The World Bank Group

1818 H. Street, N.W. Country Office Manila

Washington D.C. 20433 23rd Floor, The Taipan Place
U.S.A. Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center
Tel.: (202) 477-1234 Pasig City, Philippines
Fax: (202) 477-6391 Tel.: (632) 637-5855 to 64
Fax: (632) 637-5870
December 2001

The Environment’s 11th hour!!!

As highlighted in the 2000 Environment Monitor, the environment and natural resources of the
Philippines is under increasing pressure. The challenge is to act now to ensure a future that preserves
the quality of life, health, resources, and natural treasures of the country. In the spirit of this challenge, a
clock has been chosen as the symbol of the Monitor.

The clock shown in the 2001 Monitor is in the 11th hour to represent this urgency and the fact that time
is running out. As the clock approaches midnight, the problem gets more critical. In the case of solid
waste, the clock stands at 11:50 indicating that time is running very short. The reasons for this are the
lack of progress on developing safe disposal facilities and visibility of the effects including the Manila
garbage crisis, the Payatas tragedy and the common sight of garbage strewn in rivers, streets and on
private and public land in many areas of the country. At the same time, solid waste is being produced at
increasing rates and without action the problems in Manila will become even more critical and
those in other areas of the country will grow. On the positive side, several recent measures have
prevented the clock from creeping closer to midnight, including the passage of
groundbreaking framework legislation (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act) and the
success of citizen-led-initiatives such as recycling and awareness programs.
In the future, careful implementation of the new legislation represents the greatest hope for reversing
the clock on this critical issue facing the Philippines.

The Philippines Environment Monitor 2000 presented a snapshot of

general environmental trends in the country. The 2002 edition, currently
under preparation, will focus on air quality management.

This document was prepared by a World Bank Team consisting of Messrs./Mdmes. Anjali Acharya, Bebet Gozun, Patchamuthu Illangovan (Team
Leader), John Morton, and Maya Villaluz. The document was peer reviewed by Messrs. Carl Bartone, Dan Hoornweg, L. Panneer Selvam, Allan
Rotman, and Thomas E. Walton of The World Bank; and Mr. N.C. Vasuki, Chief Executive Officer, Delaware Solid Waste Authority, USA. Comments
and suggestions offered by the following are gratefully acknowledged: Mr. Ramon Paje, Undersecretary, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR); Mr. Julian D. Amador, Director/Officer-in-Charge, Environmental Management Bureau; Mr. Albert A. Magalang, Executive
Director, Office of the Secretariat, National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC); Ms. Sonia Mendoza and Mr. Bert Guevara represent-
ing the NGOs and League of Barangays in the NSWMC, respectively. Comments were also provided by the following World Bank staff and consult-
ants: Messrs./Mdmes. Joven Balbosa, Bhuvan Bhatnagar, Rob Crooks, Giovanna Dore, Jack Fritz, Heidi Hennrich-Hanson, Emma Hooper, Mary
Judd, and Kanchalika Klad-Angkul.
Ms. Luisa Sambeli Española coordinated the production of this Monitor. Ms. Agatha Ancheta assisted in data collection. Mr. Jeffrey Lecksell was
responsible for preparing the map. Dissemination of the Monitor is coordinated by Ms. Leonora Gonzales. The cover was designed by Mr. Brian Lu
of Liquid Graphics. The document was printed at Inkwell Publishing Company.

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

Printed on Recycled Paper

 Table of Contents

Preface
Abbreviations and Acronyms

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - DOWN IN THE D UMPS! ......................................... 1-2

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

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SOURCES AND GENERATION .............................. 4-5

Waste Sources
Waste Generation
Waste Composition

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND COLLECTION ........................... 6-7

Recycling
Collection
Transfer and Transport

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ............................. 8-13

Composting
Open and Controlled Dumping
Sanitary Landfills
Landfill Gas Collection and Use

HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING,

TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL .................................................................. 14-17
Generation
Recycling
Treatment and Disposal

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

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

Case Study: The Two Faces of Payatas ................................................. 27

Glossary of Terms .................................................................................. 28
Philippines at a Glance
 PREFACE

The Philippines Environment Monitor series, launched in 2000, presents a snapshot of key environmental
trends in the country. It aims to engage and inform stakeholders on key environmental changes as they occur.
The 2000 Monitor benchmarked trends in environmental indicators associated with water and air quality, and
natural resources conservation. Unlike economic indicators, environmental changes, however, occur over a
period of time, and therefore, annual variations are difficult to measure or assess. Thus, the series is designed to
track changes in general environmental trends every five years. In the intervening years, the Monitor will focus
on specific annual themes to highlight critical and emerging problems.

The Philippines Environment Monitor 2001 focuses on solid waste management, which, triggered by the
“garbage crisis” of Metro Manila, has emerged as one of the most pressing environmental concerns in the
country. Population growth, rising living standards, and inadequate attention have caused many of the current
waste problems. As wastes are dumped along roads, drainage canals and waterways, or in low-lying open fields,
it is inevitable that the sheer volume of the wastes including the toxicity of its contaminants will endanger
human health and safety by polluting water, air and land as well as threatening the food chain.

The present garbage crisis in Metro Manila and other cities in the country has started to reverse the appar-
ent indifference of the people towards the ‘grime and dirt’ of society. The seriousness of the human and environ-
mental impact arising from the lack of a strategic approach to waste management was highlighted by the prema-
ture closure of the Carmona and San Mateo landfills due to environmental and social considerations, and the
Payatas dumpsite tragedy in 2000. In the absence of a clear national framework on waste management, local
governments who are duty bound to manage solid wastes in their areas of jurisdiction, have resorted to solid
waste disposal practices, such as open dumps, controlled dumpsites, and open or curbside street piles, which are
operationally inadequate and do not protect either public health or the environment.

Both the Government and civil society should be complimented for the passage of the Republic Act 9003:
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, which was signed into law by the President on January 26, 2001. This
law was a result of several years of sustained work by many committed elected representatives, environmental-
ists, and professionals. It promotes an integrated approach to solid waste management and sets out ambitious
goals. The challenge now facing the country is its implementation.

The Environment Monitor 2001 consists of six sections. The first three sections discuss the current
status and trends in municipal solid waste generation; recycling and collection; and treatment and dis-
posal. The fourth section discusses hazardous waste generation, treatment, and disposal. An analysis of the
laws, institutions and budget is presented in the fifth section; and the Monitor concludes with an assessment of
the major challenges faced by the Philippines in implementing an integrated solid waste management program.
The Monitor also discusses the situation at the Payatas open dumpsite in Quezon City.

The information presented here has been obtained from a variety of sources, including published reports of
government agencies, universities and nongovernmental organizations, unpublished data from individuals, and
documents of the World Bank. However, solid waste data in many countries is often times unreliable due to
inconsistencies in data recording, definitions, collection methods, and seasonal variations. The Philippines is no
exception. Given the diversity and timeliness of the sources of data used, the information in this report has been
assessed for its reliability, and as needed estimates have been made. Data, information and support provided by
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Environmental Mangement Bureau, Metro Manila De-
velopment Authority, Local Government Units and Non-Govermental Organizations are acknowledged.

Robert V. Pulley Zafer Ecevit

Country Director, Philippines Sector Director
East Asia and Pacific Region Environment and Social Development
The World Bank East Asia and Pacific Region
The World Bank
Abbreviations and Acronyms

Bln. Billion
BOD Bio-chemical Oxygen Demand
BTU British Thermal Unit
CALABARZON Provinces of Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, and Quezón
CCBPI Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.
CDS City Development Strategies
DA Department of Agriculture
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DOH Department of Health
DOST Department of Science and Technology
DPWH Department of Public Works and Highways
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
EMB Environmental Management Bureau
ESWMA Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000
GHG Green House Gases
GTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation
HW Hazardous Wastes
IEC Information, Education, and Communication
IRR Implementing Rules and Regulations
ITDI Industrial Technology Development Institute
IWEP Industrial Waste Exchange Program
JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency
LLDA Laguna Lake Development Authority
LGU Local Government Unit
LOGOFIND Local Government Finance and Development Project
Mln. Million
MEIP Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program
MGB Mines and Geosciences Bureau
MM Metro Manila
MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority
MRF Materials Recovery Facility
MSE Micro and Small Enterprises
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
NCR National Capital Region
NEDA National Economic and Development Authority
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NIMBY Not In My Back Yard
NSWMC National Solid Waste Management Commission
PCG Philippine Coast Guard
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PhP/P Philippine Pesos
PIA Philippine Information Agency
PPCP Polystyrene Packaging Council of the Philippines
SLF Sanitary Landfill
SWM Solid Waste Management
TDF Tire-Derived Fuel
TESDA Technical Education and Skill Development Authority
THW Toxic and Hazardous Waste
TIRE Totally Integrated Recycling Effort
WHO World Health Organization
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - DOWN IN THE DUMPS!

S OLID WASTE or basura has emerged as the most visible environmental priority in the cities and
municipalities of the Philippines. Generation of waste is increasing rapidly as consumption
rises, while collection efficiencies are dropping as service levels deteriorate. Treatment and dis-
posal facilities are facing closure because of improper siting and management, and growing pub-
lic opposition. The problem is most pronounced in Metro Manila, where it is a common sight to see
uncollected garbage piling up on the streets or being burned. In the meantime, human health costs
are rising because of improper handling and disposal of household, hospital, and industrial wastes.

• Sources and Genera- a small portion is recycled.

tion. A Filipino generates Solid Waste Management in the Philippines The rest is disposed in open
between 0.3 and 0.7 ki- – At a Glance, 2001 – dumps. Carmona in Cavite
lograms of garbage daily Province and San Mateo in
depending upon income Indicator Value Rizal Province were the first
levels. The current an- Solid waste generated by households (tons/year) 10 million landfills to be constructed.
nual generation of 10 Toxic and hazardous waste generated by These sites have since been
million tons is expected industrial/commercial sector (tons/year) 2.4 million closed, which triggered the
to increase by 40 percent Hazardous and infectious waste generated by current garbage crisis in
at the end of the decade. hospitals (tons/year) 6,750 Metro Manila. In San
Share of municipal waste generated that is Urban – 70%
The National Capital Fernando, La Union,
collected Rural – 40%
Region and Southern Waste recycling and re-use as a percent of Valenzuela, and Duma-
Tagalog Region produce total waste generated (Metro Manila) 12% guete, open dumping has
the highest amount of Recycled material sold as a percentage of been replaced by controlled
waste, accounting for 23 total waste generated (Metro Manila) 5% dumping. The only sanitary
and 13 percent of the No. of proper solid waste disposal sites landfill in the country is lo-
• Landfills 1
country’s production, cated in Cebu, which is cur-
• Closed landfills 2
respectively. • Controlled dumps 17
rently experiencing operat-
No. of hospital waste incinerators 43 ing problems.
• Recycling and Collec- No. of hazardous waste treatment facilities 28
tion. Inadequate collec- Share of municipal solid waste disposed in landfills • Toxic and Hazardous
tion vehicles and lack of and controlled dumps 2% Wastes. Just over 5 percent
Share of hospitals with access to incinerators in
disposal sites have con- of the estimated hazardous
Metro Manila 50%
tributed to a reduction in Share of hazardous waste treated or recycled 5%
waste generation of nearly
the collection efficiency Per capita allocation in LGUs (range PhP) 12 – 250 2.4 million tons is recycled
of household waste. Sev- Share of solid waste management in LGU budget 1% - 12% or treated annually. Hospi-
enty percent of the gar- tals in the country generate
bage is collected in ur- 6,750 tons/year of hazard-
ban areas, while only 40 percent is collected in rural ous and infectious waste. Some of this waste is inciner-
areas. Many of the poor neighborhoods in the country ated. However, the Clean Air Act of 2000 prohibits the
are under-served. Separate collection of segregated operation of all incinerators after November 2003.
waste is still minimal. Thirteen percent of Metro
Manila’s waste is recycled, while it is much less in Waste recycling and disposal have always attracted
other areas. wide attention in the Philippines. Many non-govern-
mental organizations (NGOs) have been active since
• Treatment and Disposal. Nationally, only 2 percent of the early 1990s through recycling programs such as
the waste generated is disposed in sanitary landfills or Zero Waste Recycling Movement and Linis Ganda. In
controlled dumps. Nearly 10 percent is composted, and recent times, many civil society and community orga-

