Southeast Asia

Wasting and Recycling

In Metropolitan Manila, Philippines

By
The Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Washington, DC
For
Greenpeace Southeast Asia
Unit 326, Eagle Court Condominium
#26 Matalino St., Barangay Central,
Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

October 2000

Southeast Asia

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................................................................1
CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT SITUATION IN METROPOLITAN MANILA .........................................1
W ASTE GENERATION.......................................................................................................................................................................1
RECYCLING.......................................................................................................................................................................................1
INSTITUTIONAL ORGANIZATION....................................................................................................................................................2
COLLECTION.....................................................................................................................................................................................2
DISPOSAL ..........................................................................................................................................................................................2
COSTS................................................................................................................................................................................................3
NEW DEVELOPMENTS......................................................................................................................................................................3
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................................................................................4
CRITIQUE OF CURRENT SOLID WASTE PLANS ........................................................................................................4
JICA PLAN .......................................................................................................................................................................................4
OTHER INCINERATION PROPOSALS................................................................................................................................................5
CRITIQUE:.........................................................................................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................................................7
MAXIMIZING RECOVERY OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE..................................................................................8
A LL GOVERNMENT UNITS...............................................................................................................................................................8
NATIONAL PROGRAMS ....................................................................................................................................................................9
REGIONAL GOVERNMENT .............................................................................................................................................................11
Education and Assistance Programs...............................................................................................................................11
Economic Incentives for Disposal Reduction.................................................................................................................13
Development of Sorting and Processing Facilities.......................................................................................................13
Small- and Large Scale Composting Projects................................................................................................................14
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT S........................................................................................................................................................14
Source-separated collection..............................................................................................................................................14
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................................................17

TABLE 1: W ASTE GENERATION IN M ETROPOLITAN M ANILA ..................................................................................................1

TABLE 2: ESTIMATED WASTE GENERATION IN M ETROPOLITAN M ANILA , 2010..................................................................4
TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF INCINERATOR AND AUTOMOBILE AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS...............................................6
TABLE 4: ESTIMATED WASTE REDUCTION LEVELS, 2010.......................................................................................................15
TABLE 5: ESTIMATED JOBS SUSTAINED BY INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, 2010......................................17

Southeast Asia

ABSTRACT
This report offers an outline of a solid waste management strategy for Metropolitan Manila. This
strategy places precedence on disposal reduction through waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and
composting. In particular this report critiques the plan for waste management for Metropolitan
Manila as proposed in the 1999 report The Study on Solid Waste Management for Metro
Manila in the Republic of the Philippines and other incineration-based proposals. Incineration
has been theoretically banned in the Philippines following the passage of the Clean Air Act in
1999. This legislation explicitly bans all types of waste incineration yet the government
continues to entertain incineration-based proposals. For example, the 1999 plan (hereafter
referred to as The Plan), developed by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and
the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, proposes to manage the regions waste through
10% recycling (including composting). The remaining waste would be disposed in two new
landfills a new inland sanitary landfill and a new sea landfill developed in Manila Bay. The
Plan proposes that waste be incinerated before disposal at the sea landfill.
Using common recycling, waste reduction, and composting technologies and implementation
strategies from around the world, this report provides an alternative approach for managing
municipal wastes. The alternative is both environmentally and economically more attractive that
disposal-oriented options.
Environmentally, the alternative approach is better as it reduces, reuses, and recycles materials
that otherwise would have to be extracted from the earth. Furthermore, less material is disposed
of in landfills. By eliminating proposed incinerators, Manila will avoid both toxic air emissions
and potential for contamination of Manila Bay.
Economically, recycling can be less expensive than traditional disposal oriented systems.
Recycling requires less capital and operating expenses. Furthermore, recycling sets the
foundation for new recycling businesses and increased employment.
CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT SITUATION IN METROPOLITAN MANILA
Area: 636 square kilometers, divided into 17 local government units (LGUs)
Population: 9,411,697 (1995); 11,000,000 in 2000 and
14,600,000 in 2010 projected. 1,485 public schools, some
Commercial and institutional establishments: 3,000 small
and large factories, 3,000 business establishments
including hotels and restaurants, 1,485 public schools,
nearly 50 public and private markets and nearly 50 public
and private hospitals and clinics.
Waste generation
1997 waste generation was estimated to be approximately
5,350 tons per day. In 1996 3,500 was disposed in
landfills. The remainder is recycled or illegally dumped
in vacant lots or rivers, burned, or buried. Most of the
illegally dumped waste originates in squatters areas,
which house 30-40% of the population.
Recycling

Page 1

Table 1: Waste Generation in

Metropolitan Manila
Management Method
Landfill
Illegally Dumped,
Burned, or Buried
Recycled at Source
Recycled-by
Scavengers
Total
% recycled

Tonnes per
day
3,496
1,649
200
127
5,345
6%

Source: Japan International Cooperation

Agency, The Study on Solid Waste Management
for Metro Manila in the Republic of the
Philippines: Final Report. March 1999

