Sie sind auf Seite 1von 36

Making RA 9003 Work: Putting Real Issues, Real Solutions in a Real World A Joint Policy Position P ap er of the League

of Cities of the Philippines and League of Municipalities of the Philippines (draft copy)

Prepared by: Elmer Mercado LGU Policy Advisor J anuary 2006

With technical as sistance provided by the Philippine-Canadian Local Government Support Programme Phas e 2 (LGSP II)

A. Overview The pas s age of the Republic Act 9003 (RA 9003) or the Ecological Solid Waste Managem ent Act of 2000 (ESWM) was a landmark environmental legislation in the Philippines as well as for the newly installed government of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who signed the law in 2000 within a few month of her ascension into office. The Act was a product of long-standing advocacies by many sectors, including local government units and their constituencies, on the impending problem brought about by unsystematic management of the countrys solid waste. However like many good laws pas s ed by the Philippine Congres s, RA 9003 has been plagued and criticized by s everal sectors as an unre alistic and unimplementable becau s e of certain provisions of the law. Among thes e provisions include the time-bound deadlines in the implementation of specific solid waste man agem ent activities and systems such as establishment and conversions of dispos al facilities that are deemed unrealistic by local implementers particularly LGUs. S everal expert studies have pinpointed the inconsistencies and impracticality of the existing provisions of the law and its applicability to local conditions particularly with LGUs. As the mandated frontline implementing agency of RA 9003, LGUs are tasked with the heaviest burden of operating and su staining an effective SWM system within the limited financial, economic, institutional and technical capacities of many LGUs. The World Bank study on Local Approaches to Environmental Compliance noted that the principal obstacles to environmental compliance and enforcement of environmental laws in developing countries revolve around constraints that are political, economic and institutional.1 Thes e obs ervations are cle arly pictures the real conditions by which RA 9003 is working on in the Philippines. The law has placed a great burden of responsibility and governance to LGUs on achieving its goals of instituting an effective, sustainable and ecologically-sound solid waste man agem ent system in the Philippine s. This objective is a commonly-shared vision by many local chief executive s and their constituencies. However, such a vision can only happen if it fits within the real conditions and parameters of the laws intended ben eficiary communities and constituencies. Thes e include understanding the economic, institutional and political conditions of LGUs who are tasked to implement and sustain the system. In this context, the first step in making RA 9003 work is to make it re al first in the real world of our LGUs and local communities. This policy paper is intended to pres ent a re al appreciation of the real world of LGUs, primarily tasked by the law, to make an ecologically-sound solid waste managem ent system in the country real and working.

A. Bianchi, W. Cruz and M. Nakamura (eds). Local Approaches to Environmental Compliance: Japanese Case Studies and Lessons for Developing Countries. World Bank Institute, Washington. 2005.

B. Real Issues and Real Problems of Philippine LGUs and RA 9003 1.0 Most Philippine LGUs are poor (4th-6th class) and are economically unable to support an effective solid waste management system in the country. One of the major arguments for the inability of LGUs to implement RA 9003 is the financial and economic limitations of most of the countrys LGUs to fund and sustain an effective solid waste managem ent system as provided for by the law. RA 9003 has vested and imposed upon LGUs the primary responsibility of implementing the law, becaus e of its primary role as frontline service agencies of government. However, it did not vest it with the neces s ary financial and fiscal resources to be able to effectively institute and sustain the SWM system embodied under the law. Likewise, the law did not consider the economic and financial generating capacities of LGUs in the country. There are a total of 1,693 LGUs in the country broken down as follows: 79 provinces, 116 cities and 1,498 municipalities 2. There are also an es timated 41,975 barangays. At pres ent, the LMP has a listed membership of 1, 498 municipalities as of 2003. This does not include the 11 new municipalities created under the ARMM RLA.3 Of thes e total, almost 2/3 of its members belong to lowest income clas s e s of LGUs (4th-6th class). ARMM has the large st number of municipalities that belong to the poorest income clas s or 6th clas s municipalities. Data from the income and expenditure statements gen erated from the Department of Finances Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) in 2003, listed the average income generated by thes e 4 th-6th clas s municipalities are between PhP 15 million -30.0 million, while 1 st-3rd clas s municipalities (outside of NCR, Regions III and IV)4 have an average income of PhP 50-100 million. Most of the poor municipalities are scattered all over the country. In the cas e of cities, there are a total of 102 cities (outside of the 14 cities in Metro Manila) as of 2003. Of the total, more than half or 64 cities are clas sified as high-income (see Table 2). Forty-six (46) of the 64 are 1st clas s cities. As per the 2003 Report of the Audited Financial Statement Report of Cities by the Commission on Audit (COA), the average income gen erated by thes e cities range betwe en PhP 300 million PhP 600 million. However, in the cas e of highly-urbanised cities located in the National Capital Region and s everal others outside of Metro Manila 5, income generated by thes e HUCs exceeded more than PhP 1.0 billion.

