure. Basic operationalcontrols include: control over size of waste tipping area with wastespread and compaction, stormwater management, and supervisionof site operations by trained staff.

Decomposition: The breakdown of matter, changing the chemi-cal makeup and physical appearance of MSW in landfills orcomposting facilities.

Disposal: The final placement of MSW that is not salvaged orrecycled.

Energy recovery: Obtaining energy from MSW through a varietyof processes (e.g. combustion).

Gas control and recovery system: A system designed to collectlandfill gases for treatment or for use as an energy source.

Generation rate: The amount of MSW generated over a givenperiod of time by a given source.

Groundwater: The supply of freshwater that is found beneath theearth’s surface, which supplies wells and springs. Since ground-water is a major source of drinking water, there is a growing con-cern about contamination from pollutants leached from dumpsitesand/or badly managed landfills.

Hazardous waste: Waste generated that can pose a substantial orpotential hazard to human health or the environment when im-properly managed.

Household waste (domestic waste): MSW composed of garbageand rubbish, which is generated as a consequence of householdactivities. In developing countries, up to two-thirds of this cat-egory consist of putrescible wastes.

Incineration: A treatment technology involving destruction ofMSW by controlled burning at high temperatures. The main ob-jective of this process is to reduce the volume of MSW and tomake waste innocuous.

Industrial waste: A heterogeneous mixture of different materialsgenerated during an industrial operation.

Infectious waste: Hazardous waste with infectious characteris-tics, including contaminated animal waste, body parts, humanblood, and blood products, isolation waste, pathological waste,and discarded needles and medical instruments.

Institutional waste: Waste originating from schools, hospitals,prisons, research organizations, and other public buildings.

Leachate: Wastewater that collects contaminants as it trick-les through MSW disposed in a landfill. Leaching may resultin hazardous substances entering surface water, ground wateror soil.

Market wastes: Primarily putrescible MSW, such as leaves, skins,and unsold food, discarded at or near food markets.

Materials recovery facility: Facility that processes residentiallycollected mixed recyclables into new products.

Medical waste (hospital waste): Any MSW generated in the di-agnosis, treatment or immunization of human beings or animals.

Methane: A colorless, non-poisonous, flammable gas created byanaerobic decomposition of organic compounds.

Moisture content: The fraction or percentage of a substance thatis water.

Municipal solid waste (MSW): Includes non-hazardous wastegenerated in households, commercial and business establishments,institutions, and non-hazardous industrial process wastes, agricul-tural wastes, and sewage sludge.

NIMBY: Acronym for “Not In My BackYard”; an expressionof resident opposition to the siting of a municipal solid wastemanagement facility based on the particular location proposed.

Open dumps: A site used to dispose of municipal solid waste with-out management and/or environmental controls.

Putrescible: A fraction of MSW which can decompose under aero-bic or anaerobic conditions, used as a feedstock for composting.

Recycling: Physical/mechanical separation process by which sec-ondary raw materials (paper, metal, glass, plastics) are obtainedfrom MSW. The process could be accomplished manually, or us-ing sophisticated equipment.

Resource recovery: The process of obtaining matter or energyfrom MSW.

Sanitary landfill: This is a disposal site designed, constructed,operated, and maintained in a manner that exerts engineering con-trol over significant potential environmental impacts arising fromthe operation of the facility. It has comprehensive site engineeringand exhibits containment, treatment, and management of leachateand landfill gas.

Solid waste: MSW composed of solid matter from household, com-mercial, institutional, and industrial sources.

Tipping fee: A fee for unloading MSW at a landfill, transfer sta-tion or recycling facility.

Toxic waste: A waste that can produce injury if inhaled, swal-lowed, or absorbed through the skin.

Transfer station: A facility at which MSW from collection ve-hicles is consolidated into loads that are transported in larger trucksor other means to more distant disposal sites.

Waste picking: A process of extracting recyclables and re-usable materials from a mixed MSW for further use and/orprocessing.