Southeast Asia

Recycling at the generation source is estimated to account for 200 tons per day. NGOs and
private collectors provide recycling services on a small-scale basis
Scavengers perform other recycling. These scavengers operate at three points in the waste
handling chain on the street, during collection, and at disposal sites. Approximately 40,000 to
50,000 individuals work as scavengers. The dangerous nature of this lifestyle and work was
tragically illustrated on July 10, 2000, when hundreds of people died at the Payatas dump site.
Rain loosened a hill of solid waste, which collapsed on top of shanties and burst aflame.
Institutional Organization
The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and local government units (LGUs)
carry out day-to-day operation of Manilas solid waste management system. The Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) sets policy and establishes laws and regulations at
the national level. The Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste Management Committee is
responsible for overseeing solid waste management in Metro Manila and eight adjoining
provinces. MMDA is responsible for operation of disposal sites and transfer stations. LGUs are
responsible for the collection and transport of garbage. Functionally, MMDA has a role in waste
collection and employs nearly 4,000 individuals for garbage collection and street sweeping.
MMDA also provides river cleansing.
Collection
Local governments units are responsible for collection within their regions. Most hire private
collection firms to collect waste. Collection services are often irregular due to traffic. In
squatter area, waste is often not collected at all, leading to illegal dumping. Waste thrown into
waterways contributes to frequent flooding in the Metro region.
Most collected wastes are either hauled directly to a disposal site or taken to a transfer station.
There are two main transfer stations located in the Metro region, Las Pinas and Marikina.
Haulers deliver most waste destined for the Carmona landfill to the Las Pinas transfer station.
The site can not efficiently handle the waste delivered to it, often resulting in long waits for
unloading. Transfer station staff load waste onto trailer trucks and haul the trailers to the landfill.
Some local governments transfer waste from small collection trucks to larger trucks on their own
sites.
Due to the narrow and steep access road to the San Mateo landfill site, waste must be delivered
in 10-wheeler or smaller trucks.
Disposal
As of 1998, waste from Metro Manila had four legal disposal sites for MSW, two open
dumpsites (Payatas and Catmon) and two landfills (San Mateo and Carmona). The two landfills
were designed as sanitary landfills but are not currently operated according to design. There
are no functional rainwater diversion and gas collection systems, and the leachate treatment
systems do not function properly. By August 2000, only the San Mateo landfill was still
operating. Local authorities closed Carmona and Catmon in 1998. Payatas was ordered closed
after its collapse.
The San Mateo landfill is not without its own problems. The landfill lies within the Marikina
Watershed Reservation. A local development authority has shown the landfill is leaking toxic
leachate into nearby creek and has contaminated drinking water sources. Local residents tried to

Page 2

Southeast Asia

shut down Metro Manilas only disposal site by barricading its entrance. In order to end the
barricades government officials pledged to close San Mateo by the end of 2000.
Costs
MMDAs 1997 budget for solid waste management totaled 751 million pesos. LGUs
expenditures on waste management are much greater, totaling 1.6 billion pesos in 1996. For the
1996-7 period, government expenditures on solid waste management in Metro Manila were
approximately 300 pesos per capita per month and 2,200 pesos per ton.
These reported expenditures do not reflect numerous societal costs that result from incomplete
collection of solid waste and disposal systems that do not protect the environment. These costs
include:

Urban flood damage exacerbated by illegal dumping;

Illness and injury due to living and working in unsanitary conditions;
Environmental damage to ground and surface waters from leachate and run-off at landfill and
dump sites;
Air pollution from occasional fires at the landfills and dump sites, open burning of
uncollected waste, and gas emissions at dump and landfill sites; and
Air pollution from traffic generated by the inefficient collection system and long haul
distances to some disposal sites.
New developments
Efforts to create such a new system solid waste management system in the Metropolitan Manila
region have been stymied by the lack of political will among community leaders and planners
and inadequate funding although new regulations passed in 1999 and 2000 have set the stage.
The Metro Manila Council consisting of the mayors of Metro Manila passed on February 25,
1999 MMDA Regulation 99-004 or the Waste Segregation Scheme. MMDA regulations
prescribe that waste be classified into six types and segregated into colored plastic bags:
biodegradable (green), nonbiodegradable (black), hazardous (red), infectious/pathological
(yellow), radioactive (orange), chemical waste (yellow with black band). Under the regulations
government collectors are not supposed to pick up mixed waste.
Garbage contractors opposed the segregation scheme contending that it would take them longer
to fill up their trucks. Contractors are paid on a per-truckload basis. Collectors also did not get
adequate instruction on how to implement the program and many were unsure whether to collect
all segregated garbage at the same time or to collect biodegradable trash one day and nonbiodegradable trash another day.
The Solid Waste Management Act - a compendium of 61 national and local bills - was approved
by the national legislature in July 2000. The bill propagated Zero Waste Management as a
national policy. This necessitates source segregation of wastes, which forms an integral part of
the governments strategy on solid waste management. The bill requires LGUs to ''divert'' 25
percent of trash collection to recycling in ''material recovery facilities'' to be constructed in every
barangay or clusters of villages. The Solid Waste Management Act allocated P50 million to
finance the first two years of its implementation.

