542146

research-article2014
WMR0010.1177/0734242X14542146Waste Management & ResearchSerrona et al.

Original Article

Waste Management & Research

Developing a monitoring and evaluation

114
The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
framework to integrate and formalize the sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14542146

informal waste and recycling sector: wmr.sagepub.com

The case of the Philippine National

Framework Plan

Kevin Roy B Serrona1, Jeongsoo Yu2, Emelita Aguinaldo3 and

Leonardo M Florece4

Abstract
The Philippines has been making inroads in solid waste management with the enactment and implementation of the Republic Act
9003 or the Ecological Waste Management Act of 2000. Said legislation has had tremendous influence in terms of how the national
and local government units confront the challenges of waste management in urban and rural areas using the reduce, reuse, recycle and
recovery framework or 4Rs. One of the sectors needing assistance is the informal waste sector whose aspiration is legal recognition of
their rank and integration of their waste recovery activities in mainstream waste management. To realize this, the Philippine National
Solid Waste Management Commission initiated the formulation of the National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector,
which stipulates approaches, strategies and methodologies to concretely involve the said sector in different spheres of local waste
management, such as collection, recycling and disposal. What needs to be fleshed out is the monitoring and evaluation component
in order to gauge qualitative and quantitative achievements vis-a-vis the Framework Plan. In the process of providing an enabling
environment for the informal waste sector, progress has to be monitored and verified qualitatively and quantitatively and measured
against activities, outputs, objectives and goals. Using the Framework Plan as the reference, this article developed monitoring and
evaluation indicators using the logical framework approach in project management. The primary objective is to institutionalize
monitoring and evaluation, not just in informal waste sector plans, but in any waste management initiatives to ensure that envisaged
goals are achieved.

Keywords
Waste management, monitoring and evaluation, informal waste sector, logical framework, indicators, objectives, goals,
participation

Introduction
The Philippines is continually faced with a wide array of social,
economic and environmental challenges, one of which is solid
waste management (SWM). The countrys population as of 2012
was 96,706,764 million (World Bank, 2013a) with a national
waste generation rate estimated to be at 29,315 metric tonnes per
day (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). Per capita waste genera-
tion is 0.70kgday1 in urban areas and 0.30kgday1 in rural
areas. Metropolitan Manila, the National Capital Region, pro-
duces about 76207802 metric tonnes per day, which represent
almost a quarter of the countrys solid waste generation (Alave,
Significant strides in SWM have been made by the Philippine
government in the area of SWM with the implementation of the
Republic Act 9003 (National Solid Waste Management
Commission, 2014) or the Ecological Solid Waste Management
Act of 2000. The legislation stipulates specific targets,
1SEINAN Group, Hirosaki, Japan
2Department of Interregional Environmental System, Tohoku
University, Aoba-ku, Japan
3National Solid Waste Management Commission, Quezon City,

2011). With the Philippines experiencing economic growth of Philippines

4School of Environmental Science and Management, University of the
7.6% gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010 (World Bank, Philippines Los Banos College, Laguna, Philippines
2013b) and 7.8% in the first quarter of 2013 (National Statistical
Coordination Board, 2013), resource consumption and utilization Corresponding author:
Kevin Roy B Serrona, SEINAN Group, 4-5 Kanda 5-Chome, Hirosaki,
keep increasing at an alarming pace, and are expected to impact Aomori 036-8061, Japan.
on waste generation. Email: wastesoc@gmail.com