1

nizations have opposed improper management of open
dumps and landfills, the siting of future facilities, and
incineration of waste. Their sustained efforts led to the
drafting of RA 9003 also known as the Ecological Solid
Waste Management Act of 2000 (ESWMA), which was
signed into law early this year. This law replaces the
piecemeal provisions previously covered in several
laws, and for the first time, provides an integrated na-
tional framework for environmentally-friendly solid
waste management. The Act has set very ambitious
goals, and their achievement will be a major challenge
for all sectors of the society. The finalization of the
law’s implementing rules and regulations need to be
expedited.
While public awareness has been growing, it is not yet
sufficiently mature to support appropriate and suitable
management practices. The “Not In My BackYard”
(NIMBY) syndrome has compelled many local govern-
ments to abandon or defer plans to establish composting
plants, controlled dumps, and sanitary landfills. A case
in point is the situation in Metro Manila. Since the pub-
licly-demanded closure of the Carmona and San Mateo
landfills, the metropolis has been buried in its own waste
with few alternatives aside from open dumping. This will
likely exacerbate public sentiment against sanitary land-
fills, the most suitable and cost-effective option for the
safe disposal of Metro Manila’s residual waste in the
context of an integrated system.
Except for a handful of Local Government Units
(LGUs), the performance of cities and municipalities
in the provision of services to collect and dispose solid
waste has been poor. This can be attributed to LGUs’
weak capacity, inadequate budget, limited understand-
ing of appropriate and cost-effective practices, and
weak enforcement of regulations. Further, the lack of
a cost-sharing formula between the national govern-
ment and LGUs for financing capital costs is also ham-
pering the establishment of proper disposal facilities.
The City Development Strategies being piloted by a
few cities and municipalities provide an opportunity
for LGUs to integrate solid waste management inter-
ventions in the overall investment planning and insti-
tutional development framework.
There are ten key challenges that the country needs
to address to achieve the goals of the ESWMA.
These include:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - DOWN IN THE DUMPS!
1. Strengthening enforcement and providing better in-
centives. The current lax enforcement situation needs
to be improved to make the ESWMA an effective piece
of legislation. In addition, providing incentives would
reduce waste generation at source and improve man-
agement of waste disposal facilities.
2. Building the capacity of national and local institu-
tions. Capacity building for LGUs and barangays
and improving strategic planning at all levels of gov-
ernment will be necessary.
3. Addressing the NIMBY syndrome. This has pre-
vented the siting of solid waste management (SWM)
facilities and could be addressed through better
awareness and consultation, and the demonstration
of safe landfill practices.
4. Raising public awareness on the benefits of proper
solid waste management. Support and participation
of the people in SWM programs will be key to the
successful implementation of the ESWMA.
5. Increasing expenditures on SWM. A back-of-the-
envelope analysis indicates that the Philippines will
need to spend an additional PhP150 billion (US$3
billion) over the next 10 years for SWM.
6. Mainstreaming the utilization of new funding
sources and employing cost-effective approaches.
New funding sources such as national government
cost sharing; private sector participation; and user
fees should be explored along with cost saving mea-
sures, such as shared facilities and producing power
using landfill gas.
7. Obtaining reliable information for national, regional,
and local planning. Without proper data, long-term
planning decisions cannot be made.
8. Ensuring proper management of closed dumps and
sanitary landfills. The environmental and health risks
of closed dumps and landfills will need to be mini-
mized.
9. Protecting the vulnerable and the under-served. This
includes scavengers and poor communities.
10. Expanding coverage of infectious medical and haz-
ardous waste treatment. Effective implementation
of the law will require a concerted effort that fo-
cuses exclusively on the practicalities of establish-
ing safe and effective disposal practices in the short
and long term.
Most importantly, the Philippines should avoid another
Smokey Mountain or Payatas open dump situation from
re-emerging!
2
WASTE GENERATION MAP

3
 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SOURCES AND GENERATION

Solid waste streams are generally characterized by

their sources, generation rates, types of wastes, and Table 1: Sources and Types of Solid Wastes
composition. Source Types of solid wastes

Residential Food wastes, paper, cardboard, plastics, tex-

WASTE SOURCES
Solid wastes originate from a wide range of domestic
(residential), industrial, agricultural, institutional, munici-
pal, and commercial sources including households, manu-
facturers, hospitals, street sweeping activities, and mar-
kets. In the Philippines, the predominant sources of solid
waste are household and commercial activities.
tiles, leather, yard wastes, wood, glass, met-
als, ashes, and household hazardous waste.
Industrial Housekeeping wastes, packaging, food
wastes, construction and demolition materi-
als, hazardous wastes, and ashes.
Commercial Paper, cardboard, plastics, wood, food
wastes, glass, metals, special wastes, and
hazardous wastes.

Institutional Same as commercial

WASTE GENERATION
Construction Wood, steel, concrete, dirt, etc.

Ten million tons of municipal solid waste was gen-
erated in 2000… Waste generation rates are affected
by socio-economic development, degree of industri-
alization, and climate. Generally, the greater a country’s
economic prosperity and the larger its urban popula-
tion, the greater the amount of solid waste generated.
It is estimated that in 2000, the 76 million Filipinos
generated over ten million tons of municipal solid
Municipal services Street sweepings, landscape and tree trim-
mings, and general wastes from parks,
beaches, sludge.
Processes Industrial process wastes, scrap materials, off-
specification products, slag, tailings.
Agriculture Spoiled food wastes, agricultural wastes,
and hazardous wastes.
Source: What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. Urban Development Sector
Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region, World Bank, May 1999.

waste and this is expected to increase by 40 percent

during the current decade (see table 2).
Table 2: National Waste Generation, 2000-2010
Region Waste Generation
Metro Manila accounts for a quarter of the national 2000 2010
waste generation… Metro Manila produces about 2.5 Mln. % of Mln. % of
million tons/year or a quarter of the country’s gener- T/yr. total T/yr. total

ated waste as a whole. The generation rate in Manila

National Capital Region 2.45 23.0 3.14 22.3
has grown 4.5 percent annually in the last four years.1 Cordillera AR 0.17 1.6 0.21 1.5
It has been estimated that people living in urban areas Ilocos 0.50 4.7 0.63 4.5
including Metro Manila produces between 0.5-0.7 kg/ Cagayan Valley 0.32 3.0 0.40 2.8
Central Luzon 0.96 9.0 1.32 9.4
day, while those in rural areas generate 0.3 kg/person/ Southern Tagalog 1.42 13.3 2.11 15
day.2 These values are comparable to other lower Bicol 0.54 5.1 0.65 4.6
Western Visayas 0.82 7.7 1.00 7.1
middle income countries. Metro Manila currently is a
Central Visayas 0.74 7.0 1.01 7.2
major contributor to national GDP, and therefore, has Eastern Visayas 0.43 4.0 0.51 3.6
the highest consumption rates and consequent waste Western Mindanao 0.40 3.8 0.53 3.8
Northern Mindanao 0.37 3.4 0.47 3.4
generation. Eventually, as the rest of the country de- Southern Mindanao 0.70 6.6 0.97 6.9
velops, Metro Manila’s share will begin to decline as Central Mindanao 0.33 3.1 0.41 2.9
other urban centers generate more waste. ARMM 0.26 2.5 0.39 2.7
Caraga 0.26 2.4 0.31 2.2
National 10.67 100 14.05 100

Assumptions:
Waste production rates2:
1 national capital region: 0.71 kg/person/day
MMDA Survey, December 2000. urban population: 0.5 kg/person/day
2
Urban Environment and Solid Waste Management Study, GHK/MRM rural population: 0.3 kg/person/day
International Ltd. 1994; CALA Urban Development and Environment It was assumed that the urban population would increase their waste production rate by 1
percent per year due to rising income levels (based on GHK/MRM International Report).
Study, 1996; JICA/MMDA, 1999. Urban and rural population, and growth rates by region are based on National Statistical
Office, data for 2000.

4
 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SOURCES AND GENERATION

WASTE COMPOSITION
Table 3: Country Comparisons in
Municipal Waste Generation Rate
Waste composition is influenced by factors such as lo-
cation, living standards, and weather. The composi- Waste Generation
City and Country Rate (kg/cap/day)
tion of solid waste affects the selection and operation
Industrialized countries:
of collection and disposal equipment and facilities, the New York, USA 1.80
feasibility of resource and energy recovery, and the Hamburg, Germany 0.85
design of disposal facilities. Rome, Italy 0.69
Middle-income countries:
Cairo, Egypt 0.50
Metro Manila’s waste is highly organic and recy- Kano, Nigeria 0.46
Manila, Philippines 0.60
clable... Forty-nine percent of Metro Manila’s munici- Tunis, Tunisia 0.56
pal waste is biodegradable and includes large amounts Low-income countries:
of kitchen waste and to a lesser extent, garden waste. Calcutta, India 0.51
Karachi, Pakistan 0.50
This high percentage of biodegradable waste indicates Jakarta, Indonesia 0.60
that it could be used as compost. There is also a great Source: What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia. Urban Development Sector
potential for recycling, as 42 percent of the waste is Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region, World Bank. May 1999.

made of recyclable items such as paper, plastic, and

metal. Chart 1: Municipal Waste Composition in
Metro Manila, 1999
HOUSEHOLD SEGREGATION Paper
19%
Plastic
Household segregation involves sorting garbage at its 17%
source according to its characteristics or re-use poten-
tial, where common kitchen waste, recyclables (pa-
Metal
per, bottles, glass, etc.) and hazardous wastes (batter- 6%
ies, etc.), are placed in separate containers. Though
waste in the country has high composition of organic
Kitchen
matter and recyclables, household segregation is not waste
Garden
Waste
widely practiced. The ESWMA now mandates house- 42%
7%
Others
hold segregation. 9%
Source: The Study on Hazardous Waste Management in the Republic of the
Philippines, JICA, June 2001.

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

The indiscriminate dumping of wastes contaminates surface and groundwater supplies. In urban areas, solid waste clogs drains,
creating stagnant water for insect breeding and floods during rainy seasons. Uncontrolled burning of wastes and improper
incineration contributes significantly to urban air pollution. Greenhouse gases are generated from the decomposition of organic
wastes in landfills, and untreated leachate pollutes surrounding soil and water bodies.

Health and safety issues also arise from improper solid waste management. Human fecal matter is commonly found in municipal
waste. Insect and rodent vectors are attracted to the waste and can spread disease such as cholera and dengue fever. Using water
polluted by solid waste for bathing, food, irrigation, and drinking can also expose individuals to disease organisms and other
contaminants. Waste workers and pickers are seldom protected from direct contact and injury, and the co-disposal of hazardous
and medical wastes with municipal wastes poses a serious health threat. Exhaust fumes from vehicles, dust stemming from disposal
practices, and open burning of waste also contribute to overall health problems.

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

5
 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND COLLECTION
RECYCLING
Recycling opportunities are not fully harnessed…
In the Philippines, only a small portion of the solid
waste is recycled or composted, despite the existence
of a relatively large market for compost and used prod-
ucts made from recycled plastics, glass bottles, scrap
paper, and scrap metals. Recovery of recyclable ma-
terials occurs at three stages: at the household level,
during collection time, and at open dumpsites. Junk
dealers buy recyclable wastes from households, while
waste pickers manually sort through waste at source,
transfer stations, and dumpsites. Palero or garbage
truck helpers also recover recyclables from the collec-
tion trucks to augment their income.
Recycling efforts in Metro Manila are on the rise…
In 1997, only 6 percent of solid waste was recycled in
Metro Manila.3 By December 2000, it increased to 13
percent due to the concerted effort by Metro Manila De-
velopment Authority (MMDA)4 and NGOs to promote
waste segregation at the source, composting, and recy-
cling. Additional support was also provided with the
passage of the MMDA Ordinance in 1999, which man-
dates source segregation. With the operation of two new
recycling and composting facilities handling 200 tons/
day each, recycling is expected to further increase.
A growing number of LGUs in the country are now
implementing integrated waste management, which
includes waste reduction, composting, recycling,
and re-use.5 Estimates had shown that trade in waste
materials has increased in volume by 39 percent,
and in value by 47 percent in 2000 compared to 1998
(see table 4)6.
COLLECTION
The country-wide collection efficiency in the Philip-
pines is estimated to be 40 percent, although major
towns and cities show average collection rates of up
to 70 percent.7 The poorer areas of cities, municipali-
ties, and rural barangays are typically unserved or un-
der-served.
3
JICA-MMDA 1999.
4
MMDA Ordinance 1999.
5
PPSO Report of DENR Performance.
6 Source: Report of the Metro Manila Federation of Environment
Report of the Metro Manila Federation of Environment Multi-Purpose
Cooperative, Bong Teves, March 1, 2000.
7
Pasig River Rehabilitation Program, DENR/DANIDA, 1990-1991.
Box 2: Recycling Initiatives
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottles and
Aluminum Cans
To promote the recycling of PET plastics and re-
duce plastic waste, the Department of Science and
Technology (DOST)-Industrial Technology Develop-
ment Institute (ITDI) and PET manufacturers and
users formed the PET Recycling Task Force. The same
efforts were also made by Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil-
ippines, Inc. (CCBPI), Rotary Clubs and Now Trad-
ing Concepts, which manage 13 PET and alumi-
num can recovery centers. Empty coke PET contain-
ers may be redeemed at fifty centavos per container.
In just eight months of operation, 1,100,337 PET
bottles and 1,363,115 aluminum cans have been
recovered and re-used.
Polystyrene Based Materials
Polystyrene (PS) is widely used as packaging ma-
terial in fast food outlets, schools, and packing in-
dustries. Faced with an increasing PS generation,
20 PS manufacturers formed the Polystyrene Pack-
aging Council of the Philippines (PPCP) and to-
gether set up a PS recycling plant in Sta. Maria,
Bulacan. In 1996, PPCP, Ayala Foundation, Metro-
politan Environmental Improvement Program
(MEIP), Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), and some private and govern-
ment agencies started the project at fast food out-
lets within the Makati Commercial Center. Between
1997 and 2000, the amount of PS packaging ma-
terial recovered and recycled nearly doubled from
67,540 kgs to 123,001 kgs.
Table 4: Waste Recovery in Metro Manila
Material Value
Year Purchased (million pesos)
1998 69,400 95.2
1999 95,600 124.5
2000 101,850 132.5
Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Bong Teves, March 1, 2001.
6
 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECYCLING AND COLLECTION