Page 3

Southeast Asia

Special considerations
As Metropolitan Manila struggles with solid waste management, planners need to keep in mind
numerous special considerations. For example, approximately 40,000 to 50,000 individuals
currently work as scavengers. A new solid waste management system needs to be configured to
take advantage of this vast pool of labor. Otherwise, social disruption could arise as these
marginalized workers are further excluded from the productive economy.
Furthermore, the region must substantially increase its solid waste management expenditures as
it seeks to manage its ever-growing amounts of waste. Waste management systems in
Metropolitan Manila have been woefully underfunded. As a result, much waste goes
uncollected. This uncollected waste creates unsanitary conditions and clogs waterways,
contributing to flooding. Furthermore, for the last decade Manilas waste has been disposed in
either open dumpsites or landfills not operated according to design criteria. These facilities are
eyesores, odiferous, and pollute surface and groundwater in their vicinities.
Most proposals considered in the last few years dwarf current expenditures. For example, the
head of the Sanitary Landfill Administration Office of the Metropolitan Manila Development
Authority estimated that it would cost at least P400 million a year to open a new sanitary landfill
for Metro Manila. In contrast, the average annual cost to operate the San Mateo landfill is P61.7
million.
CRITIQUE OF CURRENT SOLID WASTE PLANS
JICA Plan
The Plan estimated Manilas population, municipal solid waste generation, and waste
composition through 2010. Based on this data, the Plan assumes 10% disposal reduction through
recycling and composting, 14% of the MSW would be uncollected, and the remaining 77% of
MSW would be disposed. In addition, the study estimates total disposal to include 860 of nonhazardous industrial solid waste.
The Plan evaluated twelve waste management
scenarios options according to technical,
environmental, financial and economic, and social
considerations. The evaluation supported the
selection of a waste management system with the
following characteristics:

Table 2: Estimated Waste

Generation in Metropolitan
Manila, 2010
Management Method
Landfill
Illegally Dumped,
Burned, or Buried
Recycled at Source
Recycled-after
Collection
Total
% recycled

Tonnes per
day
7,919
1,413

6% of MSW source-separated by households

567
and collected by NGO- or community-run
412
recycling programs;
Commingled waste collected from households,
10,312
commercial and institutional establishments,
10%
Source: Japan International Cooperation
markets, and by street and river cleaning crews;
Agency, The Study on Solid Waste Management
Waste transferred from collection vehicles to
for Metro Manila in the Republic of the
containers at four transfer stations;
Philippines: Final Report. March 1999
Containerized waste hauled to an inland landfill
developed at Pintong Bocaue or an incinerator located adjacent to a sea landfill on Manila
Bay;
Two manual sorting plants would recover 220 tons per day of material for recycling;

Page 4

Southeast Asia

Incinerator ash buried at the Manila Bay sea landfill;

Half of the waste generated at markets would be source separated, collected, and transferred
to a compost plant located at Pintong Bocaue or the Manila Bay sea landfill;
The Plan estimates the cost of implementing the recommended waste management system to be
77.5 billion Pesos from 1998 through 2010.
Other incineration proposals
Some lawmakers and government agencies are trying to get around the incineration ban by
calling for the exemption of high temperature thermal facilities from the ban coverage, claiming
that they do not emit toxic fumes.
An international consortium including Asea Brown Boveri and the French firm Vivendi made an
incineration proposal which was nearly approved by the Philippine government. This proposal
was to build a 4,500 ton per day incinerator in San Mateo outside Metropolitan Manila. The
initial figure the consortium proposed for building the incinerator (under a BOT or build-operatetransfer scheme) was $185 million USD. This figure was later hiked to $350 million. (And this
figure may be too low. A 2000 ton per day facility, which went on line near Amsterdam in the
Netherlands in 1995, cost $600 million with half the investment going into air pollution control.)
The proposed tipping fee was $50 to $60 USD per ton. The project proposal also included a
contract provision requiring the government to buy electricity generated at the incinerator, at a
kilowatt-hour price higher than that charged by the National Power Corporation.
Critique:
Metropolitan Manila is faced with making a choice between pollution prevention and disposal
reduction or selecting a waste disposal option that will have long-term negative impacts on the
environment and drain money and resources from the economy. The "pollution prevention"
option requires thought, skill, planning, new technologies, major capital investment, a
commitment to a long-term future and to social values that reach beyond the next quarterly
profit-and-loss statement. The "burn it up" or bury it options require only a contractor willing
to reap profit and a government agency willing to toss money away while overlooking serious
health hazards created by the facilities.
A summary of potential incineration problems includes:

Incineration is the most costly of all waste management options. Furthermore, the promise of
offsetting costs with revenues from energy production is a red herring.
...incineration of solid waste is the most costly method of waste disposal with known
and unknown escalating costs which would place substantial and unreasonable burdens
on both state and municipal budgets to the point of seriously jeopardizing the publics
interest. (From Rhode Islands State Senate Act 92-S 2502, which banned municipal
solid waste incineration in the state, signed into law on July 14, 1992.)
In general, incineration costs 5 to 10 times more per ton than sanitary landfill, even after
discounting energy revenues.
All of Japan's 193 waste-to-energy incinerators combined produce less energy than one
nuclear power station and if the United States burned all its municipal waste it would
contribute less than 1% of the country's energy needs. Furthermore, a trash incinerator
has to run for several years before there is a net production of energy. Large quantities

Page 5

Southeast Asia

of energy have to go into building; operating, maintaining and dismantling it after its life
is over.
In fact, considerably more energy
can be saved through alternative
strategies such as reuse,
recycling, or composting than
can be obtained by incinerating
the same waste. Dr Jeffrey
Morris of the Sound Resource
Management Group reported that
three to five times more energy
can be saved by recycling
materials than by burning them.

Incinerators have a detrimental

impact on recycling levels.