The number of municipalities may vary according to source. The number of municipalities in this report was taken from the LMPs 2003 membership list. Other sources list the number of municipalities to around 1,500. 3 Sec. 19, Art. VI of RA 9054 or the new Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao gives the ARMM Regional Assembly the authority to create, divide, merge, abolish or substantially alter boundaries of provinces, cities, municipalities or barangays within the region. 4 Several municipalities in these regions have reported incomes of more than PhP 300 million, including Sta. Rosa and Binan in Laguna. Both municipalities, however, have recently been converted into cities. 5 Outside of NCR, the cities classified as highly-urbanized are Davao, Cebu, Baguio, Cagayan de Oro, Gen Santos, Bacolod, Iloilo, Lucena, and Zamboanga.

Table 1: Classification of Municipalities in the Philippines by Income and Physical Characteristics No. of LGUs by Total Region No. of No. of LGUs by Income Class (1st-6th Physical Class) Characteristics LGUs* 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Landlocked Coastal 3 4 2 26 38 3 76 0 CAR 4 9 23 53 28 0 68 49 R1 7 10 13 36 20 4 62 28 R2 24 19 24 45 30 0 85 34 R3 34 13 13 41 29 1 47 84 R4-a 9 9 7 27 15 4 6 65 R4-b 6 10 16 47 28 0 30 77 R5 3 9 16 69 20 0 54 63 R6 1 11 14 46 47 1 31 89 R7 3 5 11 41 75 4 34 106 R8 1 7 15 31 13 0 34 33 R9 3 6 9 31 33 3 43 42 R10 9 9 14 9 2 0 22 21 R11 12 10 15 7 1 0 36 9 R12 5 6 10 19 29 1 24 46 CARAGA 3 3 8 24 24 32 56 42 ARMM 3 1 2 NCR Totals 130 140 210 552 432 53 708 790 Source: Compiled from the 2003 LMP National Secretariat Databas e.

76 117 90 119 131 71 107 117 120 139 67 85 43 45 70 98 3 1498

Table 2. Income Classification of Cities in the Philippines Region No. of LGUs by Income Class (1st-5th Class) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 3 2 1 2 3 4 6 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

Total No. of LGUs 1 8 3 12 12 7 16 12 4 5 7 5 6 3 1 116

1 CAR 1 2 2 R1 1 R2 3 2 3 R3 6 1 3 R4 2 1 R5 5 4 1 R6 3 3 3 R7 3 R8 2 2 R9 2 1 3 R10 1 1 R11 3 R12 1 1 CARAGA 1 ARMM 14 NCR Total 48 16 18 Source: Commission on Audit, 2004

11

23

Table 3. Top Twelve (12) Income Earners for Cities (outside of NCR) Ranking/ Income Region Province Income Income Earned City Class Class (in PhP) Davao 1 XI Davao del Sur 1 st 2.22B st Cebu 1 VII Cebu 1 1.82B Zamboanga 1 IX Zamboanga 1 st 1.22B del Sur Cagayan de 1 X Misamis 1 st 1.02B Oro Oriental Calamba 2 IV Laguna 1 st 879.9M st Pu erto 1 IV P alawan 1 838.77M Princes a Batangas 1 IV Batangas 1 st 835.73M st Antipolo 1 IV Rizal 1 792.36M nd Iligan 1 XII Lanao del 2 789.53M Norte Iloilo 1 VI Iloilo 1 st 727.59M Gen S antos 1 XII South 2nd 690.85M Cotabato Baguio 1 CAR Benguet 2nd 686.71M Source: Commission on Audit, 2004