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016

2 Waste Management & Research
institutional, regulatory and financial arrangements, as well as a
penalties and rewards system that will improve and strengthen
SWM at the national and local levels. On the compliance side,
local government units (LGUs) are mandated to comply with the
provisions of the law, e.g. closing of open dumpsites, waste segre-
gation, establishment of material recovery facilities (MRFs), etc.,
or face penalties. The National Solid Waste Management
Commission (NSWMC), the agency tasked to oversee the imple-
mentation of the law, has been at the forefront of initiating and
mentoring LGUs towards achieving the envisaged goals of RA
9003. Among its functions include review, approval, coordination
and monitoring of local SWM plans at the provincial and city/
municipal levels. It is also tasked to provide technical and capabil-
ity building assistance to LGUs and conduct a sustained public
information campaign (Varey etal., 2003).
There is a substantial number of informal waste sectors
(IWSs) in the Philippines, the majority of whom operate in urban
areas where recyclable materials abound. In Metro Manila alone,
their number ranges from 5000 to 7000 based on estimates. They
are composed of waste reclaimers in the dumpsites, jumpers who
climb up the garbage trucks to recover recyclable materials, gar-
bage crew, itinerant waste buyers and illegal junkshops that
recover materials and divert solid waste materials from final dis-
posal (NSWMC, 2009). However, their economic and social con-
tributions remain unrecognized. The National Framework Plan
for the Informal Waste Sector describes the benefits gained from
informal waste recovery, namely: reduction in terms of need to
extract raw materials and non-renewable materials, recovery is
less costly and less harmful than disposal and retrieval of waste
materials from the waste stream reduces the public burden to col-
lect, transport, dispose and treat waste. In addition, it also pro-
vides needed employment and stimulates the creation of small
and medium scale enterprises.
Globally, there are more than two million informal waste pick-
ers in the recycling industry engaged in various areas of waste
recovery (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012). The sector has
achieved considerable gains in terms of recycling rates to the tune
of 20% to 30% in low income countries and helped local govern-
ment units or authorities save 20% in local waste management
expenses (Velis etal., 2012). This is exemplified in China where
approximately 20% of discards are collected by the informal
waste sector for recycling (Hoornweg etal., 2005). Recovery rate
by the sector goes up to 80% because of the direct selling that
occurs to the people who depend economically from buying and
selling recyclable materials (Gunsilius etal., 2011). Table 1 shows
select cities with the informal waste sector exercising greater con-
trol of material recovery over the formal sector. In Quezon City,
Philippines, the informal sector recovery was 23% in 2010 com-
pared with 2% that was recovered by the formal sector. The big
difference can be attributed to the fact that the IWS collects mate-
rials directly from households, business establishments and dis-
posal facilities. This translates into substantial income for them.
There is no specific provision for the IWS in RA 9003, but its
implementing rules and regulations (IRR) calls for the inclusion
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
Table 1. Comparison of material recovery by formal and
informal sector in six different cities.
City Formal sector Informal sector
Tonnes % of total Tonnes % of total
Cairo, Egypt 433,200 13% 979,400 30%
Cluj, Romania 8900 5% 14,600 8%
Lima, Peru 9400 0.3% 529,400 19%
Lusaka, Zambia 12,000 4% 5400 2%
Pune, India 0% 117,900 22%
Quezon City, 15,600 2% 141,800 23%
Philippines
Source: Scheinberg etal. (2010).
of a representative from the junkshop owners association in the
barangay (basic political unit) SWM committee. There is a pro-
vision in Section 48 of RA 9003 that bars unauthorized removal
of recyclable materials intended for collection by authorized per-
sons, which renders informal waste recovery as outside of the
legal system (RA 9003). In addition, waste picking and trading
will be regulated in the transition period from open dumpsite into
controlled dump and eventual eradication of informal waste
recovery in sanitary landfills. IWS activities in controlled dumps
are subject to the permission of owners or operator.
In line with the national governments policy on inclusive
growth, the NSWMC, in partnership with the UNEP Regional
Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific, Advance Waste
Management Project of the Japanese Government and the
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, formulated the
National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector, which
seeks to integrate the IWS in formal waste management systems
through provision of a favorable policy environment, skills
development and access to livelihood opportunities and social
services, such as health, insurance and organizational affiliation
(NSWMC, 2009). RA 9003 encourages the formation of cooper-
atives and associations that could serve as the venue for IWS
participation in mainstream SWM. The Framework Plan defines
IWS as individuals, groups or small enterprises engaged in the
recovery of waste materials either on a full-time or part-time
basis with income generation as the motivation. Their informal
character is owing to the fact that they are not registered with any
government agency and their working conditions are described
as unhealthy and hazardous.
Embedded in the said document is the strategic framework
plan for the IWS, which stipulates key issues and challenges con-
fronting the IWS as well as vision, mission and goals. Also
included are proposed interventions, actors and partners, as well
as key steps to implement the plan. However, there is a need to
establish a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) scheme to ensure
that qualitative and quantitative targets are achieved, and recom-
mendations and lessons fully identified for replication in future
programs for the IWS. The goal is to build a M&E framework in
the waste sector so that stakeholders across national and local
levels are conscious on how to gauge successes and failures in
Serrona et al. 3
project implementation. This article attempts to establish a M&E
framework in the context of the Philippine National Framework
Plan for the Informal Waste Sector with the goal of institutional-
izing M&E systems at all levels of SWM interventions.
Research methodology
Interventions in SWM have expanded from the technical, institu-
tional, financial and public awareness perspectives. It is no longer
confined to physical infrastructures; it has seriously considered
the valuable role of service delivery agents, private sector and
local communities towards realizing successful waste manage-
ment programs. With institutions and community groups coming
into play, project management with accompanying M&E compo-
nents have become indispensable to ensure that planned targets
are achieved, recommendations and lessons are identified and
successful programs are replicated.
As M&E is finely integrated in development programs, the
results have become better and more attuned to the needs of part-
ner communities. For example, the Independent Evaluation
Group of the World Bank conducts evaluation studies on various
themes, including environment, agriculture and rural develop-
ment sectors. In its recent findings on climate adaptation, it found
out that the Bank needs to incorporate climate risk assessment in
project design and appraisal based on experience in Kiribati,
Colombia and the Caribbean (Independent Evaluation Group,
2013). Therefore, initial questions raised in this research were:
Does M&E aid in sustaining SWM programs for the informal
waste sector? What are the requirements to institutionalize M&E
in SWM? A strong M&E system is one of the contributing factors
in achieving sustainable SWM, which is the main argument why
the M&E framework for the IWS was developed.
This research primarily takes data from the Philippine
National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector, which
carries the necessary narratives for the proposed IWS M&E
framework. The framework plan was formulated based on a
series of public consultations with the IWS, government and non-
government organizations and other support agencies. Inventory
of existing junkshops and waste reclaimers associations and gov-
ernment agencies were also made. A situational analysis of the
IWS in the Philippines was likewise conducted. These were sup-
plemented with a review of existing studies related to the IWS.
Prior to finalizing the report, a validation workshop was made
with key stakeholders (NSWMC, 2009).
In crafting the M&E framework, a combination of research
methods, namely desktop reviews, actual visits to IWS groups in
select cities and municipalities in the Philippines and interviews,
were utilized. A project entitled Social Inclusion and Alternative
Livelihood for the Informal Waste Sector was taken as a refer-
ence study. The project is being supported by the World Bank and
the Japan Social Development Fund (WB/JSDF) in recognition of
the National Framework Plan for the IWS. The objective is to
develop and expand livelihood opportunities and integrate them
into the fold of formal waste management. The goal is to organize
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
3500 waste pickers in five pilot sites at 750 waste picker per sites;
provide sub-grants for LGUs for SWM investment purposes;
training and technical assistance for members of recycling coop-
eratives and employment and training with the private sector.
There will also be grants as a start-up capital amounting to $20,000
per grant. Project duration is two years from 18 June 2012 to 15
August 2014. Pilot sites are General Santos City, Legaspi City and
Albay Province, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, Butuan City
and Cabanatuan City. Lead implementing agency is the Solid
Waste Association of the Philippines (SWAPP), a non-govern-
ment organization. In addition, main documents reviewed and
analyzed were RA 9003 and the National Framework Plan for the
Informal Waste Sector.
The National Framework Plan spells out proposed interven-
tions and potential partners in realizing the participation of the
IWS in formal waste management. This is the main reference or
derivative through which the proposed logical framework
(lograme) and the monitoring and evaluation framework (MEF)
were formulated, and which will be discussed in subsequent
chapters. It should be noted that the Framework Plan is a pioneer-
ing effort of the NSWMC in dealing directly with the IWS in a
manner that gives guidance to LGUs on how to collaborate with
the said sector. It is, thus, important to discuss the policy and
regulatory frameworks and M&E definitions and processes to
contextualize the discussions.
Definition of M&E
M&E is a reinforcing tool aimed at checking progress and evalu-
ating outcomes. Generally, evaluation is defined as an assess-
ment, as systematic and objective as possible, of an on-going or
completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementa-
tion and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfill-
ment of objectives, development efficiency, effectiveness, impact
and sustainability. It also provides information that is credible
and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons into the deci-
sion-making process of both recipients and donors (Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development Development
Assistance Committee, 1991). Monitoring is defined as the ongo-
ing process by which stakeholders obtain regular feedback on the
progress being made towards achieving their goals and objec-
tives. On the other hand, evaluation is a rigorous and independent
assessment of either completed or ongoing activities to determine
the extent to which they are achieving stated objectives and con-
tributing to decision making (United Nations Development
Programme, 2009). In summary, Table 2 lists the M&E aims.
M&E is also a participatory exercise, where key stakeholders
are involved not just as sources of information, but rather as
active players in the development process. Participatory monitor-
ing and evaluation (PME) is defined as a process through which
stakeholders at various levels engage in monitoring or evaluating
a particular project or policy, share control over the content, the
process and the results of the M&E activity and engage in taking
or identifying corrective actions (World Bank, 2013c). In the
4 Waste Management & Research
Table 2. Objectives of M&E.
Monitoring
Assess progress against schedules and targets
Manage allocation of resources and funds
Compare actual inputs and expenditures
against budget
Assess the quality of implementation
Manage risks
Source: Collete (2003).
Table 3. Logframe matrix.
Summary of objectives/ Objectively verifiable indicators
activities
Goals (broad national/ How the goals are to be measured,
sector goal) including quantity, quality and time
Objectives (development How the objectives are to be
outcomes at project end) measured, including quality,
quantity and time
Expected outputs How the results are to be measured,
(tangible results) including quantity, quality, time
Activities (tasks/work) Quantity, quality, time
Sources: Collete (2003) and European Commission (2004).
context of SWM, M&E plays an important role in determining
the success of a SWM initiative and how it can be replicated or
scaled up. SWM, being both social and technical in nature, needs
regular monitoring of a whole range of activities like waste gen-
eration, waste segregation, recycling, greenhouse gas emissions,
etc. Community participation is also an element that needs to be
measured, as successful waste reduction or recycling programs
hinge on this aspect.
RA 9003 requires LGUs to come up with SWM plans. A
monitoring program component is embedded in the prescribed
SWM plan, which falls under the Implementation Strategy
and states that the monitoring program should provide accu-
rate information and should show whether or not policies are
succeeding and to monitor the performance of the SWM plan.
In addition, there is also a milestone component that highlights
success stories across waste management stages from source
reduction to establishment of sanitary landfills (NSWMC,
2012). To operationalize this, an MEF needs to be established
because of the variety of SWM approaches and strategies that
LGUs will employ in complying with RA 9003. The richness
of implementation models, recycling systems and disposal
options in SWM implementation will only be captured through
a sound M&E system.
In general, the application of M&E in waste management is
considered necessary to measure progress, quantify costs and
assess impacts at the community level. Sharp etal. (2010)
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
Evaluation
Is the project fulfilling its objectives?
What are the impacts? On beneficiaries? Community perceptions?
What have been the outcomes of the project on service
delivery?
Is it efficient in how it converts resources/funds of pilot activities?
How to improve effectiveness/efficiency of pilot activities?
Are assumptions holding true and hypothesis valid?
What are the lessons for the longer-term program?
Means of verification Important assumptions/risks
Source of info who, External influences beyond the
when, how projects direct control
Source of info who, If the objectives are achieved,
when, how what assumptions must hold
true to achieve the goals?
Source of info who, If outputs are achieved, what
when, how assumptions must hold true to
achieve the purpose?
Source of info who, If activities are completed,
when, how what assumptions must hold
true to deliver the results?
discussed succinctly the necessity of having a M&E system in
household waste prevention interventions to collect robust and
high-quality data, come up with decision on where to prioritize
resources and ensure that waste preventions lead to behavior
change. Furthermore, participation, which is a highly qualitative
element, can be measured using appropriate tools and approaches.
Logical framework
The logical framework (logframe) is a tool in development pro-
grams that prescribes a hierarchical approach to displaying how
the project will be implemented to achieve its objectives. It shows
the interrelationships between design elements, factors influenc-
ing success, indicators for project progress and impacts and
means of project monitoring (Collete, 2003). It was originally
developed for the United States Agency for International
Development in 1969 as a tool to conceive a project and under-
stand assumptions (World Bank, 2012). Based on experiences of
the various bilateral and multilateral organizations, the logframe
approach has resulted in measuring progress and impacts from
project design, implementation and post-implementation stages.
It is also the basis for coming up with a MEF. A standard matrix
for the logframe is shown in Table 3.
The vertical logic is a series of hypothesis linking the achieve-
ment of activities through outputs to project objectives and goal.
It consists of the intended goals, objectives, outputs and activities,
Serrona et al. 5