Table 3: Comparison of Incinerator and

Automobile Air Pollutant Emissions
Pollutant
Pounds
Automobile
Per day
Equivalent*
CO
2,100
1,800
NOx
14,000
134,000
SOx
1,800
187,000
Hydrocarbon (non260
2,000
methane)
Total Suspended
540
27,000
Particulates
Total (Weight Basis)
18,700
28,000

Incinerators need a minimum

*Automobile equivalents represents the number of
average, light weight motor vehicle traveling 33.5 miles per
amount of garbage daily to
day necessary to produce the same amount of pollution.
maintain their production targets.
Often plastic, paper, and yard
debris are burned for BTU value
when in fact their value as raw
materials is much higher. This applies even to low-grade and contaminated papers,
which are ideal for composting and vermicomposting and ethanol operations.

Incineration precludes economic development and job creation through reuse, recycling,
and composting activities. (See recycling discussion below)

Incineration creates large amounts of pollution both air emissions from burning and
ground water pollution from ash disposal.
Incineration proponents argue that it is safe. But, in fact, incinerators are major and in
many areas the largest sources of such pollutants as dioxin, lead, and other heavy
metals released into the environment. Incinerators also release carbon monoxide, oxides
of sulfur and nitrogen, hydrocarbons, and particulates into the air. Table 1 compares the
pollution from one 2,000 ton per day incinerator with the pollution produced by
automobiles.
In the case of ash disposal in a Manila Bay sea landfill, the potential for environmental
damage is enormous. Air emission controls generally result in toxic materials being
captured in fly ash. Any breach of the containment system at a sea landfill could
contaminate the surrounding waters with heavy metals and dioxins.

Communities with incinerators still need landfills for ash disposal and for by-pass wastes.
Ash can comprise about 25% by weight of an incinerators throughput and must be
landfilled. Thus incineration means incineration plus landfill. Furthermore, the ash is far
more toxic than ordinary domestic refuse. It can contain heavy metals; such as lead,
cadmium, and mercury; and organohalogens. The ash provides a threat to groundwater.
And must typically be contained in carefully maintained monofill landfill sites.

Page 6

Southeast Asia

There are two kinds of by-pass waste. Materials that do not fit into the incinerator, and
waste that is generated when the incinerator is down for regularly scheduled
maintenance. These materials must be landfilled.
According to a consultant report for King County, Washington, USA, an incinerator
project could need to landfill up to 50% of its design capacity, by volume.

Incineration prevents implementation of less costly and less polluting alternatives.

Incineration requires no change to a typical solid waste management collection system.
Garbage is simply collected and brought to the incinerator instead of the landfill.
Alternative systems seek to reduce the waste stream via waste prevention, recycling,
composting, and reuse. Alternative systems are based on education in schools, public
awareness, incentives, and new rules for managing discarded materials. In this manner
capital intensive incinerators can be eliminated and landfilling can be minimized.

Other issues:
The Plan woefully underestimates the potential for source-separation. Paper, plastics, and metals
comprise approximately 37% of municipal solid waste in Metropolitan Manila. Programs to
recovery these materials at the relatively low rate of only one-third would divert more than twice
the amount proposed by the JICA plan. Furthermore, numerous projects in the Philippines have
demonstrated that recovery of food discards, which comprise over 40% of MSW in the Manila
region, can significantly reduce disposal.
Any solid waste management system which relies primarily on commingled collection and
disposal of solid waste will create little employment while pushing many scavengers out of
work. A system based on collection of source-separated materials for use as raw materials in
recycling and composting enterprises, in contrast, uses labor as a primary input.
Conclusion
Landfills and incinerators do not make municipal solid waste magically disappear. Rather they
are the most costly of all solid waste management options, result in air and water pollution,
destroy resources that could be used as raw materials, and do not support job creation. Manila
can develop a more environmentally- and economically sound waste management policy, which
focuses on waste prevention, reuse, recycling, and composting.

Page 7

Southeast Asia

MAXIMIZING RECOVERY OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

While Manila is facing a garbage crisis, it also has the opportunity to avoid mistakes made by
more developed countries struggling to manage their trash and to learn from their successes. For
example, in 1998 nearly 90 million tons of non-durable goods, containers, and packaging were
added to U.S. landfills. Yet in states with container-deposit legislation, recovery rates greater
than 85% have often been reached for containers within the system. By implementing depositreturn systems, Manila could reduce disposal and illegal dumping.
Worldwide, experience has shown that garbage disposal can not be effectively handled in a
system that collects all materials commingled. Landfills and incinerators waste resources and
pollute the environment. Currently available mixed MSW composting technologies do not
produce soil amendment that meets environmental standards in the U.S. or Europe. Moving
toward 50% or higher disposal reduction requires a paradigm change from a traditional waste
management system. Communities wishing to reduce their disposal and save money must
develop separate handling systems for portions of the waste stream. These separate systems take
advantage of specific properties of the collected materials in order to recover their intrinsic value
while diverting them from disposal. Cost savings can accrue through reallocation of resources
from more expensive collection and disposal systems and recovery of raw material value through
reuse and recycling.
To achieve maximum recovery of discarded materials and reduce the need for disposal will be a
huge task. It will require action and cooperation by national government, regional government,
local governments. Sweeping change can not be expected to occur overnight. Nor can it be
accomplished without substantial investment. As long as waste planners focus on short-term
solutions, no real change can result. The discussion below presents an outline of programs and
policies that, if implemented, will reduce the disposal needs of the Metropolitan Manila region,
protect the natural environment, create jobs, and strengthen the regional economy. But, if solid
waste planners simply pay lip service to the ideas, make minimal investments, and abandon the
effort at first difficulty, Manila residents will continue to suffer under mountains of trash.
All government units
Government can support demand for recycled products through their own purchasing. By
committing to purchase goods with recycled-content government may spur manufacturers to
invest in additional processing capacity in order to capture lucrative government supply
contracts.
Furthermore, government should lead by example. Waste prevention strategies and sourceseparation of materials for recycling must become standard operating procedure in all
government facilities. Programs and policies governments at all levels should implement to
reduce waste and encourage diversion of materials from disposal include:
Waste prevention
Encourage use of electronic communication (email, telephone, etc.) instead of paper by
employees and contractors whenever appropriate.
Require use of duplex copying when available.
Encourage use of rechargeable instead of disposable batteries.
Discourage use of disposable cups and containers by employees and contractors.
Recycling
Implement/expand recycling programs for following materials:

Page 8

Southeast Asia

Office paper.
Corrugated cardboard.
Food and beverage containers.
Toner cartridges.
Discourage use of non-recyclable products and materials by employees and contractors.
Require incorporation of adequate recycling facilities in construction or remodeling of
government facilities.
Composting
Require composting (either in place or via central facility) of food discards and plant material
generated at government facilities.
Purchasing
Adopt policy of continuously updating recycled-content specifications to maximum feasible
levels for all products, e.g., paper.
Adopt policy of purchasing duplex-capable copiers and computer printers for high-volume
applications.
Adopt policy of requiring or encouraging vendors to adopt similar policies.
Include salvage and recycling requirements in all contracts with demolition or removal firms.
Promotion/education
Implement/expand ongoing comprehensive waste reduction information program for
employees and contractorse.g., informational flyers, volunteer coordinators, and contests.
The Green Workplace Program is an innovative waste reduction, resource conservation, and
environmentally responsible purchasing program developed and implemented at provincial
government facilities in Ontario, Canada. This program has resulted in waste reduction levels of
up to 95% at some government facilities. Governmental bodies in the Philippines could model
their government facility waste reduction efforts on this successful program.
National programs
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a system for materials management where
manufacturers retain some responsibility for products after their sale. Nations around the world
have begun embracing EPR as a way to curb ever-expanding costs for waste management.
Under a municipally funded waste management system, taxpayers pay for waste three times: first
to buy the product, second to collect and dispose of it, and a third time to pay for the
environmental damage and health costs associated with production and disposal. Types of EPR
programs include product bans or charges, deposit-refund systems, and take-back programs.
Implementing EPR programs can help ensure materials are compatible with reuse or recycling
and are source-separated for recycling while shifting the costs from the government to
manufacturers and consumers.
Some countries use product bans and charges to reduce the environmental impacts of
consumption. For example, in Belgium eco-taxes are aimed at encouraging the use of reusable
and recyclable products, ensuring recycling rates of particular products (e.g. beverage containers,
paper, disposable cameras) gradually increase to high levels, and preventing hazardous
substances (e.g. batteries, industrial packaging) entering the waste stream. The European
Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste limits concentration levels of lead, cadmium,
mercury and hexavalent chromium in packaging or packaging components.

Page 9

Southeast Asia

As the Philippines becomes more wealthy, undoubtedly manufacturers will seek to market more
disposable and single-use products in the country. These items flood disposal facilities in
developed nations, imposing a great cost on society. As the Philippines develops an integrated
waste management policy, creating a tax system that discourages the sale of non-recyclable items
can reduce disposal needs while sending consumers financial signals that reflect a products true
environmental costs.
Deposit-return systems are perhaps the oldest example of an EPR policy. In a deposit-refund
system refundable fees paid by consumers to ensure return of products at the end of their lives.
The most familiar deposit-refund systems are bottle bills. In the ten U.S. states with bottle
bills, the laws require beverage retailers to pay consumers a specified refund value for returning
empty containers, and require wholesale distributors of the beverages to pay refunds to retailers.
Recycling rates for beer and soft drink containers in the ten bottle bill states average 80%, twice
the rate in non-bottle bill states. South Korea has enacted a more extensive deposit-refund
system covering food containers, tires, batteries, lubricants, pesticide containers, and plastics.
In takeback programs, manufacturers are required to assume physical responsibility for products
and/or packaging at the end of their useful lives. Manufacturers have often created a third-party
organization to fulfill their obligations under this type of program. For example, in 1991
Germany adopted a law making producers responsible for product packaging after consumers
discard it. To comply with the law German industry established a non-profit third-party
organization called Duales System Deutschland (DSD) to operate the system. DSD is
responsible for the collection and recycling of packaging waste throughout Germany. Industry
funds DSD through licensing fees.
Government can play a crucial role in creating both supply and demand for recycled goods.
Rather than investing billions of pesos for unsustainable disposal facilities, the government
should consider strategic investment to support sustainable materials management. Furthermore,
providing grants, loans, and/or tax concessions to local governments, businesses, and individuals
for investment in recycling collection, sorting, and processing can reap many times the
investment value in job creation, reduced disposal needs, and environmental preservation.
Examples of U.S. programs to spur recycling-based economic development include:

Pennsylvania has awarded more than $38 million in funds to companies and local
government to expand recycling markets and economic development opportunities. More
than 100 Pennsylvania companies now manufacture products with recycled content. These
companies represent more than 4% of all manufacturing jobs in the Commonwealth.
New Yorks Empire State Development Environmental Management Investment Groups
(formerly the Office of Recycling Market Development) multi-million dollar grant program
has, to date, created or retained 681 jobs and resulted in the installation or retention of
industrial capacity to use 940,000 tons of recycled materials per year.
Californias Recycled Market Development Zone (RMDZ) program, administered by the
states Integrated Waste Management Board, has grown from the initial 12 zones in 1992 to
40. To date the program has made 60 loans worth $25.5 million. The results have been the
creation or saving of 690 jobs and the annual recycling of 1.6 million tons of materials.
The U.S. EPA Jobs Through Recycling (JTR) program has helped spur recycling-based
economic development. EPAs 1994 JTR grantees have leveraged more than $329 million in
investment for recycling businesses. These investments have resulted in the development of

Page 10

Southeast Asia

capacity to process 3.6 million tons of secondary materials a year, assisted more than 1,900
businesses, and created nearly 2,500 new jobs.
The Sustainable Jobs Fund (SJF), a community development venture capital fund that makes
investments in growth enterprises which create quality jobs in economically distressed
regions in the eastern United States, anticipates a community development impact of more
than 1,500 jobs created, along with neighborhood revitalization and environmental benefits,
as a result of the Fund's $17 million in investments and the additional capital they leverage.
Current community development impact includes commitments by portfolio companies to
create 54 additional jobs and retain more than 30 existing jobs, along with beneficial
environmental impacts.

Much can be accomplished with relatively low levels of capital investment. Small-scale
recycling enterprises with capital requirements of less than US$1 million include composting and
vermicomposting enterprises, small-scale aluminum smelting, deconstruction and sale of used
building materials, repair shops for computers and electronic appliances, and manual recyclables
processing centers. Medium-scale recycling enterprises with capital requirements of US$1-10
million include animal feed production from organic waste, processing of tires into construction
materials, ethanol production from waste paper, paper manufacturing, and oil re-refining. These
types of enterprises can often be developed as joint ventures between private firms and
community development organizations.
Regional government
The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority is responsible for a broad range of waste
management functions in Metropolitan Manila, including operation of disposal facilities, river
cleansing, and supporting the collection activities of local government units. The Authoritys
future decisions about disposal facilities will define the regions waste reduction opportunities
for many years to come. Experience worldwide has demonstrated that construction of an
incinerator will provide no incentive to reduce waste, cost so much that no money will be left
over for alternative systems, pollute the local environment, and still not eliminate the need for a
landfill. Construction of a landfill as the regions primary disposal option will drain muchneeded resources from the local economy in two ways first, through the massive investment
necessary to construct a state-of-the-art facility large enough to handle the regions daily waste
generation, and second, as valuable resources that could support local manufacturing are buried
rather than utilized. Furthermore, a state-of-the-art landfill will not protect the environment.
Even the U.S. EPA has recognized that all landfill liner and leachate collection systems will
ultimately fail due to natural deterioration.
For an investment of much less than it would cost to open a new 8,000 ton per day sanitary
landfill for Metro Manila, MMDA could develop a smaller disposal facility and create
comprehensive education and assistance programs to help LGUs implement a source-separated
collection system, enact economic incentives that discourage disposal, fund the development of
sorting and processing facilities for recyclables, and support small- and large-scale composting
projects. These programs and facilities could reduce the regions disposal needs by 50% or
more.
Education and Assistance Programs
Implementing a radical change in Manilas waste management system will require extensive
education and assistance programs.

Page 11

Southeast Asia

Educational efforts need to proceed program introduction and inform residents, businesses, and
waste management workers of both why the new system is necessary and how it will operate.
Past experience with source-separated collection in Manila has highlighted the need for this
education. For example, in 1999 the Metro Manila Development Authority suspended
implementation of its source-separated collection requirements to allow more time for
information dissemination and training. A pilot of source separated collection revealed a low
rate of compliance, caused by confusion about the regulation.
Waste reduction educational efforts in schools can reap long-term and far-reaching benefits.
School children can strongly influence the behavior of their entire family. Furthermore, if
educational efforts in schools are complemented by implementation of school waste reduction
programs, schools can save money on waste disposal.
Examples of educational resources and education programs that could serve as models for
replication include:

Puerto Princesa Citys Oplan Linis (Operation Cleanliness) Program uses citizen volunteers
to create a sense of urgency, concern, and responsibility for the cleanliness of the
community. The program focuses on value formation through massive information and
education campaigns to instill in the minds of the people, especially the children, the
importance of a clean environment. Since the programs inception in 1992, the city has
significantly reduced litter and outbreaks of contagious diseases.

Metro Manila Council of Women Balikatan Movement, Inc. has created an education
program targeting school children. In order to inform the schools, the Council organized
seminars for almost 1,500 school principals and supervisors in 25 strategically located
schools in the 17 cities and towns and distributed flyers there. The Movement also helped
establish model schools where children convert food waste into compost for use in the school
gardens and for sale to prospective buyers.

Bustos, Bulacans Local Health Board conducted an outreach and education program to
support an ecologically-sound waste management system. The Board coordinated activities
with local women's organizations, NGOs, and other civic and religious groups. The program
enlisted small groups of residents who worked to motivate other community members to join
in the waste reduction programs. Started in 1993 this program has improved the sanitation of
the entire municipality.