Municipalities and cities have primary responsibil-

ity for collection… In the Philippines, LGUs are re-
sponsible for garbage collection. Municipal solid waste
collection is done either by self-administration, through
private contractors or by the residents themselves. The
manner and frequency of collection and the choice of
equipment depends on the size of roads, density of
population to be covered, and affordability. In neigh-
borhoods with narrow roads, household waste is
dumped into communal receptacles placed strategically
on larger roads, which are then removed by trucks.

A quarter of Metro Manila’s solid waste is not col-

lected... In 1997, municipal waste discharged to collec-
tion points in Metro Manila was estimated to be 89.7
percent of the generated waste. Seventy-three percent of
this amount or 3,500 tons/day was collected.8 The in-
complete collection could be attributed to the limited
number and inappropriate collection vehicles, absence
of transfer points, traffic congestion, and lack of enforce-
ment of and compliance with, rules and regulations. With
the closure of the San Mateo and Carmona sanitary land-
fills, and the difficulty in siting a new landfill, waste col-
lection has further decreased.
TRANSFER AND TRANSPORT
Box 3: Linis Ganda:
A Case Study in Recycling
In 2000, Metro Manila Linis Ganda, Inc., a NGO, pur-
chased 101,850 tons of waste paper, corrugated boards,
cutlets, plastics, and metals worth PhP132.5 million. These
recyclable materials were, in turn, sold to factories. Linis
Ganda organized the Federation of Multi-purpose Coop-
eratives, an association of 17 environmental cooperatives
with 572 member junk shops employing more than 1,000
eco-aides. Members of the cooperative are granted loans
without collateral; eco-aides are also given seed money to
buy recyclables.

Transfer systems serve to reduce the hauling distances
for collection trucks, thus enabling a lower collection
cost. Such stations are appropriate for large cities,
where there are long hauling distances to the final dis-
posal site.
Only 4.5 percent of waste generated in Metro Manila
are recycled by Linis Ganda. The group hopes to in-
crease its recycling activities to 15 percent. The expan-
sion would require 1000 additional junk shops and 2,500
eco-aides.

In Metro Manila, solid wastes collected by dump trucks

Table 5: Examples of User Fees in the
are taken to a transfer station in Las Piñas, where it
Philippines
was transferred to larger trucks before taken to the
Carmona landfill. With the closure of the Carmona City User Fees

and San Mateo landfills, the Las Piñas transfer station Cagayan de Oro City Commercial and Industrial: P1500-
2000 (maximum)
has been converted into a materials recovery facility,
Lipa City Household: P10/month billed with wa-
where compostable and recyclable materials are re- ter supply
covered. In addition, Marikina City also operates its Olongapo City Household: P30 – P40/month collected
own transfer station. through electricity bills
Commercial: P75-P500/month (de-
pending on the kind of business, floor
area, and waste generated
Batangas City Household: P10/month collected
through electricity bills
Commercial:␣ P300-P3000 collected
8
through business permits
The study of SWM for Metro Manila, Final Report, JICA/MMDA, March
1999. Source: Report from each city, August 2001.

7
 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Treatment methods include composting, anaerobic di-
gestion, incineration, and sanitary landfilling (see Box
4). Disposal only includes the final deposition of re-
jects from composting or digestion. Other materials
will be land applied as a recovered resource.
Composting and landfilling are the most suitable
technologies… Household solid waste reaching
open dumpsites in the Philippines is high in mois-
ture and organic content, and low in calorific value,
similar to most developing countries in Asia.
Composting and sanitary landfilling are thus the
most suitable technologies for treatment and dis-
posal, while incineration (or burning) is relatively
ineffective and expensive.
Efficient and proper disposal systems for solid
wastes are lacking… Illegal open dumping remains
the most prevalent form of disposal in the country.
Controlled dumps and sanitary landfills are few.
Composting, though gaining in popularity, remains lim-
ited to only a few neighborhoods and local govern-
ments. Incineration is restricted to treatment of infec-
tious medical and hazardous wastes.
COMPOSTING
Composting has largely been a community-based ac-
tivity promoted by NGOs, people’s organizations, and,
in some instances, by local governments through the
barangays. It can be done by households, homeowners’
associations or barangays. Composting systems can
range from simple backyard compost pits to more
mechanized processes.
While many communities produce soil conditioners
for their own use, others have opted to produce com-
post or organic fertilizers commercially. The Depart-
ment of Agriculture is now actively promoting the use
of organic fertilizers. Coupled with the growing de-
mand for organically grown food, the market for com-
post and organic fertilizers is also growing, but no de-
mand estimates are available nor is the quality of com-
post known. Government support and encouragement
for composting activities is also limited.
Box 4: Treatment and Disposal
Options for Municipal Solid Waste
Disposal in controlled dump or sanitary landfill: The
waste is placed, compacted and covered on an area
of land in a controlled fashion. Controlled dumps
have basic environmental amenities: site is fenced,
scavenging is organized, waste is covered by soil
daily, fires are extinguished and stormwater is re-
routed around the site so it does not mix with the
waste. They are more environmentally sound than
open dumps but do not provide full protection against
environmental and public health hazards. Sanitary
landfills are similar but built and operated with full
environmental controls including a liner, leachate
treatment, and the flaring of gas produced by the
decomposition of the waste. Both methods of disposal
are cost-effective and relatively simple to operate.
Composting: The decomposition of organic wastes un-
der controlled conditions to produce soil conditioners,
compost or organic fertilizers. Generally done to re-
duce the amount of waste going into landfill. Necessi-
tates source separation of the organic portion of the solid
waste and a market for the end products.
Anaerobic Digestion: The breakdown of organic mat-
ter by bacteria in the absence of oxygen, resulting in the
production of biogas that can be combusted as a fuel
source and a sludge that can be further composted for
use as a soil enhancer. Generally done to reduce the
amount of waste going into landfills. Necessitates source
separation of the organic portion of the solid waste and
residue should be re-used, treated or disposed.
Incineration: Generally it allows unsorted, non- bulky
solid wastes to be fed directly into the furnace and
combusted. The process produces ash, which gener-
ally is landfilled as well as gas and liquid emissions
that require treatment. Significantly reduces the
amount of waste to be landfilled and requires very
little land. However, high moisture content and low
calorific value makes the municipal solid waste in
the Philippines technically unsuitable for incineration.
In addition, the high capital and operating costs to
fully combust the waste in an environmentally sound
way, make it cost prohibitive for use in treatment of
municipal solid waste in the Philippines.
8
 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

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

Land-filling Open Dumping Composting Incineration Other**

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

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

OPEN AND CONTROLLED DUMPING

Box 5: Composting Facility of Barangay
Uncontrolled open dumps have no environmental safe- Sun Valley, Parañaque City
guards, pose major public health threats, and affect the
landscape of a city. In contrast, controlled dumps have In 1997, the Barangay Council at Brgy. Sun Valley
basic environmental amenities and place, compact, and in Parañaque City established a composting facil-
cover waste in a controlled fashion. ity for biodegradable waste collected from 800
households of the area. As of 2000, a total of 2,500
Until recently, the Metro Manila region, except for households (50 percent) were participating. About
one ton of waste per day was being processed at
Marikina and Malabon, which had its own disposal the facility, resulting in a 35 percent reduction in
site, disposed of its waste in the Payatas open dump, the amount of waste that has to be collected and
and the Carmona and San Mateo landfills. With the disposed.
closure of the two landfills, Metro Manila now dis-
poses its garbage in open and controlled dumpsites in The Barangay invested around PhP500,000 to set
Catmon, Malabon; R10 Vitas, Tondo; and Barangay up and operate the facility, which has two compost
reactors, a mixer, a shredder, and four pedicabs
Lingonan, Valenzuela.
used for the collection of biodegradables. Aside
from using lactobacilli activators, vermi-composting
The Payatas dumpsite in Quezon City was partially is also practiced.
reopened and only accepts waste generated in Quezon
City (about 1,200 tons/day). There are also 12 small A less expensive scheme to compost the biodegrad-
open dumpsites in Metro Manila. able waste from the poorer communities within the
barangay was recently implemented. Processing of
For the rest of the country, it was estimated in 1999 all the biodegradable waste is done in the
that each of the 1,607 LGUs operates and maintains community’s basketball court. The processed mate-
rials are placed in sacks and transported to the
its own temporary or permanent dumpsite. Of these,
barangay center.
226 open dumpsites have been identified by the Na-
tional Solid Waste Management Commission Harvested compost is sold at P5.00/kg or P120/
(NSWMC) as of July 2001. About 37 percent of 50kg bag. Vermicast is sold at P35/kg. To get the
these have been inspected by the NSWMC for, most value from its compost, the barangay is now
among other things, complaints by residents, re- finalizing an agreement with the municipality of
Maragondon in Cavite to use their farmlands for
quests for assistance by local chief executives, and
growing organic vegetables.
environmental compliance with prescribed site re-
quirements. According to Environmental Manage-

9
 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

ment Bureau (EMB), 17 open dumps have been

converted to controlled dumps (see Box 7). Table 7: Status of Dumpsites in
Metro Manila, 2001
SANITARY LANDFILLS Type of Dumpsite Location Status
Catmon, Malabon In operation

Environmental and social concerns caused the clo- Open Payatas, Closed July 10, 2000
sure of two landfills in Metro Manila... In recent dumpsite Quezon City but partly reopened
in Feb. 2001
years, Metro Manila has been continuously grappling
with a garbage disposal crisis. The two landfills oper- R 10, Vitas, Tondo In operation
ated by the MMDA—Carmona in Cavite Province and Controlled Brgy. Lingonan In operation
dumpsite Valenzuela
San Mateo in Rizal Province were designed as sani-
tary landfills but not constructed or operated as ones. Sanitary San Mateo, Rizal Closed Dec. 2000
landfill Carmona, Cavite Closed Apr. 1998
These are now closed. Collectively, the two landfills
accommodated between 40 and 50 percent of Metro
Manila’s daily garbage output. Since their closure, Table 8: Waste disposed at San Mateo and
piles of uncollected garbage could be found through- Carmona landfills (m3 per year)
out Metro Manila, threatening the health and safety of Year San Mateo Carmona*
residents.
1991 258,880 –
1992 344,562 –
On the average, the San Mateo and Carmona landfills 1993 572,715 133,871
received daily 1,800 and 73010 tons of solid waste, re- 1994 1,259,792 552,935
spectively. Both sites were closed due to environmental 1995 1,799,300 957,518
1996 1,865,994 2,114,117
and social concerns10 such as foul odor and contamina- 1997 2,174,942 1,761,429
tion of adjoining ground water and surface water. 1998 2,965,007 293,631
1999 2,734,347 –
2000 3,270,090 –
Both sites contain over 23 million cubic meters of de-
Source: PMO-MMDA
grading waste. Leachate from the two sites continues Note: * Carmona Sanitary Landfill closed in April 1998.
to contaminate ground water. Recent studies11 indi-
cate that the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) qual-
ity of effluent from leachate treatment plants at both Box 6: Dangers of Controlled Dumps and
sites exceeded permissible standards (San Mateo –
Landfills: Leachate and Gas
10,000 mg/l; Carmona – 3,500 mg/l12,13 ). This indi-
cates that the treatment systems employed at both sites As water percolates through the solid waste in landfills, it
are not functioning properly. absorbs chemicals and microorganisms present in the pu-
trefying materials. The uncontrolled discharge of liquid
formed in solid waste dumps or landfills, known as leachate,
No restoration plans are in place for the two contaminates ground and surface waters, and thus, pose
sites… Normally when sanitary landfills are closed environmental and public health risks to the local area.
or capped, the facility owner is required to imple- Various gases are produced because organic matter in
ment a post-closure program. This includes storm the landfill decomposes through the action of anaerobic
water drainage, leachate treatment and monitoring, microorganisms—bacteria that flourish in the absence of
and gas flaring or recovery and landscaping. Al- air. While some of these gases are relatively harmless,
though it is a regulatory requirement, such a pro- others, like methane, are highly flammable. The migra-
tion and emission of these flammable gases should be con-
trolled to prevent explosions in the event of their build-up
on or near the landfill. Methane, in particular, is com-
10
A waste density of 250 kg/m3 has been assumed. monly flared or combusted for energy in order to reduce
11
Environmental Management Bureau, 1998. the risk of explosion and mitigate its effect as a green-
12
Analysis of leachate quality in San Mateo 1999 and Carmona 1996-97. house gas.
13
Monitoring data from EMB. Standards for effluents for Class C inland
water bodies is 50 mg/l. Source: Adapted Solid Waste Management for Local Govern-
ments, DENR, 1996.