Table 4. Income Classification of Provinces in the Philippines Region No. of LGUs by Income Class (1st-4th Class) 1st 2nd 1 CAR 4 R1 2 1 R2 5 1 R3 6 2 R4 2 3 R5 2 3 R6 3 R7 1 3 R8 2 R9 2 1 R10 3 2 R11 1 3 R12 1 3 CARAGA 1 1 ARMM Total 35 24 Source: Commission on Audit, 2004 3rd 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 4th

Total No. of LGUs 6 4 5 7 10 6 6 4 6 3* 4 5 4 4 5 79

1 1

1 1 1

2 14

1 6

Table 3 further shows that of the top 12 income e arners among the cities, five are provincial capital cities and HUCs from Mindanao, four (4) from Southern Tagalog, and one each for Benguet, Iloilo and Cebu. The average income for thes e top income earners is PhP 800 900 million. On the other hand, 3rd 5th clas s cities or 52 cities have incomes lower than PhP 200 million with the lowest clas s e s (5th) of cities barely earning an average of a little more than PhP 100 million. In the cas e of the provinces, out of the 79 provinces in the country, more than almost half are cla s sified as high-income provinces or 1st clas s provinces. Many of the provinces have an average income of PhP 300 million 700million while the top twelve (12) provinces have an average range of around PhP 1.0 billion. Of the 10 highest earning provinces, more than two-thirds are in Luzon with Southern Tagalog having five (5) of the top earning provinces in the country. Bas ed on the income data of LGUs, almost two-thirds of all municipalities and cities in the country are clas sified as poor LGUs with almost 80 percent dependent from the internal revenue allotment (IRA) coming from the national 6

government. A similar number of provinces are also dependent on IRA releas e s for their incomes even thos e clas sified as 1 st class provinces. In fact, two studies made by Dr. Ros ario Manas an on the fiscal generating capacity of LGUs showed that only cities have extended their income generating capacity beyond their IRA. Of the total IRA received by LGUs, esp ecially municipalities and provinces, almost 60-70 percent is earmarked for personnel services, 20% as economic development fund (EDF) with little left for maintenance and operating expens e s and/or capital outlay. With a very limited amount for development funds in the LGUs, SWM activities will have to compete with other contending priorities of the community and LGUs. 2.0 The cost of operating an effective SWM system is higher than the potential revenues that can be generated from the system. On the other hand, the cost of operating a dispos al facility and implementing the 10-ye ar SWM plan required by RA 9003 is fiscally impossible for many LGUs to sustain given the current levels of its income generation including the potential revenues that is suppos ed to be gen erated from garbage and tipping fees, fines and penalty collections, and income gen erated from recycled and reus ed wa ste materials. The results of a 2004 study6 by the Solid Waste Managem ent Association of the Philippines (SWAPP) from 41 LGUs in the NCR, Luzon and Vis ayas showed that across all LGUs in the study suffered a fiscal gap (net los s) 7 of PhP 945-1,102 per ton to man age the total amount of waste generated by thes e LGUs. Divided according to type of LGUs the net loss e s amounted to PhP 27.0 million for SWAPP-listed LGUs, 218.13 million for big (urban) non-SWAPP listed LGUs and PhP 1.66 million for small (rural) non-SWAPP listed LGUs. 8 In its conclusion, the SWAPP study reported that it is costly to implement a solid waste management programme (without a s anitary landfill) becaus e the cost of SWMP is higher than the actual revenue that LGUs can get from the activitie s. Another SWAPP study involving 3 pilot LGUs (Bayawan, Tacurong and Bais cities) that have opted to establish a s anitary land fill facility and implement a 10-year SWM plan as provided for by RA 9003 arrived at a similar conclusion. 9 The SWAPP study stated that in general the SWM system in the country is
The SWAPP divided the LGUs into SWAPP-listed or assisted LGUs (15), Big/Urban Other (nonSWAPP) LGUs (10) and Small/Rural Other (non-SWAPP) LGUs (16). The geographical distribution was NCR (6), Luzon (25) and Visayas (10). The study was presented by Zenaida M. Sumalde during the 4th SWAPP Conference in Zamboanga City in 2004. 7 The net loss or fiscal gap was computed based on fiscal gap = total cost total revenue. Total cost consisted of up-front cost (equipment, vehicles, facilities, ECC and IEC), operating cost (salaries, supplies, field and power, maintenance) and back-end cost (closure and post-closure care and support services). Total Revenue consisted of fee-based (garbage fee, tipping fees, permitting fees, fines and penalties) and non-fee based revenues (sale of recyclables and compost). 8 Only four (4) out of the 41 LGUs studied showed a surplus in the implementation of their SWM. These included 3 SWAPP-listed LGUs (Olongapo, Lipa and Batangas cities) and 1 small LGU (Calasiao, Pangasinan). 9 Lisette C. Cardenas, Developing a Sustainable Funding Mechanism for Solid Waste Management Services: The Philippine Experience, SWAPP, 2004.
6