The Center for Environmental Concerns is a non-government development organization

which has developed environmental education curriculum and maintains an education and
information center.

Tools for business waste reduction have been developed in the U.S. These resources could be
adapted for use in the Metropolitan Manila area. A good example is Montgomery County,
Maryland which requires businesses with 100 or more on-site employees to complete a Business
Recycling and Waste Reduction Plan. This plan requires the business formulate a recycling plan
and submit an annual report on recycling accomplishments. The County can also require smaller
businesses to submit plans and/or reports. The County supports plan and report preparation
through standardized forms it developed for businesses to use and a technical assistance
program.

Page 12

Southeast Asia

In addition to education, local government units, businesses, and residents may benefit from
direct financial assistance or provision of equipment. For example, a training program on office
recycling could be augmented with provision of desktop recycling bins. Residents may be more
likely to compost kitchen waste if given a compost bin and worms (for vermicomposting). In
Bustos, Bulacan the Local Health Board waste reduction program volunteers constructed
backyard compost pits and household storage bins for recyclable and reusable materials to help
residents get started.
In addition, regional government should consider assisting local government units and their
contractors implement source-separated collection by providing collection equipment or
grants/loans to purchase it.
Economic Incentives for Disposal Reduction
Economic incentives are proven, effective tools to reduce disposal. Economic incentives can
target other government units, waste management companies, and individuals.
The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority could institute economic incentives that
encourage LGUs to reduce disposal. For example, instituting a per ton tax on disposal would
provide municipalities with an incentive to reduce disposal. Revenues from such a disposal tax
could be used to support waste reduction initiatives.
Another type of economic incentive could target private waste haulers. Incentives may
encourage waste haulers to invest in recycling equipment and assist in recycling outreach among
their customers. Communities can use contracts, franchise or license processes, or taxation to
establish economic incentives for waste haulers to support recycling. For example, contracts can
be written to reward haulers for meeting waste reduction targets, pay a bonus for reaching targets
or charge a penalty for not meeting them. Alternatively, tax codes can reward waste reduction
by charging taxes on waste collection profits but exempting profits from recyclables collection.
Currently, residents of Metropolitan Manila municipalities receive municipal trash service. The
cost of trash collection is financed from local governments general funds, generated from local
taxes and an allocation from the national government. Residents receive no economic signals
encouraging them to reduce trash disposal although research has indicated that such fees, known
as pay-as-you throw (PAYT) systems, serve as an incentive for residents to reduce disposal.
Local government units in Metropolitan Manila have the authority to impose garbage collection
fees but rarely use the authority out of concern such fees would be unpopular. PAYT systems
have proven to be effective in reducing waste, but are much more acceptable to residents when
they are one component of a mature integrated waste management system. PAYT trash fees
should be implemented in the long-term, after residents become accustomed to source-separating
their household discards.
Development of Sorting and Processing Facilities
The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority collects waste in its street sweeping, river
cleansing, and support of local collection activities. The street sweepings and waste from the
river contain approximately six tons of plastics and 20 tons of kitchen waste, paper, and grass
and wood per day. Development of sorting facilities and a compost facility to manage this waste
could reduce disposal needs of these waste streams by up to 75%. Furthermore, similar facilities
could process source-separated recyclables and organic wastes collected by LGUs. LGUs
typically could not afford to construct such facilities which benefit from economies of scale in
their operations. These facilities would also create employment opportunities for residents

Page 13

Southeast Asia

currently involved in scavenging. The lack of such facilities was cited as one of the reasons for
suspending MMDAs source-separated collection program in 1999.
Small- and Large Scale Composting Projects
Composting holds promise as a waste management option for much of Metropolitan Manilas
waste stream. More than half of the regions waste stream is comprised of kitchen wastes, grass,
and wood. A further 17% of the regions waste stream consists of paper products. While paper
waste has more value as a raw material for new paper production, composting is an alternative
for paper that is contaminated with food and therefore unsuitable for re-manufacturing. The
benefits of composting of organic waste rather than disposing of it include:

A reduced need for chemical fertilizers. Nearly 60% of the Philippines fertilizer needs are
imported. Clean compost replaces chemical fertilizers, thereby reducing dependence on
foreign goods.

Increased employment. Source-separated collection and composting activities are more labor
intensive than bulk collection and disposal. A survey of composting operations in the United
States revealed that the operations sustained an average of 40 full-time jobs for each 100,000
tons of material processed per year. In contrast, incinerators and sanitary landfills sustain
fewer than 13 jobs for every 100,000 tons handled per year.