10
 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
gram is not in place at either of the sites. While
these sites had landfill gas vents, there were no gas
recovery facilities. The poor construction and faulty
operation of the sites resulted in a negative percep-
tion of sanitary landfills among the general public.
This, combined with the NIMBY syndrome, has
caused problems in the siting of landfills in the
country, especially for Metro Manila, where the
problem is particularly acute.
The Cebu Landfill is facing operational difficul-
ties… The only active sanitary landfill in the coun-
try which began operations in September 1998, is
located in Cebu. It receives 400 tons daily and was
designed to have a life of 6-7 years. Technical prob-
lems have closed down its materials recovery facil-
ity due to mismatch of equipment between collec-
tion vehicles and the recycling facility. This condi-
tion constrained recycling efforts and increased the
daily volume of waste disposed in the landfill.
Landfill gas is vented through a series of horizon-
tal and vertical pipes. However, the leachate treat-
ment pond serves only as an impounding basin,
which discharges partially treated leachate to the
surrounding area, causing the adjacent communi-
ties to complain. Unless immediate corrective ac-
tion is taken, this landfill could be closed.
LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION AND USE
Landfills produce large quantities of greenhouse
gases… Landfill gas, a gas similar to natural gas,
is produced during the decomposition of wastes in
landfills and dumps and typically contains 50 per-
cent of the potent greenhouse gas methane. Meth-
ane affects global warming 21 times more than car-
bon dioxide. Waste disposal sites are estimated to
account for 12 percent (see table 9) of the methane
released to the atmosphere in the Philippines. The
methane produced by landfills can be effectively
controlled by collecting and converting the gas to
energy that can be sold profitably. Production of
energy from landfill gas is a well-established prac-
tice in North America and Europe. A limited num-
ber of facilities have also been established in other
countries. For example, in Mexico and Thailand,
pilot demonstration projects are being implemented
to encourage the development of similar projects
nationwide and regionwide.
11
Box 7: Open to Controlled Dump –
Pioneering Efforts of San Fernando,
La Union
The city of San Fernando, La Union is located in Region I
and has a population of 102,000. It generates an average
of 52 tons of waste per day of which 45 percent is currently
collected. Disposal was a big issue, particularly for city
council, which wanted to promote the city as a viable in-
vestment area in Northern Luzon.
Encouraged by a study tour on Solid Waste Management
in the USA, the Mayor and city officials initiated the shift of
their city’s waste disposal system from open dumping to
controlled dumping, while preparing for a full-fledged sani-
tary landfill.
To reduce the volume of waste to be disposed, collected
waste undergoes secondary sorting at the disposal site. This
recovery of recyclable and re-usable materials is under-
taken by the barangay, providing them with additional rev-
enue. At the same time, the residents in the city were taught
to segregate their wastes at source.
The site is managed in cells where the residual waste is first
compacted and then covered with soil. To improve the
aesthetics of the site, ylang ylang trees, known for its fra-
grant flowers, were planted all over. Bougainvillea trees
and other ornamental plants were also planted along the
periphery of the site.
The controlled dumpsite in San Fernando now serves as a
model for other local governments in the country. It has been
visited by over 9,000 representatives of national and local
governments, NGOs, the private sector, and donor institu-
tions. It is living proof that waste management can be imme-
diately improved if only there is political will to do so.
The construction of the sanitary landfill would be supported
by a loan being obtained from the Land Bank of the Philip-
pines through the World Bank-assisted Local Government
Finance and Development (LOGOFIND) Project.
 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

The Philippines can harness opportunities to con-

vert landfill gas to energy… Collection and utili- Table 9: Methane Emissions in the
zation of landfill gas presents an opportunity to: (i) Philippines in 1990
supplement LGUs’ revenues from solid wastes; (ii)
control localized emissions, such as volatile organic Source Emissions (Gg) %
compounds (VOCs), found in landfill gas; (iii) mini-
mize the risks from explosion that may arise from Agriculture 904 61
Waste 324 22
the build-up of methane and other flammable gases; -solid waste 173 12
and (iv) reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as -wastewater 151 10
part of the Government’s commitment to the Kyoto Energy 228 15
Land Use and Forestry 18 1
Protocol. Total 1,474 100

During the next decade, wastes generated in Source: Asia Least-cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy, Philippines, ADB/GEF/
UNDP, October 1998.
Metro Manila can generate 1,000 GWh of energy
and power 8,500 homes… There are several op-
tions for the development of landfill gas facilities
in the Philippines. For example, they could be de- Table 10: Potential Benefits of Landfill Gas to Energy
veloped as part of new disposal sites. These would Projects in Disposal Sites in Metro Manila.14
be most suitable in sanitary landfills in urban ar- San Mateo Carmona Payatas
eas, where large quantities of waste may exist. For
example, if landfill gas facilities are installed in all
Facility capacity (MW) 5.2 2.2 3.3
of the disposal sites that would be accepting waste
from Metro Manila, these facilities could collect No. of houses powered 3,874 1,639 2,459
approximately 500 million m3 of methane and pro-
Rate of return on
duce 1,000 GWh of energy over the next 10 years. 14 investment (%) 20 19 17
This amount of energy is enough to power 8,500
homes. Similarly, over the same period of time, a Methane avoided
(mill m3/yr.) 17.0 6.0 8.0
smaller city like Cebu could capture 35 million m 3
of methane and power 600 homes. 15 As landfills Volatile Organic Compounds
can produce gas for decades, landfill gas facilities (VOCs) emissions avoided
(tons/yr.) 25.9 9.4 12.5
could also be developed in closed disposal sites.
This is a particularly attractive option for the closed
Source: USEPA, 1999.
landfills at Carmona and San Mateo.

Rehabilitation of San Mateo and Carmona land-

fills could benefit from on-site power genera-
tion… Based on recent estimates, the waste con-
tained in the San Mateo and Carmona landfills is
capable of producing enough power to supply 5,500
homes (see Table 10). The use of landfill gas for
energy could supplement the costs of implement-
ing urgently needed rehabilitation plans for both
sites. If designed and managed well, revenues could

14
Calculated using the EPA E Plus landfill gas model with input
parameters and electricity price as described by USEPA 1999.
Assumption on electricity generation was taken from other feasibility
studies of landfill gas projects.
15
Ibid

12
 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
help mitigate current environmental problems, re-
duce future risks like explosions, and contribute to
the socio-economic uplift of communities through
the provision of electricity.
A national strategy for landfill gas manage-
ment… To investigate the potential of landfill gas
utilization, the Government should formulate an
appropriate national strategy. Such a framework
could consider approaches for: (i) incorporating
landfill gas management in the planning, design,
and construction of future landfill sites, the opera-
tion of existing landfills, and the rehabilitation of
closed landfills; (ii) introducing landfill gas man-
agement in the process of converting open dumps
to sanitary landfills; (iv) targeting the most suitable
disposal sites and technological options consider-
ing the quality of operation and condition of the
landfill, gas generation potential, and financial vi-
ability of different technological options; (v) deter-
mining the most viable institutional arrangements,
including public-private partnerships; (iv) minimiz-
ing the legislative and regulatory barriers; and (iv)
obtaining financing via the private sector or using
climate change institutional mechanisms such as
grants from the Global Environmental Facility in
the short term and credits from the global carbon
trade envisioned under the Kyoto Protocol in the
long term.
13
Box 8: Some International Experiences
in Landfill Gas Utilization
United States: The landfill gas industry in the US
is the largest in the world. It grew rapidly from
86 operational projects in 1990 to 330 today.
With a combined capacity of 900 MW, approxi-
mately two-thirds of those projects use landfill gas
for electricity generation. Many of the remaining
projects use the gas for a wide variety of purposes
including commercial fuel (high and medium BTU
and liquefied natural gas), leachate evaporation,
boilers, and greenhouses.
Chile: Chile currently has four facilities that col-
lect landfill gas and feed it into a gas distribution
network for its direct use as gas fuel. In Santiago,
landfill gas is able to satisfy 40 percent of the de-
mand of the city’s gas distribution network, and is
also sent to a nearby food processing plant for
use as a fuel source for the plant’s boilers. In the
city of Valparaiso, the landfill gas is mixed with
manufactured gas for use by households and in-
dustry.
Mexico: Although open dumping is still preva-
lent, Mexico’s solid waste sector and the technolo-
gies used have gradually grown in sophistication
in the last 15 years resulting in increased collec-
tion efficiency and a larger proportion of waste
disposed in sanitary landfills. However, there are
currently no landfill gas facilities in Mexico. To
encourage the development of these facilities, the
Government of Mexico is undertaking a project
with the assistance of The World Bank and the
Global Environment Facility. The project will de-
velop a demonstration site in Monterrey and dis-
seminate the results to encourage its replication.
National and local capacity will also be devel-
oped along with a national strategy and regula-
tory framework.
Sources:
US: Introduction to Landfill Gas Use and the US Landfill
Gas Industry, USEPA- LMOP, June 25, 2001.
Chile: Bartone and Ahmed, Landfill Gas and Composting
Strategy for LCR, World Bank, 2001. Biogas Recovery
from Sanitary Landfill Sites in Santiago, Chile: A Case
Study, Julio Monreal, September 1998 and personal
communication with Francisco Zapeda.
 HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

HAZARDOUS WASTES
Chart 2: Hazardous Waste Generation,
by Type
Hazardous wastes are wastes which, by themselves or
after coming into contact with other wastes, have char- Oil
acteristics, such as chemical reactivity, toxicity, cor- 8% Other
rosiveness or a tendency to explode, that pose a risk to 27%
Putrescible/
human health or the environment. organic
wastes
11% Acid Waste
Hazardous wastes are generated from a wide range of 10%
industrial, commercial, agricultural, and to a much less
extent, domestic activities. They may take the form of Inorganic
solids, liquids or sludges, and can pose both acute and chemical
chronic public health and environmental risks. wastes Alkali
24% Wastes
20%
GENERATION
Source: The Study of SWM for Metro Manila, Final Report, JICA/MMDA, March 1999.