heavily subsidized and financially unsustainable. It argues that SWM budget is highly dependent on the 20% EDF and has to compete with other development priorities and concerns of an LGU. In fact a CIDA-funded expert as s e s sm ent study estimated that the cost to achieve the s anitary landfill design standards a s provided for in Sections 40 and 41 of RA 9003 are estimated at PhP 119 million per hectare!10 This does not include design and land acquisition costs. A recently concluded expert evaluation study conducted by JICA further supports the expens e need ed to construct and operate a SLF in the country11. The JICA expert study e stimates that the operation of a s anitary land fill under the existing provisions of the law will cost more than a hundred million pesos to construct and operate. The s am e conclusion was arrived at by a s e parate USAID-funded study under the Philippine Environmental Governance or EcoGov Project on the su stainability of operating s anitary landfills in the country. Bas ed on this study, it stated that LGUs and even the major agencie s do not have enough experience, technical know-how, financial capability and political will to sustain the operation of an engineered dispos al facility such as a s a nitary landfill.12 Table 5 shows a comparative cost of the propos ed and existing SLF facilities of 7 LGUs in the country. It clearly shows the extent of financial cost at the moment for local LGUs to support the provisions for dispos al facilities under RA 9003. Whilst many LGUs are willing, albeit some are compelled, to fully implement the law, the conditions of many Philippine LGUs show that they would not be able to financially support much more sustain the an effective SWM programme in the context of complying with the provisions of the RA 9003. Even the most progres sive and most economically capable LGUs, most 1st class LGUs (highly-urbanized cities or HUCs) , only a handful are deemed capable to complying with implementing a suitable solid waste man agem ent system as envisioned in the law. An in-depth cas e study of 32 LGUs conducted by the JICA in 2004 showed that only four (4) out of the 32 LGUs were ranked as A.13 According to the study, cities and municipalities belonging to this category are most likely able to mobilize funding that will be need ed for the implementation of a suitable solid waste man agem ent system. The four LGUs deem ed suitable or ranked A was clas sified as 1 st clas s LGUs.

Todd R. Pepper. Memorandum Report on Technical Appraisal of RA 9003. Essex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority. Canada. 11 August 2003. 11 Noboyuki Yamamura Institutional and Financial Performance Evaluation on Solid Waste Management in the Philippines, JICA Philippines. November 2005. 12 Reynar R. Rollan, Inputs to Phased Compliance in Solid Waste Disposal, USAID EcoGov Project2, Pasig City, August 2005. 13 Basic Study on the Selection of High Priority Cities/Municipalities for the Establishment of a Suitable SWM System, JICA, Manila, November 2004.

10

Table 5: Estimated Cost of Existing and Proposed SLF Facilities in the Philippines LGU Cost of Facility (PhP millions) 340 18.8 100 Funding Source Land Area (has) <5 has >1.0h 10has a >5 has n.d n.d. <5 has Waste Volume Capacity n.d. 10,000 1,000 Estimated Life-Span Date of Operation

Subic Bais S an Fernando, La Union Pu erto Princes a Clark Field (Capas) Bayawan Tacurong

JBIC loan GTZ loan LogoFind/ WB WB Private/ German LGU LGU

20-30 years 5-10 years 5-10 years

2006 2004 2006

140 n.d. 127 32

1.6M n.d. n.d. n.d

5-10 years 10 years 5-10 years 5-10 years

2005 2004 2006 2005

Sources: SWAPP, JICA and LCP Reports.