Table 4. Planning matrix for monitoring.

Expected Indicators M&E activity Time or Responsi- Means of Resources Risks

results with data schedule and bilities verification
collection frequency
method
Obtained From results How is data to Level of detail Who is Systematic Estimate of What are the
from framework. be obtained? that can be responsible source and resources risks and
development Indicators should Example: included for location where required and assumptio
plan and also capture through a would organizing you would find committed ns for
results key priorities survey, a depend on the data the identified for carrying carrying out
framework. such as capacity review or the practical collection and necessary out planned the planned
development and stakeholder needs. and verifying data, such as a monitoring monitoring
gender. Risks need meeting, etc. data quality national institute activities. activities?
to be identified too. and source? or academe

Source: United Nations Development Programme, 2009

while the horizontal logic consists of the indicators, means of
verifications (MOVs) and assumptions. The premise in logframe
is that project elements are interrelated and external factors like
environment, people, institutions, politics, climate, etc., play in
project implementation. Thus, there is a column for assumptions,
which describe the external factors that will play in the achieve-
ment or non-achievement of the vertical elements. It also contains
the perceived risks that will come along in project implementa-
tion. The logframe aids in identifying resource requirements and
costs (European Commission, 2004).
The use of logframe has its own advantages and limitations. If
used properly, it is logical, concise and objective. It places the
project into the larger context of a sectoral/program goal and is a
valuable tool for the management as it provides a summary of the
project in a standard format (Collete, 2003). On the other hand,
its limitations revolve around the use of a rigid or inflexible
approach by organizations that restricts the flexibility of log-
frame utilization. Result-oriented projects may ignore the pro-
cess itself, which is a feature of the logframe. It is also policy
neutral when it comes to questions related to income distribution,
access to resources, local participation costs or effects on the
environment (World Bank, 2012). It is important to note that the
logframe approach is one of the tools in project planning and
management, and complements other tools like institutional
capacity assessment, gender analysis, environmental impact
assessment and economic and financial analysis (World Bank,
2012: 58). As stated previously, it has to be done in a participa-
tory manner, whereby project stakeholders are involved in the
whole process, e.g. identification of goals, outputs, activities and
indicators among others.
The role of indicators in the logframe setting is crucial in
measuring quantity and quality in relation to the achievement of
the design elements, namely goals, objectives, outputs and activi-
ties. As such, determining the right indicators should posses the
SMART qualities: simple easy to understand; measurable
quantitative where possible; attributable directly relate to
change measured; relevant to management needs; and timely
at the right time to support management (Collete, 2003). In
addition, indicators should emanate from the perspectives of both
the management and the stakeholders to whom the project is
intended for. When linked with the project cycle, the logframe
approach is embedded in each stage, such as project identifica-
tion, formulation, implementation and evaluation and audit.
MEF
With the logframe identified in the planning stage, the next step
is the formulation of the MEF in order to proceed with the moni-
toring and evaluation activities. Whereas the logframe provides a
structure for project implementation, the MEF provides the struc-
ture for all M&E activities. It describes the following:.
1. Requirements of users of the M&E information.
2. Description of the indicators and information to be
collected.
3. Sources of information.
4. Responsibilities for undertaking all the different aspects of
M&E.
5. How M&E information is to be collected, reported and used
(including schedules and frequency).
The MEF is derived from the logframe. It is likewise developed at
the planning stages and should be considered as a necessary ingre-
dient in project management (United Nations Development
Programme, 2009). It gives management the upper hand in deter-
mining where the project is headed to and what are the accompa-
nying issues or problems. Moreover, it also allows an objective
view of how the project is faring.
To achieve quality M&E, SMART indicators are the key as
stated previously. There is a wide array of qualitative and quanti-
tative collection methods that can be used in SWM, as can be
seen in Table 5 (Bernstein, 2004).
A combination of methods can be applied depending on
needs. Other methods apart from the ones mentioned above can
be used. MOVs could be reports, documentations, institutions
and other platforms for validating information. One of the key
result areas in a MEF is arriving at recommendations and les-
sons. M&E is done in three stages: pre, during and post stages of