There are several thousand potential hazardous waste-

generating industries nationwide, which in total, pro-
duce an estimated 2.4 million metric tons of hazard-
ous waste per year.16

So far, only 1,079 of these hazardous waste genera-

tors are registered with the EMB.20 These industries
produce 278,393 tons of hazardous waste per year. The
major waste classes include inorganic chemical wastes,
alkali wastes, putrescibles, acid wastes, and oils.17

Thirty-four percent of the estimated hazardous waste

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

MEDICAL WASTES
The 18,500 hospitals (with 90,000 beds) in the coun-
try generate about 6,750 tons of infectious wastes an-
nually or 18 tons daily.18 Forty-seven percent of this
waste is generated in the NCR, while Region IV ac-
counts for 12 percent.
RECYCLING
About 25 percent of the total registered hazardous waste
generated is recycled. 56 percent of the recycled wastes
are oils and 49 percent are inorganic chemicals.
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

There are currently 28 hazardous waste treatment fa-

cilities registered with DENR-EMB nationwide, 21 of
which are operating full-time.
16
The Study on Hazardous Waste Management in the Republic of the
Philippines, JICA, June 2001.
17
Ibid
About half of the registered hazardous waste gener-
18
Team computation, 2001. ated each year (or approximately 140,000 tons/year),

14
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Box 9: Cebu Common
Treatment Facility, Inc.
Located inside the Inayawan Sanitary Landfill, this
2,781-square meter common treatment facility for toxic
and hazardous waste from Cebu-based electroplating
industries is the first in the country and second in Asia.
It is co-owned and managed by the Cebu Chamber of
Commerce and Industry and the Cebu Electroplaters
Association.
The waste water from the electroplating plant is col-
lected and then transported to the treatment plant. Af-
ter neutralization and precipitation, the resulting sludge
is stored for recycling and mineral recovery. Funded
under a bilateral agreement between the Philippines
(through the DENR) and the Federal Republic of Ger-
many (through the German Agency for Technical Co-
operation-GTZ), commercial operations started in Oc-
tober 1999 with the treatment of wastewater from seven
firms.
Box 10: Government and
Industry Partnership
The Industrial Waste Exchange Program (IWEP) of the
Philippine Business for the Environment matches the dif-
ferent waste-producing industries with recycling and
waste treating companies. This leads to considerable
savings for both parties involved in the exchange. More
than 1,200 industrial waste producers are in their data-
base. Successful exchanges have been brokered for vari-
ous wastes such as scrap fabric, silica gel, used coolant,
used oil, used drums, used paper, used plastic sacks,
glass cutlets, solder waste, mold runner plastic, and saw-
dust. Many other exchanges have been negotiated di-
rectly between industries. It has recently launched a na-
tionwide waste exchange network creating mini-indus-
trial waste exchange centers in Cebu, Laguna, and
Cagayan de Oro.
Source: Philippine Business for the Environment, 2001.
15
is treated off-site, and 3,600 tons or 2.5 percent of that
is recycled.
Five thousand tons of the waste treated on-site is re-
portedly incinerated. There is, however, a need to
change this treatment process given the provisions of
the Clean Air Act of 1999. By November 2003, incin-
erators will be prohibited. Non-burn technologies are
thus being studied for the disposal of hazardous wastes
from hospital and industrial sources.
There are currently no landfill facilities for hazardous
waste in the Philippines. As a result, hazardous waste
sources store their wastes, or dispose of them partially
treated or untreated. Approximately 50,000 tons or 36
percent of all hazardous waste treated off-site, is stored
on-site or off-site due to the lack of proper treatment
and landfill facilities.
Hazardous Waste. There are 13 industrial waste
incinerators in the country: 7 in Region IV, 5 in
Metro Manila, and 1 in Cebu. Plans for the con-
struction of a centralized disposal facility for haz-
ardous waste to service the Cavite, Laguna,
Batangas, Rizal, and Quezon (CALABARZON)
areas are also being discussed.
Medical Waste. There are currently 43 operational
hospital incinerators in the country. Of this num-
ber, 22 are located in Metro Manila. Fifty percent
of the medical waste generated is incinerated, while
the rest is disposed of improperly. At present,
MMDA is finalizing the establishment of a central-
ized hospital waste treatment facility to service
Metro Manila.
Technology solutions and policy direction are ur-
gently needed in response to the incineration
ban… For the past few years, there has been in-
tense debate in the Philippines over the use of in-
cinerators in waste management, leading to a pro-
hibition on their use imposed by the Clean Air Act.
The provision of the Act is to take effect in Novem-
ber 2003.
 HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Box 11: Treatment and Disposal Options for Infectious Medical Waste
Incineration: Combusts the waste under controlled con-
ditions. To be effective and safe, it must be operated at
specific temperatures and under specific conditions. Ad-
vantages include its ability to eliminate the health risks
associated with all types of hazardous medical wastes,
and reduce the volume of the waste. Its disadvantages
include high costs, sophisticated operation and produc-
tion of air pollution, including dioxins, that become more
severe if properly operated at an insufficient tempera-
ture. The capital costs of such facility range from
US$120,000- 200,000 for each ton/day of capacity.
Autoclaving: Steam heats the waste in an enclosed con-
tainer at high pressure. The output is non-hazardous ma-
terial that can normally be landfilled with municipal
waste. The main advantages are the ease and familiar-
ity of its operation. Its disadvantages include the high
cost of operation, production of air emissions and waste-
water, and its inability to treat special medical waste such
as tissues and body parts. The capital costs range from
US$40,000-125,000 for each ton/day of capacity.
Microwave and radiowave irradiation: Waste is disin-
fected using a high energy electromagnetic field that
causes high frequency oscillation of the liquid portions
of the cell material. The output is considered non-haz-
ardous and can be disposed in a landfill with municipal
waste. Its main advantages are the reduction in volume
achieved and its minimal production of toxic pollutants.
Its disadvantages include cost and sophistication, and
Incineration is not an effective option to dispose
of municipal solid waste in the Philippines because
of the unsuitable technical characteristics of the
waste (high moisture and organic content and low
calorific value), high construction and operating
costs, and attendant environmental risk due to weak
monitoring and enforcement. However, many
countries, including the Philippines, use incinera-
tors as an option to completely destroy certain in-
its ineffectiveness in treating special medical waste such
as tissues and body parts. The capital costs range from
US$120,000-200,000 for each ton/day of capacity.
Chemical disinfection: The waste is shredded and
chemicals are added to waste to kill or inactivate patho-
gens. The output has to be disposed of using tech-
niques such as safe landfilling. The advantage of this
process is the reduction of waste volume resulting from
shredding. However, chemical disinfection requires a
skilled operator, is costly, does not treat wastes such as
tissues and body parts, and produces a toxic waste
stream.
Safe landfilling: The waste is placed in a pit excavated in
mature municipal waste or in a special area constructed in
the landfill and covered immediately with soil or fresh mu-
nicipal waste. For added health protection and odor sup-
pression, lime can be spread over the waste. The area
should also be fenced off to prevent access by waste pick-
ers or scavenging animals. The capital costs are low as it
uses an existing municipal landfill. The advantages of these
methods are their simplicity and low-cost. These are the
next best option to incineration for the treatment of body
parts and tissues. However, the waste remains infectious,
and therefore, can be very dangerous if not managed ex-
tremely carefully.
Source: Adapted from Johannessen, et al., Healthcare Waste Man-
agement Guidance Note, The World Bank, 2000.
fectious medical waste such as syringes, body parts
and tissues, and treat certain classes of hazardous
waste such as insecticides, pesticides, waste solvents,
types of hydraulic fluids and some oily sludges. The
broad-based ban on incineration will influence the
way that infectious medical and hazardous wastes
are disposed, and may well present risks to health
and the environment if it encourages unsafe and un-
regulated treatment and disposal practices.
16
 HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION, RECYCLING, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
At the same time, allowing unregulated operation
of incinerators in the Philippines for infectious
medical and hazardous wastes is potentially dan-
gerous. The country currently has limited capacity
to operate incinerators and monitor their emissions.
Without proper operation there is a danger that they
could not only ineffectively treat the waste but pro-
duce significant quantities of pollutants such as di-
oxins.
Effective implementation of the law will require a
concerted effort that focuses exclusively on the
practicalities of establishing safe and effective dis-
posal practices in the short and long term. If the
ban is fully implemented, then there will need to be
a shift to alternative technologies (see Box 11).
Some could take years and some technologies could
potentially have a lower order of treatment effec-
tiveness. The choice of technology is dependent on
environmental and safety considerations and com-
mercial viability. Experience from Latin America
suggests that microwaving or autoclaving options
17
could be used to treat infectious medical wastes at
prices equivalent or slightly higher than incinera-
tion, but not all waste streams could be effectively
treated. Similarly, cleaner production and chemi-
cal precipitation have been used to reduce the gen-
eration of hazardous waste in manufacturing pro-
cesses. Assuming viable treatment technologies are
identified soon, then it will have to be ensured that
such facilities are properly operated and environ-
mentally sound.
Alternatively, in the event that the incineration ban
is stayed or delayed for infectious medical and haz-
ardous wastes, the government should ensure that
the incinerators are operated as designed and regu-
lated closely by DENR, and their performance dis-
closed to the public. This would require substan-
tial capacity building of DENR’s monitoring and
oversight capability. Also, existing incineration
capacity should be optimized to encourage the use
of shared facilities in order to minimize operational
and environmental risks.
 LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONS AND BUDGETS

LEGISLATION
The Philippine Constitution (Article II Section 16) stipulates that “the state shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” From the first anti-
dumping law in 1938 to the most recent ESWMA, every piece of enacted legislation has emphasized proper collection
and safe disposal of household garbage and industrial and hospital wastes. A summary of the different pieces of legislation
and their salient features follow. It is obvious that actions on the ground have not kept pace with policy and legal pro-
nouncements, and every effort should be made to ensure that the ESWMA succeeds where previous legislation failed.
Salient features of the ESWMA are also summarized.

Box 12: Summary of SWM Legislation

Commonwealth Act No. 383 - Anti-Dumping Law (1938)
Prohibits dumping of refuse, waste matter or other substances into rivers. Punishment is imprisonment of not more than six months
and/or a fine of not more than P200.
Republic Act 4226, Hospital Licensing Law (1965)
Provides guidelines to protect and promote public health by ensuring quality hospital services appropriate to its level of health care.
General Order No. 13 (1972)
Orders all residents to undertake the cleaning of their surroundings and prohibits anyone from throwing garbage in public
places. All lot owners must maintain the cleanliness of idle lots. If they are unable to do so, the Government will undertake the
same at the owner’s expense.
Presidential Decree No. 825, Garbage Disposal Law (1975)
Provides penalties for improper disposal of garbage and other forms of uncleanliness. Penalties include imprisonment for be-
tween five days and one year and/or fines between P100 and P2000.
Presidential Decree No. 856, Sanitation Code (1975)
Requires cities and municipalities to provide an adequate and efficient system for collection, transportation, and disposal of refuse
in their areas of jurisdiction in a manner approved by the local health authority.
Presidential Decree No. 600; as amended by PD 979, Marine Pollution Control Decree of 1976 (1976)
Prevents and controls the pollution of the seas by prohibiting dumping of waste and other matter, which creates hazards to human
health or harms living resources and marine life.
Presidential Decree No. 984, Rules and Regulations of the National Pollution Control Law
Provides guidelines for the prevention and control of pollution from solid, toxic, and hazardous wastes.
Presidential Decree No. 1151, the Philippine Environmental Policy (1978)
Recognizes the right of the people to a healthy environment, and the duty of everyone to contribute to the preservation and
enhancement of the environment. Section 4 requires the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements for any project or
undertaking that may significantly affect the environment.
Presidential Decree No. 1152, Philippine Environmental Code (1978)
Requires the preparation and implementation of waste management programs by all provinces, cities, and municipalities.
(OP) Executive Order No. 432 (1990)
Orders the strict implementation of PD 825 by all law enforcement agencies and officers. Enjoins the Metro Manila Development
Authority to do so for Metro Manila.
Local Government Code RA 7160 (1991)
Mandates LGUs to exercise powers and discharge functions and responsibilities as necessary or appropriate and incidental to the
efficient and effective provision of services and facilities related to general hygiene and sanitation, beautification, and solid
waste collection and disposal systems.
Republic Act 6969 - Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990, and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations (DAO 29) (1992)
Regulates the importation, use, movement, treatment and disposal of toxic chemicals and hazardous and nuclear waste in the
Philippines.
Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 98-49 and 98-50
Provides technical guidelines for municipal solid waste disposal, and adopts the landfill site identification and screening criteria
for municipal solid waste disposal facilities.
Republic Act 8749 - The Clean Air Act of 1999
Provides a comprehensive air pollution management and control program to achieve and maintain healthy air. Section 20 bans
incineration of municipal, bio-medical, and hazardous wastes but allows the traditional method of small-scale community burning.
Republic Act 9003 - Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000
Declares the adoption of a systematic, comprehensive, and ecological solid waste management program as a policy of the State.
Adopts a community-based approach. Mandates waste diversion through composting and recycling.

18
LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONS AND BUDGETS

Box 13: Key Features of the Ecological Solid Waste

Management Act of 2000 (ESWMA)

RA 9003— The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 was passed by Congress in December 2000 and signed into
law by the President of the Philippines on January 26, 2001 with the aim of adopting a systematic, comprehensive, and ecological
solid waste management program. The Implementating Rules and Regulations are currently being finalized.