The provision of dispos al facility is a major contentious issue that ha s been raised by almost all the LGU Leagues in the country becaus e of the fixed compliance dates in the law, particularly on dispos al facility. Likewise, the nonrecognition of the economics of LGUs and non-consideration of the fiscal capacity and context of most Philippine LGUs to support a sustainable SWM system is a reality that bites off the potency of the law. The recent JICA institutional and financial performance evaluation study concluded in the circumstances of many development issues to be tackled by the Philippine government, (a) too ambitious SWM regime requiring local governments for significant resource inve stment would not be guaranteed for effective 14 implementation. 3.0. Weak institutionalised technical and financial support structures/systems to local implementing bodies (i.e. LGUs) of SWM system. There is no argument that almost all LGUs in the Philippines have limited technical skills, manpower and capacities to fully implement that vision of RA 9003. Technical support and as sistance to thes e LGUs from national government agencies is a critical component of the whole system of achieving the vision of the law. However, this remains to be s e en, particularly in terms of the prioritization provided to the key national implementing agencies of RA 9003, i.e. Department of Environment and Natural Re sources (DENR).

14

Noboyuki Yamamura Institutional and Financial Performance Evaluation on Solid Waste Management in the Philippines, JICA Philippines. November 2005.

Billions Pesos 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.5
1

Fig . DENR Budget, 2000-2004 Constant 2000 Prices

Year
Source: WB Dec 2005 Mission Report on National Programme Support to Sustainable Environmental and Natural Resources Management.

Fig 2 Percentage of National Budget by Category


CO

100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0%


MOOE

Personal Services

2003

2004

2005

Source: WB Dec 2005 Mission Report on National Programme Support to Sustainable Environmental and Natural Resources Management.

10

Despite the pronouncements of the national government over its commitment towards environmental management and its protection, this commitment has not be en clearly translated into real institutional and fiscal/financial initiatives. In the latest JICA performance evaluation study on the institutional and financial support of the national government towards the implementation of RA 9003 concluded that LGUs were not able to receive enough technical and institutional support from the national government as stipulated by RA 9003 due to the governments budgetary constraints. Over the past s everal years expenditure budget allocated to DENR was merely 0.5% out of the total national budget. The downtrend in the DENRs budget over the last 5 years at constant 2000 prices is shown in Figures 1 and 2. For the 2006 propos ed national budget, the share of DENR remains at 0.5% (PhP 6.3 billion out of PhP 1.053 trillion) with the Department of Education, Public Works and National Defens e cornering almost 20% of the total budget. For an national agency that is mandated to man age and sustain the countrys natural wealth and res ources and where the entire population is dependent on for their livelihood, economic activity, leisure and sustenance, the DENRs ranks eight from among all national agencies in budget priority. With very limited budgetary support within the DENR, the allocation for SWM activities is expectedly much lower. Table 6 shows the amount of allocated for SWM activities (lumped into the EMB and NSWMC budgets) is barely 5-6% of the total DENR budget over the last 3-years of implementation of RA 9003. Almost half of thes e allocations are for personnel and administrative support e sp ecially for the EMBs regional offices with almost nothing for capital outlays. Budget for the NSWMC, the nationally mandated inter-agency body to overse e the implementation of the law is roughly 2.3 percent of the entire DENR budget. The JICA study estimates that over the last three years of RA 9003s implementation a mere PhP 20 million per year was budgeted as national support to the implementation of RA 9003 at the local levels. Broken down further, the regional budgets for SWM activities amount to only 2-3% of the entire EMB annual appropriations for FY 2006 or an average of PhP 400,000 each region. The highest regional allocation for SWM activities was Region V(Bicol) with a little over PhP 1.0 million while the smallest one was Region IX (Western Mindanao) with only PhP 200,000. Such dispersal of limited amounts for a very large undertaking clearly shows the ineffectiven e s s of any effort to institutionalise a sustainable SWM system in the country.

