Wasting and Recycling In Metropolitan Manila, Philippines

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

ABSTRACT...1 CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT SITUATION IN METROPOLITAN MANILA...1 WASTE 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 ALL 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: WASTE GENERATION IN METROPOLITAN MANILA...1 TABLE 2: ESTIMATED WASTE GENERATION IN METROPOLITAN MANILA, 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

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 region s 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 Table 1: Waste Generation in Metropolitan Manila Management Method Tonnes per day Landfill 3,496 Illegally Dumped, 1,649 Burned, or Buried Recycled at Source 200 Recycled-by 127 Scavengers Total 5,345 % recycled 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 Page 1

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 Southeast Asia 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 Manila s 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

shut down Metro Manila s only disposal site by barricading its entrance. In order to end the barricade s government officials pledged to close San Mateo by the end of 2000. Southeast Asia Costs MMDA s 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 government s 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

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 Manila s 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 Manila s 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: 6% of MSW source-separated by households and collected by NGO- or community-run recycling programs; Commingled waste collected from households, commercial and institutional establishments, markets, and by street and river cleaning crews; Waste transferred from collection vehicles to containers at four transfer stations; Containerized waste hauled to an inland landfill Table 2: Estimated Waste Generation in Metropolitan Manila, 2010 Management Method Tonnes per day Landfill 7,919 Illegally Dumped, 1,413 Burned, or Buried Recycled at Source 567 Recycled-after 412 Collection Total 10,312 % recycled 10% Source: Japan International Cooperation Agency, The Study on Solid Waste Management for Metro Manila in the Republic of the Philippines: Final Report. March 1999 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

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 public s interest. (From Rhode Island s 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

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. Incinerators need a minimum amount of garbage daily to 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. Southeast Asia Table 3: Comparison of Incinerator and Automobile Air Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Pounds Per day Automobile Equivalent* CO 2,100 1,800 NOx 14,000 134,000 SOx 1,800 187,000 Hydrocarbon (nonmethane) 260 2,000 Total Suspended 540 27,000 Particulates Total (Weight Basis) 18,700 28,000 *Automobile equivalents represents the number of average, light weight motor vehicle traveling 33.5 miles per day necessary to produce the same amount of pollution. 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 incinerator s 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

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: Southeast Asia 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

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

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 contractors e.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

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 product s 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 York s Empire State Development Environmental Management Investment Group s (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. California s Recycled Market Development Zone (RMDZ) program, administered by the state s 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. EPA s 1994 JTR grantees have leveraged more than $329 million in investment for recycling businesses. These investments have resulted in the development of Page 10

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 Authority s future decisions about disposal facilities will define the region s 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 region s 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 region s 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 region s disposal needs by 50% or more. Education and Assistance Programs Implementing a radical change in Manila s waste management system will require extensive education and assistance programs. Page 11

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 City s 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 program s inception in 1992, the city has significantly reduced litter and outbreaks of contagious diseases. Southeast Asia 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, Bulacan s 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

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

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. Southeast Asia Small- and Large Scale Composting Projects Composting holds promise as a waste management option for much of Metropolitan Manila s waste stream. More than half of the region s waste stream is comprised of kitchen wastes, grass, and wood. A further 17% of the region s 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 city s 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, Bulacan s 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 plant s 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

ESTIMATED DISPOSAL REDUCTION IN METROPOLITAN MANILA Southeast Asia 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 2005 2010 stream Estimated Recycling & Disposal Estimated Recycling & Disposal generation (tons/day) composting generation (tons/day) composting Households Kitchen 2,568 642 1,926 2,920 1,460 1,460 Paper 913 342 571 1,038 779 260 Plastics 856 300 556 973 681 292 Grass & 514 128 385 584 292 292 Wood Metal 285 114 171 324 260 65 Other 571 86 485 649 195 454 Commercial Kitchen 582 204 378 662 463 199 Paper 298 112 186 339 254 85 Plastics 217 76 141 246 172 74 Grass & 41 14 26 46 32 14 Wood Metal 81 32 49 92 74 18 Other 135 17 118 154 38 115 Institutional Kitchen 10 4 6 12 9 2 Paper 24 9 15 28 21 7 Plastics 8 3 5 9 7 3 Grass & 1 0 1 1 1 0 Wood Metal 3 1 2 3 2 1 Other 5 1 5 6 1 4 Market Kitchen 255 102 153 290 232 58 Paper 66 20 46 75 45 30 Plastics 62 25 37 70 56 14 Grass & 35 12 23 40 28 12 Wood Metal 4 2 3 5 4 1 Other 18 2 15 20 5 15 Street sweeping Kitchen 4 1 3 4 2 2 Paper 4 1 3 4 3 2 Plastics 2 1 1 3 2 1 Grass & 10 4 6 11 9 2 Wood Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 8 1 7 9 2 7 River Kitchen 1 0 1 1 1 0 Paper 1 0 0 1 0 0 Page 15

Waste stream Estimated generation (tons/day) 2005 2010 Disposal Estimated generation (tons/day) Recycling & composting Recycling & composting Southeast Asia Disposal Plastics 4 1 2 4 3 1 Grass & 1 0 1 1 1 0 Wood Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 1 0 1 1 0 1 TOTAL 7,588 2,259 / 30% 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

Table 5: Estimated jobs sustained by integrated waste management system, 2010 Tons per year Estimated Processing Jobs Sustained Estimated Manufacturing Jobs Sustained Recycling 888,000 1,490 3,978 Composting 285,000 114 0 Reuse 78,000 316 0 Source 23,000 0 0 reduction Disposal 1,274,000 124 110 Total 2,548,000 2,044 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 today s 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