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016

6 Waste Management & Research

Table 5. Quantitative and qualitative methods and tools.

Tools Brief description

Collection of Existing reports and documentations sourced from the provincial, city, municipal and barangay
secondary data LGUs, as well as from NGOs and international organizations.
Household survey Random or stratified sample of households and collecting information about perceptions, views
and suggestion on an existing or finished SWM project. Household information to be collected
across different social groups to reflect wide stakeholder base.
Socio-economic Aims to collect baseline information and gender-specific information on the target or beneficiaries
survey to assess the socio-economic benefits and establish indicators for measuring the impact of an
SWM project.
Semi-structured Utilize interview questionnaires to gage perceptions on SWM conditions and institutions, priority
interviews needs and willingness-to-pay. It could also be used to assess project impacts.
Focus group Held for each stakeholder group and based on income levels, gender, ethnicity and geographical
discussions location to draw experience and knowledge of issues in selection, preparation and implementation.
Willingness-to- Conducted to assess affordability by the beneficiaries or views on maintaining improved SWM
pay systems at the onset or end of a project.
Service Questionnaire intended for solid waste collection service providers to understand the nature of
monitoring survey their constraints in service delivery and to estimate the level, frequency and quality of service
emanating from SWM service improvements.
Participant Fieldwork technique to collect qualitative data and to deepen understanding of peoples
observation motivations, perceptions and attitudes.
Ocular inspection Fieldwork technique aimed at physically assessing improvements in SWM infrastructures in the
area of waste collection, hauling, disposal and recycling.
Participatory Fora for beneficiaries and implementers to present and validate findings of surveys, FGDs and
stakeholder interviews and other assessment activities. It also aims to capture information that is not gathered
workshops from other assessment activities. This could be a method in CBM&E to generate community
recommendations and lessons.

Source: Bernstein, 2004.

CBM&E: community-based monitoring and evaluation; LGU: local government unit; NGO: Non-government organization; SWM: solid waste
management.

a project. In the implementation stage, continuous monitoring
generates proposals or recommendations to improve project out-
comes. Recommendations, thus, are for immediate considera-
tion. On the other hand, lessons are generalizations arising from
evaluations that are intended for subsequent projects or pro-
grams (Collete, 2003). In SWM, an example of a recommenda-
tion is to allow the IWS to work in composting plants. On the
other hand, the lesson would be that allowing them to work in all
niches of waste recovery increases their visibility and income.
M&E in SWM
Doing M&E in SWM is not a novel idea or practice, but devel-
oping a thorough M&E framework is a relatively new field of
endeavor. SWM programs or projects have inherent focus on
qualitative and quantitative indicators to gage success or fail-
ure. Waste generation amounts, growing disposal costs and ris-
ing tipping fees drive local planners to collect and analyze data
and adjust programs to be sustainable and impact-oriented
(United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). Past
research works have shown the importance of M&E in SWM.
Sharp etal. (2010) emphasized the need to have robust and reli-
able M&E of household waste preventions to allow stakehold-
ers to collect high-quality data, ensure that waste prevention
initiatives are effective and creating behavior change and ensure
prioritization of resources. Wilson etal. (2008) noted the lack
of reliable SWM quantitative data in developing country cities
especially on informal recycling rates. Given the circumstances
the IWS is in, there is little way to establish records of waste
recovery, which is very important considering their recovery
rate of 20% to 50%. The path to integrating the IWS should be
accompanied by an M&E system that takes into account their
contributions in waste recovery.
M&E is done in a hierarchy. Development projects initiated
by the national government or with support from international
organizations, and which utilize the logframe approach, usually
have a MEF that will guide the programs in conducting moni-
toring and assessments. At the community level, there is another
level called community-based monitoring and evaluation
(CBM&E), which is primarily used to assess impacts on the
community and community perceptions (Collete, 2003). The
methodologies in CBM&E differs from the institutional or pro-
ject level M&E because the former deals directly with commu-
nity members. Household surveys, informal meetings, ocular
inspections and community mapping are some of the desired
methodologies. Indicator-setting is also a task accorded to the
community because they ought to define what success of failure
for them is in SWM.
In the case of the IWS inclusion, M&E should be incorporated
in action plans. Waste pickers are to be involved in selecting
appropriate indicators, identifying frequency of data collection
and assessing progress. Indicators should be simple and data
sources readily accessible (Bernstein, 2004). In a nutshell,
CBM&E in IWS inclusion should be able to do the following.