• Institutional Arrangements: The Act provides for the establishment of a National Solid Waste Management Commission
(NSWMC) to oversee the implementation of solid waste management plans, and prescribe policies to achieve the objectives of
the Act. The commission will be headed by DENR and composed of representatives from the following agencies: Department
of Science and Technology (DOST), Department of Health (DOH), Department of Agriculture (DA), Technical Education and
Skill Development Authority (TESDA), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Philippine Infor-
mation Agency (PIA), League of Provincial Governors, League of City Mayors, Association of Barangay Councils, and one
representative each from NGOs, recycling, and packaging or manufacturing industries. A similar multi-sectoral SWM Board
will also be created in each Province and Local Government Unit (LGU). LGUs will be primarily responsible for the implemen-
tation and enforcement of the Act within their respective jurisdictions. Similarly, segregation and collection of biodegradable,
compostable, and re-usable solid wastes should be conducted at the barangay level, and the collection of non-recyclable
materials and handling of special wastes will be the responsibility of the municipality or city.

• Strategic Planning Framework: A National Solid Waste Management Status Report featuring an inventory of existing solid
waste facilities, waste characterization, waste generation projections, and other pertinent information should be regularly
updated and published. Based on such report, a National Solid Waste Management Framework, which will include medium
and long-term plans, should be formulated and implemented. The Act also requires each province, city or municipality to
prepare ten year plans, which should include the re-use, recycling, and composting of wastes generated in their respective
jurisdiction, using the National Framework as their guide.

• Re-use: The Act requires all LGUs to divert at least 25 percent of all solid wastes from waste disposal facilities through re-use,
recycling, composting, and other resource recovery activities within five years from the effectivity of the Act. Similarly, segre-
gation of solid wastes at source is made mandatory.

• Recycling: The Act mandates the Department of Trade and Industry to prepare an inventory of existing markets for recyclable
materials and compost. The Act also stipulates that procedure, standards, incentives and strategies should be specified to
develop local market for recyclable materials and compost. The Act also places restriction on the use of environmentally non-
acceptable packaging material.

• Sanitary Landfills and Controlled Dumps: The Act prohibits new open dumps for disposal. Existing open dumpsites will need
to be converted into controlled dumpsites within three years, and replaced with sanitary landfills in a span of five years after
the Act has become effective. The Act provides guidelines for the establishment of sanitary landfills.

• Participation: To encourage popular participation, the Act also allows Citizen Suits, where anyone can file a civil, criminal,
and administrative action against any person, government agency or official who violates or fails to comply with the law.

• Fees: The Act specifies that fees should be levied on all waste generators for SWM services. Fines and penalties for any
violation of the law were also set. All revenues from the implementation of the law shall accrue to a SWM Fund (both national
and local) earmarked to support research and development, provide awards and incentives, provide technical assistance, and
conduct information, education, communication, and monitoring activities.

• Incentives: The Act catalogues the incentives that are to be offered to LGUs, enterprises, private entities, and NGOs to
encourage their active participation. These include: tax and duty exemptions, tax credit on domestic capital equipment,
provision of grants to LGUs to build their technical capabilities and incentives to communities hosting shared treatment and
disposal facilities.

• Appropriations: For the initial operating expenses of the NSWMC, National Ecology Center, and the LGUs, the Act appropri-
ates PhP20 million for 2001. Thereafter, the expenses will be financed through the regular budget. For 2002, PhP10 million
has been appropriated to support the NSWMC.

19
 LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONS AND BUDGETS

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Over the years, successive laws and issuances mandated different agencies to manage solid and hazardous
wastes. This has resulted in overlapping responsibilities. The Local Government Code of 1991 re-affirmed the
primary responsibility of local governments to plan and implement solid waste management programs within
their locality. The ESWMA reinforces this responsibility and defines the national oversight mandate of the
National Solid Waste Management Commission. The new structure and the responsibilities of the different
agencies are explained below:

Chart 3: Institutional Arrangements Mandated by the ESWMA

Office of the President

National Sold Waste Management Commission

• Chaired by the Secretary, DENR

• Outlines policies
• Prepares National SWM Framework
• Oversees implementation of the ESWM Act
• Approves SWM Plans of local governments
• Prepares National SWM Status Report

National Ecology Center Secretariat of the NSWM

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

Provincial Solid Waste Management Boards

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

City/Municipal Solid Waste Management Boards

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

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

20
 LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONS AND BUDGETS
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). Sets standards, criteria, and guidelines for
all aspects of solid waste management. Performs regu-
latory as well as monitoring and enforcement func-
tions with regard to air emissions and effluent of solid
waste management systems. Chairs the National Solid
Waste Management Commission, which sets the over-
all policy, prepares the national framework, and ap-
proves local action plans.
Environmental Management Bureau (EMB). Chairs
the National Ecology Center composed of multi-
sectoral and multi-disciplinary experts tasked to fa-
cilitate training and education on the ESWMA. Estab-
lishes and manages an information database. Provides
secretariat support to the Commission. EMB is a line
agency of DENR.
Box 14: City Development Strategy (CDS) –
a promising approach to mainstream solid
waste management
The CDS aims to assist city governments and their stake-
holders in formulating a common vision for their future,
identifying strategies to attain this vision and priority pro-
grams and projects, and facilitating resource mobilization
to finance the implementation of these programs and
projects. Guided by the principles of livability, competi-
tiveness, bankability and good governance, the CDS fol-
lows a participatory process, which involves all the stake-
holders in the entire planning and decision making pro-
cess. In so doing, it develops a consensus building pro-
cess within the city and builds the city’s capacity for more
effective urban governance.
Based on the experience of the first seven pilot cities
in the Philippines, solid waste was identified by the
various sectors as one of their priority issues. Having
gone through the process together, it was easier to
agree on what needs to be done. The issue of NIMBY
was thus addressed. In the case of San Fernando, La
Union, the CDS process facilitated the acquisition of
an additional lot for sanitary landfill. It also paved
the way for the people’s acceptance of the city’s inte-
grated SWM program.
With the upscaling of the CDS in the Philippines (with 30
additional cities participating), it is expected that a more
comprehensive solution to the issue of solid waste man-
agement will be developed and implemented.
Source: Philippines CDS Project Team
21
Local Government Units (LGUs). Responsible for
preparation and implementation of local SWM plans
together with other stakeholders within their area.
Principally responsible for proper waste manage-
ment – ensuring segregation at source, composting,
recycling, setting up of material recovery facilities,
efficient collection, and environmentally sound dis-
posal.
Department of Health (DOH). Regulates the stor-
age of refuse in food establishments with respect to
construction, maintenance, and placement of stor-
age containers within their establishments. Provides
guidelines for proper management and disposal of
hospital wastes, and other infectious wastes.
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). For-
mulates and implements a coding system for pack-
aging materials and products to facilitate recycling
and re-use. Publishes study on existing markets for
recyclables and recommends steps to expand these
markets.
Department of Agriculture (DA). Publishes an in-
ventory of markets and demands for compost. Assists
compost producers to ensure compost produced con-
form to standards.
Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA).
Enforces pollution laws in Laguna de Bay region in-
cluding illegal dumping of garbage.
Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA).
Coordinates collection, transport, and disposal of solid
wastes in Metro Manila. Responsible for daily opera-
tion of its transfer stations, composting facilities, and
landfills.
Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. Moni-
tors the implementation of the ESWM and oversees
the functions of the Commission.
Philippine Coast Guard (PCG). Responsible for pre-
venting ocean dumping of solid wastes.
Private Sector. Serves as the Vice-Chair of the
NSWMC, and plays a major role in the provision of
collection, treatment and disposal services.
 LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONS AND BUDGETS

BUDGET AND EXPENDITURE

Table 11: MMDA SWM Expenditures
Cities in both developing and industrialized countries (in million pesos)
generally do not spend more than 0.5 percent of their
Year Actual expenditures
per capita gross national product on urban waste ser-
vices. This does not include costs directly paid by busi- 1994 73.4
nesses and residents, beyond the normal municipal 1995 136.5
1996 303.7
taxes and fees.19 1997 405.9
1998 296.9
1999 234.9
Expenditures in solid waste management also serve as 2000 424.3*
a reliable proxy to service levels for collection and
Source: PMO-MMDA
disposal. However, in the Philippines, most LGUs do Note: *budget allocation
not correctly or fully account for their solid waste costs.
No national data is available making it difficult to es-
timate the current share of solid waste expenditures in
Table 12: City Budgets Allocated for
the national accounts.
SWM (2001)
The budget for solid waste management as a percent- Per capita % of
age of total LGU budget varies greatly. Data from allocation Total 2001
City (Pesos) Budget
some cities outside the NCR indicates that in 2001, it
ranges from 1.2 percent to 11.7 percent. Current data Dagupan 87.17 4.1
for three cities within Metro Manila show Marikina at Antipolo 148.66 11.6
Iloilo 12.50 7
10.8 percent, Muntinlupa at 9.8 percent, and Valenzuela Tagaytay 151.51 1.2
at 3.9 percent. The per capita allocation varies be- Island Garden City of Samal 85.39 3.4
Dipolog 60.69 2.1
tween less than a dollar (Iloilo and Roxas) to nearly San Fernando, La Union 162.97 7.0
US$5 (Muntinlupa). Generally, a substantial portion Marikina 192.55 10.8
of the budget for solid waste management is allocated Valenzuela 76.84 3.9
Muntinlupa 250.45 9.8
for collection and transport. Only a small portion is Roxas 23.21 1.4
provided for the management of the disposal site.
Source: Report from each city, August 2001.

MMDA’s solid waste management budget is prima-

rily for disposal, since collection is the mandate of
Table 13: Commonly Used Cost
LGUs. The 1997 Asian economic crisis led to a re-
Recovery Measures Worldwide
duction in MMDA’s expenditures on solid waste man-
(also see Table 5 )
agement. However, by 2000, expenditures increased,
amounting to PhP424 million, more than five times Type Description
the 1994 levels.
User Fees Direct: Paid by waste generators
according to level of service provided
User fees are not widely used by LGUs. Those levy- Indirect: Regardless of services level,
generators pay a flat fee.
ing such fees are able to cover part of the operation
and maintenance costs. None, however, are using the Surcharge Incremental fee levied on property tax
fees as a means for financing capital investments. or water or electricity tariffs. This does
not take into account service levels.

Tipping Fees Fee collected by landfill operator

from waste hauler or local
government. MMDA levies between
PhP150-430 as tipping fee
depending on the truck size.
19
What a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia – World Bank (1999).

22
 THE TEN CHALLENGES...

With the passage of RA 9003: Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (ESWMA), the Philippines now has a
comprehensive and integrated solid waste management policy and legal framework. The implementing rules and regula-
tions are currently being finalized. The next step for the Philippines is to implement the law and ensure its sustainable
impact. In doing so, the following challenges need to be addressed:

Table 14: ESWMA Goals

Action Goal Status
Generation and
Collection • Listing of non-environmentally acceptable products within one year of Unknown
effectivity of the law with phase out period to be set by Commission
• Segregation of waste in all households upon effectivity of the law
Recycling and
Composting • At least 25 percent of waste recycled and recovered within five years of 12 percent in Metro
effectivity of the law Manila;
• Inventory of markets for recyclables and compost within 6 months of 6 percent nationally
effectivity of the law (estimate)
Disposal • All open dumps converted to controlled dumps within three years of 17 controlled dumps
effectivity of the law 2 closed landfills
• All controlled dumps converted to sanitary landfills within five years 1 sanitary landfill
Medical Waste
Disposal • Non-burn technologies for treatment and disposal (Clean Air Act) by 2003 43 incinerators
National SWM Status
Report • Within six months of effectivity Incomplete report
• To be updated every two years