Source: Adapted from Planning Guide for Strategic Municipal SolidWaste Management in Major Cities in Low-income Countries, DraftPlanning Guide, February 1998, Environment Resources Man-agement, London.

29

THE PHILIPPINES AT A GLANCE

SocietyCapital ..................................................................ManilaPopulation ...........................................................76.5 Mc

Population growth rate ......................................2.32%c h

Birth rate .............................28 births/1,000 populationc i

Death rate ..........................6.5 deaths/1,000 populationc i

Net migration rate ......1.03 migrants/1,000 populationc i

Sex ratio ...............................................0.99 male/femalec

Total fertility rate .................. .3.6 children born/womanc

Poverty (% below poverty line) ..........................37.5%e

Urban population (% of total population) .......56.9%c j

Infant mortality rate ..............................32 deaths/1,000 live birthsc (1998)Under-five mortality rate ......................44 deaths/1,000 live birthsc (1998)Life expectancy at birth (both sexes) ..........68.3 yearsc h

Child malnutrition (% of children below 5) ........ 28%c k

Access to safe water (% of population) .............................................83%f

Adult literacy rate (% of population age 15+) ...............................94.8%f j

GeographyLocation: Southeastern Asia, archipelago between the Phil-ippine Sea and the South China Sea, east of VietnamArea Total ......................................................... 300,000 sq km Land ......................................................... 298,170 sq km Water ............................................................ 1,830 sq kmLand boundaries ......................................................0 kmCoastline ..........................................................36,289 kmClimate: Tropical marine; northeast monsoon (Novemberto April); southwest monsoon (May to October)Elevation extremes Lowest point: ................................... Philippine Sea: 0 m Highest point: ................................ Mount Apo: 2,954 mNatural resources: timber, petroleum, nickel, cobalt, sil-ver, gold, salt, copperLand use Arable land: ............................................................. 19% Permanent crops: ..................................................... 12% Permanent pastures: ................................................... 4% Forests and woodland: ............................................. 46% Other: ...................................................................... 19%g

Environmental issues: Solid waste management; defores-tation; air and water pollution in Metro Manila; marine andcoastal pollution.

EconomyGDP-real growth rate….......………………..…… 3.9%b

GDP .........................…........……………..PhP3,322.6 Bb

GDP-composition by sectora

Agriculture ............................................................. 16% Industry ................................................................... 31% Services ........................…........………….............. 53%

GNP per capita…........………...……….......US$1,016.0e

GNP-real growth rate.…...………………..............4.2%a

GNP...............................…………............PhP3,302.6Bb

(In percent)b

Gross domestic investment/GDP .............................18.8Exports of goods and services/GDP ........................51.3Gross domestic savings/GDP ...................................14.6Gross National Savings/GDP ...................................20.7Inflation rate (consumer prices ............................4.4%d

Labor force ..........................................................48.4 Md

Participation rate .................................................64.3%d

Employment by sector (In % total employment)b

Agriculture ............................................................ 40.1% Government and social services ........................... 19.5% Services................................................................. 44.2% Manufacturing ........................................................ 9.5% Construction ........................................................... 5.3%

Unemployment .....................................................10.1Md

Unemployment rate .............................................11.1%d

Budgetg

Programmed public expenditure (2001) ......... PhP700B Local government programmed expenditure .. PhP128BIndustries: Textiles, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, woodproducts, food processing, electronics assembly, petroleumrefining, fishing

Industrial production growth rate .......................0.5%b

Agriculture-products : Rice, coconuts, corn, sugarcane,bananas, pineapples, mangoes; pork, eggs, beef, fish

Exports of goods and services ..................PhP1,648.2 Bb

Imports of goods and services .................PhP1,342.6 Bb

Currency conversion average .....US$1=PhP44.1938 Bb

Debt-external ...............................................US$52.06 Bb

Currency ...........1 Philippine Peso (PhP) = 100 centavos

Sources: a World Development Indicators 2000, b Selected Philippine Economic Indicators – Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (SPEI-BSP), c

National Statistics Office (NSO), d National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), e National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), f

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