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016

Serrona et al. 7
Indicators
Project 1
CBM&E
Lessons
Figure 1. MEF and CBM&E loop.
CBM&E: community-based monitoring and evaluation; MEF: monitoring and evaluation.
Understand the importance of M&E in SWM at the commu-
nity level.
Develop local monitoring indicators and evaluation
activities.
Utilize locally appropriate methodologies and techniques in
data collection.
Feed M&E findings into larger SWM plans, e.g. municipal or
provincial SWM plans.
Feed quantitative monitoring reports into the SWM
database.
Translate M&E findings into improving their social and envi-
ronmental conditions.
The MEF that was developed for the National Framework Plan
feeds into the CBM&E by way of validating the identified indica-
tors from the community perspective. Conversely, CBM&E
facilitates community-identified indicators to be fed into the cen-
tral MEF. This process mutually connects the loop between the
MEF and CBM&E. Figure 1 shows the loop that links MEF and
CBM&E in a program.
From Figure 1, SWM projects under the umbrella of a com-
mon or central MEF can share lessons. Concretely, LGUs who
have SWM projects using the logframe approach communicate
with the NSWMC on existing and emerging indicators, while the
latter documents and ensures that the MEF reflects realistic indi-
cators. It should also be noted that LGUs have their own MEFs
too, but aligned with the central MEF that the NSWMC manages.
The role of CBM&E is to determine and assess local impacts that
are not fully captured in the regular M&E activities, such as the
ones suggested in the MEF. It also provides an opportunity for
the partner communities to independently provide feedback to
NSWMC or LGUs in terms of the issues, problems and resolu-
tions that are emerging on the ground. In the process, the MEF
will additionally build on the merits of CBM&E and gives an
opportunity for local stakeholders to be truly involved.
Results and discussions
Laws and regulations
The Philippines is replete with environmental laws and regula-
tions pertaining to SWM. The major milestone was the passage
of RA 9003, which comprehensively defined institutional, social,
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
MEF
Indicators
Project 2 Project 3
CBM&E CBM&E
Lessons
financial and technical arrangements in SWM. The IWS situation
has not been addressed in previous legislations, although waste
picking activities in the Philippines commenced in the 1970s.
Piecemeal programs like the cash for trash was launched in the
1980s, but failed because it tried to compete with the informal
system. In addition, they were tagged as squatters then, which
led to the demolishment of their makeshift shelters and subse-
quent relocation (Serrona, 2008). With RA 9003, the offshoots
are the National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector
and the NSWMS, which are discussed in Table 6.
The passage of RA 9003 facilitated the recognition of the sta-
tus of IWS and the identification of subsequent SWM regulations
with the purpose of emphasizing the crucial role that they play in
addressing local waste problems. The National Framework Plan
for the Informal Waste Sector enabled NSWMC to promote a
shift of thinking at the LGU level towards members of the IWS.
There is now a conscious effort by LGUs to consider the plight of
the IWS in light of improving local SWM systems. An example
would be in General Santos City in Southern Mindanao, where
the IWS is organized and waste picking is regulated to allow
equal opportunity for the members to recover waste. Members
were organized into groups and given specific days to collect
recyclable materials at the dumpsite. In the Payatas-controlled
dumpsite in Quezon City, members of the IWS sift through waste
materials on pre-determined days wearing LGU-issued identifi-
cation cards. In other words, current legislations legitimized their
operations in disposal facilities and communities.
National Framework Plan for the
Informal Waste Sector
This research endeavored to establish a logframe and MEF using
the National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector as
the pilot or reference document. A review of the said document
revealed the absence of a clear M&E component, which would
have played a significant role in managing, monitoring and cap-
turing recommendations and lessons down the line of implemen-
tation. It was rationalized that this is a good starting point for
introducing and integrating the logframe approach in any SWM
initiatives regardless of the scale of the project. In the document,
there is a section detailing the strategic framework plan for the
IWS consisting of a summary of issues and challenges, vision,
mission, goals, proposed interventions and critical actors and
8 Waste Management & Research

Table 6. Philippine laws and regulations.

Legislation Salient provisions

Ecological Centerpiece legislation on SWM in the Philippines. Enacted by the Philippine Congress to adopt
Solid Waste a systematic, comprehensive and ecological waste management program. The law emphasizes
Management Act source reduction, composting, recycling and re-use, which provides more economic and social
of 2000 (RA 9003) opportunities for the IWS. Waste picking is acknowledged in the law and under Section 39 on
guidelines for controlled dumps, it says that waste picking and trading shall be controlled.
National Developed by NSWMC for the purpose of integrating the IWS in formal waste management
Framework Plan systems by supporting them to enter new service roles and niches in separate collection
for the Informal and recycling, access to sorting space and transfer stations and sanitary landfills, support
Waste Sector diversification of livelihood activities through cooperatives and associations and improve work
(2009) conditions and better social services.
National Identified policy gaps and ways to harmonize policies as a result of fragmented, overlapping and
Solid Waste contradicting provisions of existing environmental laws. The strategy addresses the plight of
Management the IWS by ensuring that waste management systems and infrastructures are disaster-proof to
Strategy (2012 avoid accidents at dumps and other related facilities. Monitoring of communities hosting SWM
2016) facilities will be done, including working conditions of IWSs to promote safety and protect health.
Local Government Devolved major functions from the national government to the local government units in areas,
Code of 1991 (RA such as solid waste collection and disposal. Cities and municipalities are responsible for solid
7160) waste disposal while barangays (smallest political unit) take care of waste collection. It also
empowers LGUs to levy fees and collect SWM fees or user fees.

IWS: informal waste sector; NSWMC: National Solid Waste Management Commission; SWM: solid waste management.

partners. The idea is that framework plans can be translated into
specific plans as well as M&E documents. Ideally, the MEF
should be made at the onset of project development, but there is
no stopping from developing it as long as directions and activities
are clearly laid out, such as the case of the framework plan.
The limitation of this article is its sole reliance on the frame-
work plan. Therefore, this is a document in progress as the indi-
cators, assumptions and risks need to be validated with concerned
stakeholders at the national and local levels of governance,
including IWS groups and private enterprises. Table 7 shows the
abbreviated logframe. The narrative column is taken from the
framework plan.
Table 7 reflects the hierarchical order of the logframe starting
with the goals, objectives, outputs and activities. Again, the nar-
rative column is sourced from the reference document while the
indicators, MOVs and assumptions are supplied by the authors.
As explained earlier, the basis for the MEF is the logframe and,
therefore, the two are inextricably linked. For this research, a
detailed MEF is formulated with consideration of the availability
of resources and the range of data collection methods that are
readily available for use. The MEF starts with the outputs down
to the activities as they are the ones directly measured by the
M&E activities. It elaborates on collection methods, frequency of
data collection, responsible entities, MOVs, resources and risks.
The M&E component can be primarily done by a unit within an
organization, but it does not mean that other units are exempted
from doing M&E. In fact, it is a function of all parties involved.
The idea of having an M&E unit is to lead and consolidate M&E
activities and also disseminate findings. Table 8 shows an abstract
of the proposed MEF.
The MEF is the main document of the organization in imple-
menting M&E activities. In SWM projects, the indicators could
expand and include technical and social indicators depending on
the scope of the initiative. The MEF could be considered a
dynamic document because circumstances could change. The
important point to consider is the constant reference to the
expected results since it is the heart of the project.
As stated previously, the participation of relevant stakeholders
in the M&E process is crucial. Their perspectives should be taken
in to consideration when assessing impacts. To do this, PME is
used where qualitative and quantitative tools are employed (refer
to Table 7). The question is to what extent are project implement-
ers, such as the NSWMC, willing to embrace PME considering
that it involves lots of work, requires resources (money and tech-
nical expertise) and time. It also requires reconciling timeframes
because PME cannot just be rushed to meet project deadlines. It
has to adapt to the local implementation phase. Therefore, a pro-
ject design has to consider flexibility when setting targets that the
community will perform.
Recommendations and lessons are generated from various
M&E tools, such as progress and evaluation reports that are pri-
marily anchored on the MEF. As explained in the MEF section,
the former refers to proposals related to project implementation
or management to improve project outcomes, while the latter
refers to generalizations designed for subsequent programs or
projects. Lessons do not necessarily require immediate action for
the current project (Collete, 2003). In Tables 8 and 9, lessons can
be culled from the output level. For example, on adequate access
to basic services such as education and health and other social
services, potential lesson here could be the importance of hav-
ing a geographical-based inclusion plan that will proactively
address the basic needs of specific IWS groups. The enforcement
indicator here would be the compliance of LGUs to provide basic
services to marginalized groups such as the IWS.
In assessing performance vis-a-vis identified indicators, both
the qualitative and quantitative data that are collected should be

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016

Serrona et al. 9

Table 7. Logical framework for the National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector.