1 Strengthening enforcement and providing better
incentives… The Philippines has a poor record of en-
forcing environmental legislation due to lack of political
will, institutional capacity and incentives. It is impor-
tant the political intent that was demonstrated when fram-
ing the ESWMA should be continued through its imple-
mentation by fully enforcing the different provisions of
the Act. Otherwise, the intent of the Act will be compro-
mised and the achievement of the above goals will re-
main a distant dream, further exacerbating the current
situation. At present, incentives for effective delivery of
SWM services are limited to recognition programs, such
as the Clean and Green and the Galing Pook20 Awards.
Additional incentives should be put into place including:
(i) provision of financial incentives for capital invest-
ment (e.g. matching grants); (ii) imposition of user fees
and tipping fees to encourage waste reduction and in-
crease accountability of service delivery; and (iii) intro-
duction of product standards for composting and grant-
ing incentives to encourage market development. In ad-
dition, the ESWMA also stipulates the granting of cer-
tain concessions and tax exemptions for improving solid
waste management practices.
20
The Galing Pook Award, was first given in 1993, which recognizes and
replicates exemplary programs of LGUs that have effectively addressed
pressing problems in their areas.
2 Building the capacity of national and local in-
stitutions… The implementating rules and regulations
will detail the institutional roles and responsibilities
of different organizations. However, the primary re-
sponsibility for implementing the ESWMA lies with
local governments, which include 77 provinces, 114
cities, 1,495 municipalities, and over 42,000 barangays.
• Strategic Planning. As required by the ESWMA,
over the next few years, strategic plans at the na-
tional, provincial, LGU, and barangay levels need
to be prepared. This will require the strengthen-
ing of technical capacity in the country to prepare
such plans and guide their implementation.
• National Government. The National Ecology Cen-
ter and the Secretariat of the National Solid Waste
Management Commission will need to be
strengthened to provide advisory and extension
services to LGUs and barangays. Their capacity
for obtaining, maintaining, and analyzing data on
solid waste in the country should also be enhanced.
• Local Governments. LGUs will need to upgrade
their technical and managerial capacity to expand
their role beyond the current responsibility of
mainly household collection. Also, LGUs need to
put in place financial systems to fully account for
solid waste management expenditures, which will
enable them to benchmark service efficiency and

23

fulfill contractual obligations in a transparent
manner.
• Barangays. Communities need to be made aware
of the benefits of proper waste disposal, as well
as their responsibilities in waste avoidance, seg-
regation, collection, recycling, and composting.
3 Addressing the NIMBY syndrome… This per-
spective is creating a major barrier to the siting of re-
gional or local landfills and materials recovery facili-
ties. Public awareness and support for solid waste man-
agement facilities can be encouraged through better
consultation and more widespread implementation of
programs, such as the current information, education,
and communication campaigns. Additionally, the es-
tablishment and promotion of landfills or demonstra-
tion landfills that are properly managed from an envi-
ronmental and social point of view will give the pub-
lic greater confidence that landfills can be safely con-
structed and operated in their locality.
4 Raising public awareness on the benefits of
proper SWM… The success of the ESWMA largely
depends on the support of the people. Solid waste is
often perceived as a purely government function, while
public consultation on landfill siting and solid waste
management programs is often lacking. This discour-
ages citizens from playing their role in SWM, such as
participating in recycling programs.
5 Increasing expenditures on SWM… The LGU
budgets for solid waste management have been typi-
cally limited to household collection, transportation
to open dumpsites, and minimal operational expendi-
tures for disposal. The ESWMA requires additional
financing for: building capacity to implement the new
institutional arrangements; conversion to and opera-
tion of controlled dumps and sanitary landfills; shift
to environmentally-friendly packaging; recycling pro-
grams; materials recovery facilities; and infectious
medical and hazardous waste non-burn treatment and
disposal technologies. Preliminary estimates (exclud-
ing investments by businesses) indicate that additional
spending on solid waste management will have to in-
crease by PhP150 billion (Table 15) over the next ten
years, or additional per capita cost of PhP200 per year.
Currently, LGUs annually spend between PhP12 and
250 per capita. Much of the incremental expenditure
will be dedicated to infrastructure investments in the
THE TEN CHALLENGES...
next five years (Chart 3). The average annual costs of
implementing the law amount to 0.5 percent21 of the
2000 gross domestic product (GDP). If this would be
funded solely by the Government, it would require the
programmed public expenditure in the national bud-
get to increase annually by 3 percent from its current
level, and the local government programmed expen-
diture to increase by at least 15 percent. It is therefore
important for the Government to increase the budget
for solid waste management and to supplement that
funding by encouraging the involvement of the pri-
vate sector through the establishment of a functional
regulatory system, ensuring financial transparency in
the sector, and introducing user fees.
6 Mainstreaming the utilization of new funding
sources and employing cost-effective approaches…
• National Government Cost Sharing. The Philip-
pine Government will need to revisit its current
policy22 of not providing any cost-sharing grants
to LGUs to address pollution-related or “brown”
environmental issues such as solid waste. There
are environmental externalities associated with
waste disposal and treatment, which go beyond a
local government’s jurisdiction. These often as-
sume a regional or national dimension, and there-
fore, LGUs need assistance. In many countries,
national governments offer various incentives and
subsidies to local authorities to invest in proper
waste disposal facilities. These take the form of
matching grants provided by the national govern-
ments for capital investments only. Local gov-
ernments usually assume responsibility for opera-
tion and maintenance costs through their own
budgets or user fees.
• Private Sector Participation. The encouragement
of private sector participation can provide invest-
ment to supplement or replace government fund-
21
Source: National Income Accounts, DBM
GDP 3170 Billion PhP
For Information on programmed public expenditure in National
Budget refer to Philippines-at-a-Glance section.
22
The Investment Coordinating Committee (ICC) of the Nationl Economic
and Development Authority (NEDA) has adopted a policy of cost sharing
between the national government and local governments for projects that
have social and environmental benefits. While this is being implemented
for green projects (forest management, protected areas, and wildlife) and
blue environment (coastal and marine resources), there is no cost sharing
for capital investments in the brown environment (urban issues).
24
 THE TEN CHALLENGES...

Table 15: Estimated Incremental Costs for Implementing the ESWMA

between 2002 and 2011 (in real terms)1

Item Cost (PhP billion)

Institutional and Regulatory Arrangements for Planning, Monitoring, Enforcement, and Evaluation2 20

Investments Required to Improve Waste Collection and Recycling 58

• Enhanced Collection for Complete Coverage3 5
• Waste Separation at Household (4 bins) and collection4 13
• Collection Vehicles and Haulage Trucks5 30
• Material Recovery Facility 6 10

Investments Required for Treatment and Disposal 72

• Shift to Controlled Dumps – Construction, Operation, and Maintenance7 4
• Shift to Sanitary Landfills – Construction, Operation, and Maintenance7 67
• Non-burn Technologies for Infectious Medical Waste Treatment8 1
Total 150

1
This excludes investments that need to be made by the private sector to shift to environmentally-friendly packaging and treatment and disposal of industrial hazardous waste.
2
The ESWMA requires the establishment of a National Commission, Technical Secretariat at EMB, an Ecology Center, Provincial Solid Waste Management Board and LGU/City Solid Waste
Management Board. In addition, a national framework, provincial plans, LGU plans, an annual report, eco-labeling scheme and market mechanism for recyclables need to be in place and
regularly updated.
3
Incremental costs for achieving 100 percent collection coverage including under-served poor areas.
4
The Act requires that households or group of households to have four different bins. For purposes of costing this is assumed to be at the barangay level and will be replaced every three
years.
5
Incremental costs for modernizing the collection fleet in LGUs.
6
The Act’s goal is to achieve 25 percent waste diversion, and this is to be realized through material recovery facilities (MRF) to be set-up in each barangay. The cost of an urban MRF is
approximately PhP500,000, while that of a rural MRF is assumed to be PhP75,000.
7
The unit cost coefficients are based on actual costs (conversion of San Fernando Disposal Site to controlled dump) and from conceptual designs (for sanitary landfills in Laguna and Cavite).
Assumes all existing open dumps and controlled dumps are converted and the additional disposal needs from enhanced collection mandated under the ESWM are met by the construction
of LGU-level sanitary landfills.
8
This is mandated by the Clean Air Act.

Source: Team Estimates, 2001.

ing. Currently, the private sector is only involved
as contractors for hauling, while the informal sec-
tor has a small role in material recovery enter-
prises. Private sector participation can be encour-
aged through a regulatory environment that en-
sures private operators are able to recover their
investments through garbage and tipping fees, and
avoid graft and corruption through improved and
transparent contractual practices based on perfor-
mance standards.
• User Fees: Investment and/or operational costs
can be recovered by LGUs or the private sector
by charging residential, industrial, and commer-
cial users for garbage disposal. Successful fee
programs require political support, a quality ser-
vice with consumers who understand the value of
the service and are willing to pay for it, and an
efficient fee collection system.
• Shared Facilities. Substantial cost savings can be
achieved through the establishment of regional fa-
cilities that service multiple LGUs. These include
material recovery facilities and sanitary landfills. The
latter should be served by LGU-specific transfer sta-
tions, which can optimize waste haulage. It will also
be important for barangays to establish shared ma-
terials recovery facilities, as these will be prohibi-
tively expensive (50 percent of all barangays have
annual incomes of less than PhP500,000). Estab-
lishment of these facilities could be encouraged
through demonstration projects and national or re-
gional programs that provide an instrument for co-
ordination of the LGUs.
• Revenues from Landfill Gas Recovery. The gas
produced by landfills can be recovered and either
used as a gas fuel source or combusted to pro-
duce electricity. These facilities can be installed
in operating and closed landfills, and can provide
an LGU or landfill operator with an additional
source of funds to supplement other methods to
cover the costs of solid waste management.
7 Obtaining reliable information for national,
regional, and local planning… There are many
gaps in the data available from the local and na-
tional-levels. Without proper data, long-term plan-
ning decisions cannot be reliably made, and the risk

25

Chart 4: Incremental Annual Costs of Implementing the EWSMA between 2002-2011
25
20
Costs (billion of PhP)
15
Incremental
10
5
0
2002
1 3
Institutional and Regulatory Arrangements
2 4
Improved Collection and Recycling
of crises such as that being experienced by Metro
Manila is higher. A comprehensive information
management system along with the establishment
of local, regional, and national monitoring databases
linked to decision support systems would greatly
help governments at all levels in making informed,
and sound long-term decisions.
8 Ensuring proper management of closed dumps
and sanitary landfills… The poor management prac-
tices at Carmona and San Mateo landfills caused ad-
verse public reactions and the landfills’ closure. The
landfill in Cebu is also experiencing major difficul-
ties. Landfill operators should put in place better man-
agement practices that are closely monitored by LGUs
and DENR. Further, the Carmona and San Mateo land-
fills, and the Payatas and Smokey Mountain open
dumps continue to pose significant environmental risks
to adjacent communities, especially the poor. There is
an urgent need to properly contain these sites and the
numerous open dumps to prevent leachate contamina-
tion of water bodies. Methane gas generated by closed
landfills could be collected and converted to power to
reduce the risk of methane gas explosions, while pro-
viding electricity to local communities.
9 Protecting the vulnerable and under-served…
Poor communities are most likely to be adversely af-
fected by, or do not adequately benefit from, solid waste
management strategies. In particular, the poor are cur-
rently under-served in terms of collection. Some live
on or near garbage disposal sites (e.g. Payatas and
Smokey Mountain) and thus, are exposed to unsani-
THE T EN CHALLENGES...
3
4
2
1
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Y E A R
Treatment and Disposal
Total Incremental Costs
tary conditions and environmental risks (contaminated
groundwater and air pollution) and safety risks (ex-
plosions and the collapse of garbage piles). Active in-
terventions by Government will be needed to help these
communities, including opportunities to expand their
role in waste recycling. For example, social assess-
ments could be required as part of the development
and closure of any disposal site. Programs to help the
communities on operational and closed landfills could
be developed. Equity considerations can be incorpo-
rated into the development of collection systems.
1 0 Expanding coverage of medical and haz-
ardous waste treatment… The main challenges in-
clude expanding on-site and off-site treatment fa-
cilities and addressing the issues posed by the imple-
mentation of the ban on incineration by the Clean
Air Act. Globally, incineration remains a common
means of treating infectious medical waste and haz-
ardous waste. Implementation of the ban will re-
quire adoption of alternate technologies, which will
take time. In the intervening period, every effort
should be made to ensure that disposal measures,
would not result in widespread unsafe and unregu-
lated practices. The government, civil society and
the private sector will need to collaborate to develop
workable and pragmatic approaches that are cost-
effective and environmentally sound. In the event,
the incineration ban is stayed or delayed for infec-
tious medical and hazardous wastes, the government
should ensure that incinerators are carefully oper-
ated, closely regulated, and function in the context
of an integrated waste management system.
26
 CASE STUDY: THE TWO FACES OF PAYATAS - POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT

The Payatas open dumpsite, located in Quezon City, has been receiving Metro Manila’s garbage, hospital waste, and indus-
trial waste for over 20 years. Right from the beginning, it attracted waste pickers who earn a living by scavenging. The waste
pickers then became illegal settlers in the same location, in appalling, unsanitary living conditions. The adverse environmental
and health conditions created by the dump meant that the site was always under threat of closure. Though plans to close down
the area began in 1999, the attempt was thwarted by both the settlers and middlemen who depended on the dump for their
livelihoods. In July 2000, tragedy struck at Payatas, when heavy rains caused part of the dump in the northern area to slide
carrying with it 60,000 cubic meters of waste. The slide killed 250 people belonging to 700 poor families. This case study
discusses the two sides of Payatas: the efforts to rehabilitate illegal squatter elsewhere; and the organized approach of the
scavengers to improve their lives.