11

Table 6. DENR Expenditure Budget for FY 2003-2006

Fiscal Year DENR EMB P ersonnel M& O Capital Outlays (NSWMC/ Secretariat) (1) (Regional Allocations) (2)

2004 4,482 278 (100) 138 (49.6) 140 (50.4) 6.3 (2.3) 6.1 (2.2)

2005 4,557 287 (100) 124 (43.3) 132 (46.2) 30 (10.5) 4.0 (1.4) 5.0 (1.7)

(Million Peso s) 2006 Proposed 6,300 316 (100) 158 (50.0) 145 (45.9) 13 (4.1) 7.8 (2.4) 7.3 (2.3)

(1) Does not include Personnel of the Secretariat Office (2) 40% of the SWM related M & O budget of EMB is allocated to the Regions. Source: N. Yamamura Institutional and Financial Performance Evaluation on SWM in the Philippines, JICA Philippines, November 2005.

Indeed, it is no surprise therefore that over the last 3 years of the laws implementation, many LGUs have relied more on technical as sistance (such as capacity building, technical studies, surveys, SWM planning and systems) and external funding support from donor agencies and NGOs than with the DENR or any other national government agency for that matter. The JICA study on institutional and financial performance highlights this reality that the main source of support that LGUs are receiving as primary implementers of SWM in the country come almost entirely from multilateral and bilateral donor institutions and NGOs in almost every asp ects of SWM implem entation. As indicated in Table 5, most of the SLFs being propos ed and constructed in the country have to be funded either by donor loans or commercial-loans. The 2004 Accomplishment Report of NSWMC s ecretariats states that it was only able to conduct SWM trainings and waste s egregation to 4 LGUs and 2,218 barangays or a little over 5% of the countrys barangays. Likewise, the s am e NSWMC report that it provided technical as sistance on conversion of dispos al facilities to 48 LGUs with no clear distinction on the type of LGUs a s sisted, i.e. city or municipality. The achievement of an effective SWM system in the country is not the sole responsibility of LGUs but is a common re sponsibility of the national government, local government and the community. Local government units is only one of the three legs by which a sustainable SWM system will work in the Philippines, national government agencies, specially the DENR, DTI and DILG, among other must play their role. Such role is a responsibility of the national government to fulfill alongside with LGUs and local communities. The law requires the NSWMC and other national agencies to provide technical as sistance to LGUs to the maximum extent feasible. Unfortunately, unlike other technical provisions on the establishment of dispos al facilities and local SWM systems, the law did not impos e a sp ecific amount nor fixed timeframe for the provision of technical as sistance and

12

support to be provided to LGUs. At the moment, it is clear that such support and commitment is not forthcoming with the existing national priorities of the national government to achieve the goals of the law. 4.0 Other infirmities and realities faced by LGUs in implementing RA 9003 a. SWM has to compete with other local development priorities It is a reality that many of our countrys LGUs are poor and with very poor economies and constituencies. As such the demands and needs of LGUs and their constituencies centers on providing basic delivery of services and stimulate economic activities to su stain their existence. The reality of LGUs and pres sures to provide basic infrastructures such as farm-to-market roads, post-harvest facilities, schools and health centers and services among others, makes prioritizing for SWM activities are very difficult decision-making proce s s not only among LGUs but also among their constituency. This is further heightened by the reality that development activities can only be funded from the 20% economic development fund (EDF) of an LGUs IRA makes it much more difficult to divert scarce funds away from ba sic social s ervices and infrastructure need s. An internal survey conducted by the League of Cities of the Philippines from 43 member-city respondents showed that majority of the LGU budgets allocated for SWM implementation was averaging almost 3% of their total budget whilst several others had significant allocations amounting to more than 10% of their budget. b. Economies of scale and efficiency factors in implementing an effective SWM system A major element in establishing an effective SWM system as shown in many countries is the need for economies of scale and land bas e in order to achieve a viable and sustainable SWM system. In many countries such as the United States, Canada and J apan, solid waste man agem ent systems are often operated and manage d at a regional level in order to establish a viable and working SWM system. Whilst, local community SWM activities such a s s egregation and recycling are done at the hous ehold levels, the economic viability of operating the system needs a certain amount of critical mas s to become feasible and sustainable. Existing provisions (Sec 12, 16 and 41) of the law such as individual requirement for each LGU (i.e. city and municipality) to develop and approve individual solid waste management plans will have difficulty to sustain operations of their SWM system if not enough waste is gen erated to support the system. A technical study by the USAIDs EcoGovernance project estimated the amount of waste gen erated by the countrys 1, 696 LGUs (cities and municipalities) showed that a total of 984 LGUs generate les s than or equal to 10 tons per day. 15 On the
The EcoGov study based their computation on the total amount of per capita generated of 0.3 kg/day for rural areas, 0.5kg/day for urban areas and 0.7 kg/day for the National Capital Region.
15

13

other hand, a mere 33 LGUs, mostly HUCs and large cities, generated more than 100 tons per day (Pls se e Table 7 and Figure 3).