Narrative Indicators Means of verification Assumptions

Goals
Formulate and enforce policies
that enable the informal waste
sector to be integrated in the
formal SWM system.
Assist the informal waste sector
to have access to employment
and alternative livelihood
opportunities by providing skills
development and protection from
occupational hazards and risks.
Objectives
To integrate the informal sector
in the SWM system by providing
them with a favorable policy
environment, skills development
and access to secured livelihood,
employment and social services.
No. of local IWS policies
Outputs
Effective supporting mechanisms
in place for the sector to enter
new service roles and niches in
separate collection, recycling
and composting.
Assured structural access
to sorting space at transfer
stations, materials recovery
facilities, composting facilities
and sanitary landfills.
Number of well-established NSWMC, LGUs. High interest of LGUs in
local policies on IWS integrating IWS into their fold.
integration in formal waste Clear local policies on IWS
management. integration will be formulated.
Number of skills training TESDA, SWAPP, TESDA, SWAPP and other
identified and conducted for training NGOs are able to effectively
the IWS. documentations. identify appropriate livelihood
programs for the IWS.
No. of integrated support NSWMC, TESDA, Full realization of the
services for the IWS LGUs. provisions in the National
identified. Framework Plan for Informal
Waste Sector is achieved.
passed.
Specific areas or niches LGUs, NSWMC, Adequate documentation of
identified for IWS integration. SWAPP, UPLB new services and niches for
SESAM. IWS are done.
Sustainable support
mechanisms are put in place to
ensure IWS role in collection,
recycling and composting.
Access modes identified MOA with LGUs. Design for recycling and
for IWS in the formal SWM disposal facilities take into
system. consideration the expected
activities of IWS.

IWS: informal waste sector; LGU: local government unit; MOA: Memorandum of Agreement; NGO: Non-government organization; NSWMC: National
Solid Waste Management Commission; SWAPP: Solid Waste Association of the Philippines; SWM: solid waste management; TESDA: Technical
Education and Skills Development Authority; SUPLB: University of the Philippines - Los Banos, School of Environmental Science and Management.

analyzed in a way that will render them useful and beneficial for
project implementers (European Commission, 2004). Analytical
methods are shown in Table 9.
With the logframe and MEF identified, the next step is valida-
tion with relevant stakeholders consisting of government agen-
cies, non-government organizations, community groups and IWS
groups. This can be done through participatory workshops and
series of consultation meetings to ensure that indicators follow
the SMART guidelines. NSWMC plays an important role in this
endeavor as they will take the lead and guidance on implement-
ing M&E activities. This complements their mandate of oversee-
ing the implementation of RA 9003.
Social inclusion and alternative
livelihoods for the IWS project
The project aims to promote social inclusion and provide alterna-
tive livelihood for the informal waste sector in the Philippines to
complement basic infrastructure investments related to modern-
izing the sector, like closure of landfill and establishment of mate-
rial recovery facilities (Solid Waste Management Association of
the Philippines, 2012). The project summary document outlines
three development indicators, namely: number of informal recy-
clers in the cities/municipalities employed in a formalized system
with a quantified target of at least 25% of the participating infor-
mal sector recyclers in the cities/municipalities; number of recy-
clers provided livelihood opportunities outside of the waste
industry with a quantified target of at least 25% of the participat-
ing informal sector recyclers in the cities/municipalities; and
increase in the average income of informal recyclers with a target
of at least a 25% increase for participating informal sector recy-
clers. The project has three key components, namely: participa-
tory strategic planning, social inclusion in waste management
systems and alternative livelihood for the IWS. Table 10 shows an
assessment of the projects components vi-a-vis the parameters set
in National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector.

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016

 10

Table 8. MEF for the National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector.*

Expected results Indicators M&E activity with Time or Responsibilities Means of Resources Risks
data collection schedule and verification
method frequency
Outputs
Effective supporting mechanisms Specific areas or niche Field visits and Twice a year NSWMC, SWAPP. Data and Travel and Lack or limited skills in
in place for the sector to enter new identified for IWS interviews LGU analysis of accommodation identifying new services for
service roles and niches in separate integration field research costs, workshop the IWS may hinder program
collection, recycling and composting costs replication or upscaling
Assured structural access to sorting Access modes identified Field visits, As the need NSWMC, LGU Data and Travel and Not all LGUs may be warm
space at transfer stations, materials for IWS in the formal project arises analysis of accommodation to the idea of IWS integration
recovery facilities, composting SWM system assessments, field research costs, workshop
facilities and sanitary landfills interviews costs
Activities
Provide skills training on value Quality trainings provided Training As the need NSWMC, SWAPP, Training Training costs Trainings provided may not
adding strategies/low cost on low-cost technologies assessments arises UPLB SESAM, reports suit to local conditions
technologies in waste recovery and in waste recovery DOST
recycling and composting Number of trainings
conducted

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016

*Table 8 does not include the whole MEF, but rather an excerpt of it.
DOST: Department of Science and Technology; IWS: informal waste sector; LGU: local government unit; NSWMC: National Solid Waste Management Commission; SWAPP: Solid Waste Association of
the Philippines; SWM: solid waste management; SESAM UPLB: University of the Philippines - Los Banos, School of Environmental Science and Management.
Waste Management & Research
Serrona et al. 11

Table 9. Performance evaluation methods.