Numerous demonstration projects in the Philippines have demonstrated the feasibility of

composting as a waste management alternative. Examples that could be replicated include:
The City of Marilao, Bulacan, Philippines, 20 miles from Manila, implemented a municipal
compost program in which the city offered increased collection frequency to residents that
source-separated food discards. Two-thirds of the citys households joined program. Some
compost produced from collected kitchen scraps has been used to grow potted vegetables with
the urban poor in mind.
Sta. Maria, Bulacans waste processing and recycling plant processes biodegradable materials
from public market waste into organic fertilizer. Sale of organic fertilizer and recyclable
materials provides funds for the plants operations.
The Paco Environmental Enhancement Project is a community-owned cooperative which
manages waste collection and operates a composting and recycling facility which processes
approximately four tonnes of garbage a day. The project was started with an initial investment
of approximately U.S.$60,000. Project participants believe waste reduction of 70% is achievable
with 50 to 60 percent of the District's waste composted and 20 to 30 percent recycled.
Local government units
Source-separated collection
Source-separated collection of wastes is critical to achieving disposal reduction. The MMDA
collection regulations introduced in 1999 were a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the
system was too complicated and introduced without sufficient education to succeed.
Furthermore, the program was a radical change from existing systems. In contrast, the Linis
Ganda (Clean and Beautiful) program in San Juan, Manila achieves source-separation of
recyclables without disrupting local systems. Linis Ganda deploys eco-aides who go around the
city with carts buying recyclable items from households. Participant households and schools
separate their garbage into wet and dry, and the Eco Aides purchase the recyclables from them.
Approximately 500 waste dealers, employing 1,000 Eco-Aides take part in this program.

Page 14

Southeast Asia

ESTIMATED DISPOSAL REDUCTION IN METROPOLITAN MANILA

The table below represents ILSR estimates for potential waste diversion levels if Metropolitan
Manila implements the waste reduction programs and policies presented in the previous section.
Table 4: Estimated waste reduction levels, 2010
Waste
stream

Households
Kitchen
Paper
Plastics
Grass &
Wood
Metal
Other
Commercial
Kitchen
Paper
Plastics
Grass &
Wood
Metal
Other
Institutional
Kitchen
Paper
Plastics
Grass &
Wood
Metal
Other
Market
Kitchen
Paper
Plastics
Grass &
Wood
Metal
Other
Street
sweeping
Kitchen
Paper
Plastics
Grass &
Wood
Metal
Other
River
Kitchen
Paper

Page 15

2005
Recycling &
composting

Disposal

Estimated
generation
(tons/day)

2010
Recycling &
composting

Disposal

2,568
913
856
514

642
342
300
128

1,926
571
556
385

2,920
1,038
973
584

1,460
779
681
292

1,460
260
292
292

285
571

114
86

171
485

324
649

260
195

65
454

582
298
217
41

204
112
76
14

378
186
141
26

662
339
246
46

463
254
172
32

199
85
74
14

81
135

32
17

49
118

92
154

74
38

18
115

10
24
8
1

4
9
3
0

6
15
5
1

12
28
9
1

9
21
7
1

2
7
3
0

3
5

1
1

2
5

3
6

2
1

1
4

255
66
62
35

102
20
25
12

153
46
37
23

290
75
70
40

232
45
56
28

58
30
14
12

4
18

2
2

3
15

5
20

4
5

1
15

4
4
2
10

1
1
1
4

3
3
1
6

4
4
3
11

2
3
2
9

2
2
1
2

0
8

0
1

0
7

0
9

0
2

0
7

1
1

0
0

1
0

1
1

1
0

0
0

Estimated
generation
(tons/day)

Southeast Asia

Waste
stream

Plastics
Grass &
Wood
Metal
Other

TOTAL

2005
Recycling &
composting

Disposal

Estimated
generation
(tons/day)

4
1

1
0

2
1

0
1

0
0

7,588

2,259 / 30%

Estimated
generation
(tons/day)

2010
Recycling &
composting

Disposal

4
1

3
1

1
0

0
1

0
1

0
0

0
1

5,329

8,627

5,137 / 60%

3,491

Note: Source reduction will keep per capita generation constant, waste generation will grow in proportion with
population only.

Page 16

Southeast Asia

Table 5: Estimated jobs sustained by integrated waste management system, 2010

Tons per year

Recycling
Composting
Reuse
Source
reduction
Disposal
Total

Estimated Processing
Jobs Sustained

Estimated Manufacturing Jobs Sustained

888,000
285,000
78,000
23,000

1,490
114
316
0

3,978
0
0
0

1,274,000
2,548,000

124
2,044

110
4,088

Note: Based on jobs sustained at similar enterprises in the United States. Actual figures will depend on
the facilities developed and local conditions. Figures do not include jobs sustained for collection or
education activities.

ILSR has not presented cost estimates for implementation of its proposed waste management
scenario. To do so, more data and engineering analysis would be necessary.
For the 1996-7 period, annual government expenditures on solid waste management in Metro
Manila were approximately 2.35 billion pesos (US$84 million using 28 PHP/US$, the average
exchange rate for the period). As the region struggles to create new disposal options, this figure
will necessarily grow in the coming years. For example, the JICA Plan estimates the cost of
implementing its recommended waste management system to be 77.5 billion Pesos from 1998
through 2010, for a yearly average of 6.46 billion pesos. Annual disposal costs alone for 4,500
tons of waste per day at the incinerator project proposed by Asea Brown Boveri and Vivendi,
would cost US$81 million or 4.07 billion pesos at todays exchange rate.
Conclusion
Experience in other communities around the world has consistently shown that integrated waste
management systems based on waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting are much
cheaper that disposal based systems. While initial investments will be high, Manila can not
afford not to adopt integrated waste management system. Otherwise, the region will continue to
waste raw materials, pollute the environment, have to regularly engage in contentious siting
battles over new disposal sites, and lose the opportunity to move scavengers from their
dangerous, poverty-stricken lifestyles into safe, secure, long-term employment.

Page 17