1000 800 600 400 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Series1 984 397 75 34 36 18 9 9 5 3 21 12


Figure 3: Distribution of LGUs by Volume of Waste Generated

Range 1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 70 71 to 80 81 to 90 91 to 100 100 to 200 > 200 Total

No. 984 397 75 34 36 18 9 9 5 3 21 12 1603

Table 7. Source: Reynar R. Rollan, Inputs to Phased Compliance in Solid Waste Disposal, USAID EcoGov Project2, Pasig City, August 2005.

Given such limited volume of waste generated by more than 2/3 of all LGUs, very little economies of scale will be achieved by individual LGUs and capable to sustain a working and efficient SWM system in their communities. The EcoGov paper is proposing a phas ed compliance policy using 3 technical categories for the establishment of sanitary landfills bas ed on total wa ste generated by LGUs as an alternative modality to fulfill the provisions of Secs. 37, 39 41 on dispos al facilities. 16 The s am e problem of lack of economies of scale exists with the provision for establishment of materials recovery facilitie s or MRFs in every barangay in the country (Sec. 17c and 32 of RA 9003). The CIDA-funded study stated that the collection and transfer of waste, establishment of MRFs (within land owned or leas ed by the barangay), provision of containers and receptacles and s egregation by types of waste at the barangay level of government was counter to the economy of scale and efficiency factors required for a compreh ensive and integrated city, municipal or regional solid waste managem ent system. It e stimates that the provision requiring barangays to issue 2 containers/receptacles for different waste categories (compostables and recyclables) for each hous ehold would cost around PhP 1,500/hous e hold or an average of PhP 300,000 per barangay 17 or PhP 12.6 billion for all 42,000 16 barangays in the Philippines. Please see Annex 1 for brief description of phased compliance proposal for sanitary landfills. 14

The study argues that it would be physically impos sible to manage, let alone establish 42,000 different waste managem ent systems and integrate them within the required timeframes and requisites imposed by the law. In the s am e manner, the provision e ach barangays to establish MRFs in lands owned or leas ed by the LGU will not only be very expensive but physically limiting given the different geographical characteristics, waste gen erated and population size of local barangays. c. High-end and state-of-the-art SWM system in a low-end, low-tech local economy. As in most developing countries, it will take some time before the LGUs can move forward to the engineered and state-of-the art solid waste management system as envisioned in RA 9003. The USAID study pre s ented that considering the history and current state of the countrys waste dispos al management system that it falls within the lower levels of the evolutionary improvement in solid wa ste management.

Figure 4: Evolutionary Improvement in Solid Waste Management18

17 18

The average number of households per barangay based on official NSO standards is 200 households. Philip Rushbrook and Michael Pugh. Solid Waste Landfills in Middle and Lower Income Countries, A Technical Guide to Planning, Design and Operations, World Bank, Washington, DC.1999