Type of analysis Description

Planned vs actual Comparing original plan with actual achievements. For example, the program targeted 300
organized IWS groups, but only 150 were achieved. This would reflect a deficit of 150 and an issue
with implementation performance. If the whole budget was spent for this, the M&E activity has to
find out why this happened and what are the remedies to be introduced to address this issue.
Percentage/ratios Useful when comparing planned with actual performance. A 50% achievement, for example
when organizing IWS groups, shows low performance and needs to be analyzed and remedied.
Trends over time Data over different time periods are useful when analyzing project importance over time.
and comparison They can also be used to analyze activities done at the same time in previous time periods and
between periods project what could be expected in future activities. For example, organizing IWS groups across
a regional location can be compared based on time, resources and issues.
Geographic variance Projects implemented across a regional location, for example, can be assessed based on
success rate, implementation issues, cultural acceptance, etc. In the Philippines, some IWS
workers belong to indigenous groups.
Group variance Refers to monitoring and evaluating outcomes between different social groups, e.g. impact of
IWS programs for men, women, indigenous and other vulnerable groups. For example, skills
training for IWS groups should take a look at their distinct usability for men and women so
that appropriate trainings are identified and avoid gender bias.
Work-norms and Refer to service delivery activities that can be monitored by collecting information on work-
standards norms or standards. For example, processing time for formal registration of IWS groups,
approval time for IWS-initiated proposals and approval time for housing provisions for the IWS
can be monitored, analyzed and compared with normal processing standards.

Source: European Commission, 2004.

IWS: informal waste sectors.

Conclusions high with partnership mechanisms in place, such as the MEF.

SWM programs or projects do not only refer to the delivery of
implementation requirements; it should also possess clear and
realistic M&E indicators, assumptions and activities. The ration-
ale is that built-in M&E systems allow programs to be flexible,
effective, impact-oriented and sustainable. The Philippines is in a
position where it is a trailblazer in policy development that rec-
ognizes the role of the IWS in economic development as stipu-
lated in the Philippine Development Plan (20112016), which
envisions transformational leadership, institutional reform, eco-
nomic stability and inclusive growth (National Economic
Development Authority, 2011). Institutionalizing M&E in SWM
is a challenge, but an opportunity for large- or small-scale pro-
jects to embrace the benefits of having to determine where the
project is going, how far has it gone and what lessons are being
learned in the process.
The exercise of crafting a logframe and MEF is a tedious pro-
cess. Yet it enhances and strengthens a project as in the case of
the IWS framework plan. The caveat is that the indicators must
not be universally applied but should depend on local circum-
stances and current conditions. Data collection can be costly at
times, especially field visits, but it is worth it when aiming for
first-hand information and actual interaction with stakeholders. It
can also piggyback on regular activities to save on costs.
Responsibility centers are likewise necessary to institutionalize
sharing of tasks. In the case of the NSWMC, it is composed of 14
members from the government sector and three members from
the private sector, and the potential for close collaboration is very
Risk identification is another parameter, which is useful in antici-
pating future issues and remediating them. A logframe approach
in the SWM project development is essential, but it does not pre-
clude other tools from being applied in waste management.
In the case of the WB/JSDF project, the identified develop-
ment outcome indicators are aligned with the National Framework
Plan for the Informal Waste Sector and it focuses on improving
access to formal waste management, livelihoods and laying the
foundation for a strong IWS and private sector partnership with
the government facilitating the process. In the Philippine context,
the private sector plays an enormous role in local development
and, in fact, the government is promoting publicprivate partner-
ships (PPP) because of the inherent limitations of government
resources and the deep entrepreneurial bond that the private sec-
tor possesses. Directly linking up the IWS with businesses will
allow the former to negotiate prices of recyclable materials and
new products, which would result in adequate incomes. It will
also facilitate the identification of appropriate skills, business
models and product demands.
In summary, the indicators generated for the MEF can be
broadly categorized in a way that reflect the overall M&E
requirements for the IWS sector in the Philippines. They are not
inclusive as more will emerge in the implementation process.
A logframe approach in SWM-related projects benefits both
the implementers and the beneficiaries or partners. Theoretical
underpinnings for this approach abound in the field of interna-
tional development and SWM is a logical recipient. This approach
is relatively new in SWM and will certainly gain popularity with

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016

12 Waste Management & Research
Table 10. WB/JSDF Social Inclusion Project vis-a-vis National Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector.
Project components
Participatory Strategic Planning
Outputs:
Establish participatory structures and
process for at least 3500 members
of the informal waste sector in five
municipalities and in 2000 members
of recycling cooperatives.
Development of strategic plans for at
least 3500 members of the informal
waste sector in five municipalities
and in 2000 members of recycling
cooperatives.
Social Inclusion in Waste
Management Systems
Outputs:
Sub-grants to support for social
inclusion, youth programs and
transitional support made available to
3500 members of the informal waste
sector in five municipalities.
Technical assistant for models to
improve income and empowerment
provided to 2000 IWS members in
recycling cooperatives
Alternative Livelihood for Informal
Waste Sector
Outputs:
Employment training programs in
partnership with the private sector
made available to at least 3500
members of the IWS.
Facilitation and training for
entrepreneurial development made
available to at least 3500 members of
the IWS.
Delivery of sub-grants for working
for viable business concepts in five
municipalities.
Source: SWAPP, 2012.
IWS: informal waste sector; LGU: local government unit; MRF: material recovery facility; SWM: solid waste management; WB/JSDF: World
Bank and the Japan Social Development Fund.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
Relevance with proposed logframe and MEF for the Philippines National
Framework Plan for the Informal Waste Sector
The framework plan stipulates organizing the IWS into association or
cooperatives, which will pave the way for participatory processes to be
integrated in IWS integration in formal waste management. In addition,
the WB/JSDF Project aligns itself with the framework plan in terms of
establishing a IWS waste management plan in the strategic SWM and yearly
action plans of LGUs.
Working with IWS requires participatory approaches as explained in Table
5. Organizing them will consolidate their ranks and they will have greater
influence and negotiating power in waste recovery and recycling business.
The project will integrate this character, but the challenge is how to sustain it
so that IWS groups become self-sustaining.
The project will provide financial assistance to the IWS, which will be used
towards the purchase of waste management equipment; formalization
of the sector, e.g. registration and contractual arrangements; training
support and institution building; business and market development and
stakeholders meetings. The funds will also assist IWS groups during
the transition period of disposal facilities, such as food for work and
subsidized pricing of recyclables. The framework plan clearly stipulates
the provision of skills training on value-adding strategies/low cost
technologies in waste recovery, recycling and composting. It also aims to
integrate the sector in transfer stations and MRFs and link up with micro-
finance institutions.
The aspect of financial management needs to be strengthened in IWS and the
ability to identify and develop local business concepts or models. The IWS is
an emerging sector in the Philippines and their ability to innovate and make a
difference hinges on appropriate capacity-building measures and institutional
networks.
The project will link up with the private sector to train and hone
appropriate skills of the IWS in business development. It will facilitate
the identification of sound business concepts, which will emphasize the
marriage of IWS and the business sector with innovative and sustainability
mechanisms in place. The framework plan acknowledges the necessity
of mutually integrating the capacities of the IWS and the private sector in
improving waste management systems through appropriate skills training,
product design, cooperative development, employment provision outside of
the SWM, etc.
The projects inclination to tap the private sector is appropriate and timely as
the IWS undertakings form part of an essential business flow, which supplies
raw materials to manufacturing industries. The framework plan recognizes
the private sector as an important ally in empowering IWS, both economically
and socially.
Serrona et al. 13

Table 11. Summary of main indicators.