REHABILITATION EFFORTS
The accident highlighted the need to improve the liv-
ing conditions of the people in Payatas. Local com-
munities, with the help of NGOs, the private sector,
and local governments are undertaking three reloca-
tion projects in the area:
• 200 families living in the danger zone are being
relocated to Bagong Silangan, Quezon City—a
two-hectare plot not far from Payatas donated by
the private sector. A total of 342 housing units will
be provided at a cost of about PhP70,000 per unit.
A training center would also be constructed.
• Another relocation site is a three-hectare lot in
San Isidro, Montalban bought by the waste pick-
ers at PhP150/sqm. All developments in the area
are being undertaken by the relocatees, including
the design and construction of roads, drainage
systems, and the houses. So far, 16 shell houses
have been constructed.
• The Golden Shower Homeowner’s Association,
formed in 1993, started a savings program, mapped,
enumerated and surveyed their settlements, and ar-
ranged to put their land titles in order. Plans include
the purchase of 3.2 hectares of land which associa-
tion members already occupy. They plan to improve
their homes, build new houses, and establish a com-
munity recycling center. After the Payatas incident,
the Asian Development Bank, through the Japan
Fund for Poverty Reduction, provided a US$1 mil-
lion grant to help people with home ownership and
on-site improvement.
WORKING TOGETHER TO BUILD BETTER LIVES
In 1993, the community living in Payatas organized
themselves into the Payatas Scavengers Association
with the support of the Vincentian Missionaries So-
cial Development Foundation. Through this associa-
tion, they work to secure their economic future by ac-
cessing the resources and opportunities that will add
value to their products and stabilize their incomes. Ac-
tivities supported include:
• Promoting home-based solid waste related micro-
enterprises, by encouraging investments in recy-
cling processes that enhance the value of their
products, and transform recycled materials into
new/exportable products.
• Mobilizing savings through a regular savings pro-
gram open to all members of the communities and
collected daily by community members. The sav-
ings of their 6,115 members from June 1995 to
September 2000 amounted to PhP14.2 million.
Through these funds, they were able to purchase
land, expand their businesses, pay for their
children’s tuition fees, buy medicines, and meet
emergency needs. Loans disbursed within the
same period amounted to PhP61.5 million—indi-
cating that the total amount of money had been
loaned out and paid back four times, creating as-
sets and increasing wealth for households with an
average income of only PhP3,500 per month.
• Encouraging the acquisition of land and construc-
tion of their own houses, and accompanied im-
provements in living conditions.
Aside from these activities, the association also has
programs for children including a center cooperatively
managed by mothers. The center offers working chil-
dren a place to play, obtain first-aid, sleep, shower,
and get something to eat. Alongside the center is a
day care school where mothers take turns teaching and
feeding children nutritious meals cooked in the court-
yard outside. The children themselves have initiated a
savings scheme for those who are on their own. The
savings scheme is aside from their families’. These
experiences have shown that making savings and credit
the building block of a people-driven community de-
velopment movement, helps individuals understand
their own situation and needs. It develops and promotes
community strength, creates the bargaining chip of
collective assets, and truly turns poor communities into
potential development partners.

27

Barangay: Pilipino term used to describe a community or vil-
lage; also the smallest political unit in the country.
Biodegradable: Capable of decomposition by microorganisms
under natural conditions. Most organic materials, such as food
scraps and paper, are biodegradable.
Collection: The process of picking up wastes from residences, busi-
nesses, or at a collection point, loading them into a vehicle, and trans-
porting them to a processing site, transfer station or landfill.
Commercial waste: All municipal solid waste emanating from
business establishment such as stores, markets, office buildings,
restaurants, shopping centers, and entertainment centers.
Composting: The controlled biological decomposition of the pu-
trescible fraction of MSW in the presence of air to form a humus-
like material.
Controlled dumps: A non-engineered disposal site at which MSW
is deposited in accordance with minimum prescribed standards of
site operation. It has minimal site infrastructure. Basic operational
controls include: control over size of waste tipping area with waste
spread and compaction, stormwater management, and supervision
of site operations by trained staff.
Decomposition: The breakdown of matter, changing the chemi-
cal makeup and physical appearance of MSW in landfills or
composting facilities.
Disposal: The final placement of MSW that is not salvaged or
recycled.
Energy recovery: Obtaining energy from MSW through a variety
of processes (e.g. combustion).
Gas control and recovery system: A system designed to collect
landfill gases for treatment or for use as an energy source.
Generation rate: The amount of MSW generated over a given
period of time by a given source.
Groundwater: The supply of freshwater that is found beneath the
earth’s surface, which supplies wells and springs. Since ground-
water is a major source of drinking water, there is a growing con-
cern about contamination from pollutants leached from dumpsites
and/or badly managed landfills.
Hazardous waste: Waste generated that can pose a substantial or
potential hazard to human health or the environment when im-
properly managed.
Household waste (domestic waste): MSW composed of garbage
and rubbish, which is generated as a consequence of household
activities. In developing countries, up to two-thirds of this cat-
egory consist of putrescible wastes.
Incineration: A treatment technology involving destruction of
MSW by controlled burning at high temperatures. The main ob-
jective of this process is to reduce the volume of MSW and to
make waste innocuous.
Industrial waste: A heterogeneous mixture of different materials
generated during an industrial operation.
Infectious waste: Hazardous waste with infectious characteris-
tics, including contaminated animal waste, body parts, human
blood, and blood products, isolation waste, pathological waste,
and discarded needles and medical instruments.
Institutional waste: Waste originating from schools, hospitals,
prisons, research organizations, and other public buildings.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Leachate: Wastewater that collects contaminants as it trick-
les through MSW disposed in a landfill. Leaching may result
in hazardous substances entering surface water, ground water
or soil.
Market wastes: Primarily putrescible MSW, such as leaves, skins,
and unsold food, discarded at or near food markets.
Materials recovery facility: Facility that processes residentially
collected mixed recyclables into new products.
Medical waste (hospital waste): Any MSW generated in the di-
agnosis, treatment or immunization of human beings or animals.
Methane: A colorless, non-poisonous, flammable gas created by
anaerobic decomposition of organic compounds.
Moisture content: The fraction or percentage of a substance that
is water.
Municipal solid waste (MSW): Includes non-hazardous waste
generated in households, commercial and business establishments,
institutions, and non-hazardous industrial process wastes, agricul-
tural wastes, and sewage sludge.
NIMBY: Acronym for “Not In My BackYard”; an expression
of resident opposition to the siting of a municipal solid waste
management facility based on the particular location proposed.
Open dumps: A site used to dispose of municipal solid waste with-
out management and/or environmental controls.
Putrescible: A fraction of MSW which can decompose under aero-
bic or anaerobic conditions, used as a feedstock for composting.
Recycling: Physical/mechanical separation process by which sec-
ondary raw materials (paper, metal, glass, plastics) are obtained
from MSW. The process could be accomplished manually, or us-
ing sophisticated equipment.
Resource recovery: The process of obtaining matter or energy
from MSW.
Sanitary landfill: This is a disposal site designed, constructed,
operated, and maintained in a manner that exerts engineering con-
trol over significant potential environmental impacts arising from
the operation of the facility. It has comprehensive site engineering
and exhibits containment, treatment, and management of leachate
and landfill gas.
Solid waste: MSW composed of solid matter from household, com-
mercial, institutional, and industrial sources.
Tipping fee: A fee for unloading MSW at a landfill, transfer sta-
tion or recycling facility.
Toxic waste: A waste that can produce injury if inhaled, swal-
lowed, or absorbed through the skin.
Transfer station: A facility at which MSW from collection ve-
hicles is consolidated into loads that are transported in larger trucks
or other means to more distant disposal sites.
Waste picking: A process of extracting recyclables and re-
usable materials from a mixed MSW for further use and/or
processing.
Source: Adapted from Planning Guide for Strategic Municipal Solid
Waste Management in Major Cities in Low-income Countries, Draft
Planning Guide, February 1998, Environment Resources Man-
agement, London.
28

Society
Capital .................................................................. Manila
Population ........................................................... 76.5 Mc
Population growth rate ...................................... 2.32%c h
Birth rate ............................. 28 births/1,000 populationc i
Death rate .......................... 6.5 deaths/1,000 populationc i
Net migration rate ...... 1.03 migrants/1,000 populationc i
Sex ratio ............................................... 0.99 male/femalec
Total fertility rate .................. .3.6 children born/womanc
Poverty (% below poverty line) .......................... 37.5%e
Urban population (% of total population) ....... 56.9%c j
Infant mortality rate .............................. 32 deaths/1,000
live births c (1998)
Under-five mortality rate ...................... 44 deaths/1,000
live birthsc (1998)
Life expectancy at birth (both sexes) .......... 68.3 years c h
Child malnutrition (% of children below 5) ........ 28%c k
Access to safe water
(% of population) ............................................. 83%f
Adult literacy rate
(% of population age 15+) ............................... 94.8%f j
Geography
Location: Southeastern Asia, archipelago between the Phil-
ippine Sea and the South China Sea, east of Vietnam
Area
Total ......................................................... 300,000 sq km
Land ......................................................... 298,170 sq km
Water ............................................................ 1,830 sq km
Land boundaries ...................................................... 0 km
Coastline .......................................................... 36,289 km
Climate: Tropical marine; northeast monsoon (November
to April); southwest monsoon (May to October)
Elevation extremes
Lowest point: ................................... Philippine Sea: 0 m
Highest point: ................................ Mount Apo: 2,954 m
Natural resources: timber, petroleum, nickel, cobalt, sil-
ver, gold, salt, copper
Land use
Arable land: ............................................................. 19%
Permanent crops: ..................................................... 12%
Permanent pastures: ................................................... 4%
Forests and woodland: ............................................. 46%
Other: ...................................................................... 19%g
Environmental issues: Solid waste management; defores-
tation; air and water pollution in Metro Manila; marine and
coastal pollution.
Sources: a World Development Indicators 2000, b Selected Philippine Economic Indicators – Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (SPEI-BSP), c
National Statistics Office (NSO), d National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), e National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), f
Human Development Report 2000, g National Income Accounts, Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
29
THE PHILIPPINES AT A GLANCE
Economy
GDP-real growth rate….......………………..…… 3.9%b
GDP .........................…........……………..PhP3,322.6 Bb
GDP-composition by sectora
Agriculture ............................................................. 16%
Industry ................................................................... 31%
Services ........................…........…………. ............. 53%
GNP per capita…........………...……….......US$1,016.0e
GNP-real growth rate.…...………………..............4.2%a
GNP...............................…………............PhP3,302.6Bb
(In percent)b
Gross domestic investment/GDP ............................. 18.8
Exports of goods and services/GDP ........................ 51.3
Gross domestic savings/GDP ................................... 14.6
Gross National Savings/GDP ................................... 20.7
Inflation rate (consumer prices ............................ 4.4%d
Labor force .......................................................... 48.4 Md
Participation rate ................................................. 64.3%d
Employment by sector (In % total employment)b
Agriculture ............................................................ 40.1%
Government and social services ........................... 19.5%
Services ................................................................. 44.2%
Manufacturing ........................................................ 9.5%
Construction ........................................................... 5.3%
Unemployment ..................................................... 10.1Md
Unemployment rate ............................................. 11.1%d
Budgetg
Programmed public expenditure (2001) ......... PhP700B
Local government programmed expenditure .. PhP128B
Industries: Textiles, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, wood
products, food processing, electronics assembly, petroleum
refining, fishing
Industrial production growth rate ....................... 0.5%b
Agriculture-products: Rice, coconuts, corn, sugarcane,
bananas, pineapples, mangoes; pork, eggs, beef, fish
Exports of goods and services .................. PhP1,648.2 Bb
Imports of goods and services ................. PhP1,342.6 Bb
Currency conversion average ..... US$1=PhP44.1938 B b
Debt-external ............................................... US$52.06 Bb
Currency ........... 1 Philippine Peso (PhP) = 100 centavos