Key M&E areas for the IWS Summary of main indicators

Policies/guidelines National and local policies IWS Plan integration in LGU action plans
Capacity-building Skills training
Enterprise development
Alternative livelihoods
Networking
Support services Health insurance
Scholarships
Child care
Housing
Job fairs
Access modes Formal waste management system
Micro-financial institutions
International organizations
Institutional arrangements Cooperative
Association
Micro-enterprise
Incentives Provision of incentives for businesses, LGUs and stakeholders
providing jobs and supporting IWS programs
Communication mechanisms Formal and informal channels between IWS and LGUs, partners and
other stakeholders
Networking Vertical and horizontal partnerships
Public-private-IWS collaboration
South-to-South exchange of best practices
Monitoring systems Price of recyclable materials
IWS involvement in monitoring of SWM systems
Compliance with safety, labor and environmental laws

IWS: informal waste sector; LGU: local government unit; M&E: monitoring and evaluation.

its inherent advantages. Future waste management regulations in Resources/463617-1202332338898/socialassesstoolkit.pdf (accessed 4

both developing and developed worlds should ensure that M&E
components are embedded in programs or projects.
Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely thank Ms. Maya Villaluz, Senior Environment
Operations Officer of World Bank Manila Office and Ms. Lizette
Cardenas, Executive Director of the Solid Waste Management
Association of the Philippines (SWAPP) for the data on the Social
inclusion and alternative livelihoods for the IWS project.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This research was carried out with the support of the Returning
Scientist Program of the Department of Science and Technology,
Government of the Philippines.
References
Alave KL (2011) Metro Manila produces a fourth of Philippine garbage.
Philippine Daily Inquirer. Available at: http://newsinfo.inquirer.
net/42317/metro-manila-produces-a-fourth-ofphilippine-garbage
(accessed 30 July 2013).
Bernstein J (2004) Toolkit in social assessment and public participation
in municipal solid waste management. urban environment thematic
group. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org INTUSWM/
August 2013).
Collete G (2003) Project monitoring and evaluation in land administration
and management. Presentation during the Evaluation Skills Enhancement
Training, Quezon City, Philippines, 2629 May 2003.
European Commission (2004) Aid delivery methods: Project cycle man-
agement guidelines. Vol. 1. Brussels: European Cooperation Office.
Available at: http://bank3.org/t/the-logframe-handbook-a-logical-
framework-approach-to-project-e22-pdf.pdf (accessed 2 August 2013).
Gunsilius E, etal. (2011) Recovering Resources, Creating Opportunities:
Integrating the Informal Sector into Solid Waste Management. Eppelheim,
Germany: Aksoy Print.
Hoornweg D and Bhada-Tata P (2012) What a waste: A global review of
solid waste management. Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers.
World Bank.
Hoornweg D and Lam MC (2005) Waste management in China: Issues and
recommendations. Urban Development Working Papers No. 9. East Asia
Infrastructure Department, World Bank.
Independent Evaluation Group (2013) Learning from evaluation. Lessons
from recent evaluations: Environment, agriculture, and rural develop-
ment. Available at: http://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/webpage/learning-
evaluation (accessed 2 October 2013).
National Economic Development Authority. (2011) Philippine development
plan 20112016. Available at: http://www.neda.gov.ph/PDP/20112016/
frontmatter.pdf (accessed 28 March 2013).
National Solid Waste Management Commission (2009) National Framework
Plan for the Informal Waste Sector. Quezon City: NSWMC.
National Solid Waste Management Commission (2012) National Solid Waste
Management Strategy (20122016). Manila: NSWMC.
National Solid Waste Management Commission (2014) Republic Act
9003. Available at: http://www.emb.gov.ph/embgovph/Portals/38/IEC/
R.A.%209003.PDF (accessed 1 July 2014).

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016

14 Waste Management & Research
National Statistical Coordination Board (2013) Philippine economy posts 7.8
percent GDP growth. National Accounts of the Philippines. Press Release.
Available at: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/sna/2013/1st2013/2013qpr1.asp
(accessed 30 May 2013).
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Development
Assistance Committee (1991) Principles for Evaluation of Development
Assistance. Paris.
Scheinberg A, Simpson M, Gupt YE, etal. (2010) Economic Aspects of the
Informal Sector in Solid Waste. Eschborn, Germany: GTZ.
Serrona KR (2008) Integrated urban waste management in the Philippines:
Interface of waste-to-energy and social participation. PhD Dis., Tohoku
University.
Sharp V, Sara G and Wilson D (2010) Methods to monitor and evaluate
household waste prevention. Waste Management and Research 28(3):
269280.
Solid Waste Management Association of the Philippines (2012) Social
Inclusion and Alternative livelihoods for the Informal Waste Sector:
Project Summary Document.
United Nations Development Programme (2009) Handbook on Planning,
Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results. New York, USA.
Available at: http://web.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/documents/eng-
lish/pme-handbook.pdf (accessed 1 August 2013).
United Nations Environment Programme (undated) State of waste man-
agement in South East Asia Types of waste. Available at: http://
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 11, 2016
unep.or.jp/ietc/sps/state-of-waste-management/2.asp (accessed 29 July
2013).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Wastes: monitoring
and evaluation. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/
payt/top10.htm (accessed 2 August 2013).
Varey N, etal. (2003) Final Report No. 6: Laws and Regulations. Metro
Manila Solid Waste Management Project. Metro Manila, Philippines:
Asian Development Bank.
Velis C, etal. (2012) An analytical framework and tool (InteRa) for integrating
the informal recycling sector in waste and resource management systems in
developing countries. Waste Management & Research 30(9 Suppl.): 4366.
Wilson D, Raba A, Chinwah K, etal. (2008) Building recycling rates through
the informal sector. Waste Management. ScienceDirect.
World Bank (2012) The Logframe Handbook: A Logical Framework
Approach to Project Cycle Management. Available at: http://bank3.
org/t/the-logframe-handbook-a-logical-framework-approach-to-project-
e22-pdf.pdf (accessed 3 August 2013).
World Bank (2013a) Philippines Overview. Available at: http://www.world-
bank.org/en/country/philippines/overview (accessed 19 May 2013).
World Bank (2013b) Country at a Glance Philippines. Available at: http://
www.worldbank.org/en/country/Philippines (accessed 31 July 2013).
World Bank (2013c) Participation and civic engagement, What is participa-
tory monitoring and evaluation? Available at: http://go.worldbank.org/
G966Z73P30 (accessed 28 February 2013).