15

Improvements in planning, siting, design & construction

Sanitary Landfill

Engineered landfill

Higher environmental standards

Controlled dump

Open dumping

Solid Waste Disposal in the Philippines

Lower environmental standards

16

d. Conflicting and incomplete implementing guidelines. Finally, RA 9003 was revolutionary becaus e of its strong and firm vision to achieve an ecologically sound solid waste man agem ent system in the Philippines in the soonest pos sible time. The laws provisions are both elaborate and sp ecific in terms of the technical and time-bound provisions it demands for LGUs to establish an ecologically sound SWM system in the country. However, s everal major technical provisions needs to be further immediately clarified and elaborated by the NSWMC to be effectively implemented at the local levels. Thes e provisions though remain incomplete and vague. Among the technical provisions that are critical to fully implement the laws are: i. S ec 16. SWM Planning and Programming for Alternative SWM strategies to comply with Sec. 37 (Closure of Controlled Dumps) This section provides for the development of alternative SWM strategies and a timetable or schedule of compliance to Sec. 37 (dispos al facilities) that should be incorporated into a LGUs 10-year SWM plan . The submission and approval of the 10-year SWM Plan must be done by the NSWMC as provided in Sec. 16. However, the Act remains silent on what kinds of alternative mea sures are allowed or recommended. The only alternative provided under the Act and IRR for compliance with S ec. 37 is s anitary landfill! This alternative clearly is no alternative as clearly pres ented in this paper and by other technical/expert studies conducted by different donor-funded projects and agencies. ii. Sec. 37- 39 Prohibition of Open Dumps and Closure of Controlled Dumps This section is the most contentious issue for LGUs not only becaus e of its lack of alternatives or single alternative propos ed for compliance, namely construction of sanitary landfills (SLFs) 19 but more so becaus e of the deadline impos ed for LGUs to shift to SLF by February 2006, a mere five years after the pas s age of the Act. As many studie s have proven the deadlines impos ed for the shifts in existing SWM systems in a developing country like the Philippines is overly ambitious and impractical to the current conditions of LGUs. iii. Financing for SWM There are three (3) provisions for financing SWM and financing a s sistance to LGUs to support the establishment, operation and
19

The Act does not explicitly states that the alternatives for conversion of controlled dumps by February 2006 are SLFs. But provisions under Article 6 (SWM Facilities allowed in the Act) and the IRR have placed very specific and clearly defined technical requirements for SLFs (Sec. 40-41) as the only alternative disposal facility that would comply with the provision of Sec. 37 (Closure of open dumps and conversion of controlled dumps).

17

maintenance of their SWM system and facilitie s. Thes e financing mechanisms are LGU grants (Sec. 45), SWM Fund (Sec. 46) and collection of fees (Sec. 47). The first two schem e s are impractical and limited becaus e they have to be annually budgeted through the General Appropriations Act (GAA). The continuing fiscal deficit and diminishing budget allocations for DENR clearly shows that such fund mechanisms will not be a reality for LGUs in the near future. This does not consider the fact that specific provisions and guidelines for acces sing thes e funds have not been prepared. In the end, only the provision for fee collections and imposition of fines and penalties by LGUs is the ONLY provision under the Act that can augment the LGUs financial requirements to augment their IRA allocations and support their local SWM systems. At the moment, the determination by LGUs of garbage dispos al fe e s is vague and erratic. Many LGUs as shown by previous studies are subsidizing garbage collection fees by as much as 60-70% of actual collection costs. This is becaus e garbage fees are impos ed as one-time payment rather than by volume or per kilo/sack. At the s am e time, most garbage collection system covers only a fraction of the whole population, particularly hous eholds in urban or centrally-located barangays. Finally, a good part of the reason for such low garbage and tipping fees impos ed by LGUs are political. A willingnes s-to-pay survey conducted by the JICA institutional and financial performance evaluation study showed that local people views garbage dispos al as a responsibility of the LGUs. The situation is aggravated by the abs e nce of clear standards and guidelines for the imposition of garbage fees approved by the NSWMC. The provisions of the Act or IRR do not provide a clear description on the appropriate proces s of arriving for thes e fee s. 20 C. Overview of LGU Compliance of RA 9003 (What and How LGUs are Complying with the Law) Despite the clearly unre al provisions of the Act and limited available resources, LGUs are duty-bound to comply with the provisions of the law, particularly the requirements pertaining to institutional, planning, policy and SWM systems (i.e. waste diversion, establishment of MRFs and dispos al facilities). Compliance data were generated by the various Leagues and information databas e s from existing donor projects working with LGUs. The LCP and LMP have conducted its own survey among their members on their compliance with the provisions of RA 9003. Likewise, a local governance performance monitoring system (LGPMS)21 is being implemented by the Department of Interior and Local
20

Noboyuki Yamamura. Institutional and Financial Performance Evaluation on Solid Waste Management in the Philippines, JICA Philippines, Manila. November 2005. 21 The LGPMS is a web-based performance monitoring and indicator system that covers four major service delivery areas of LGUs (i.e. economic/investment services, social services, environmental, and

18

Governments (DILG) with as sistance from the Philippine-Canad a Local Government Support Programme (LGSP) that monitors specific performance indicators on environmental services (particularly on solid waste) provided by LGUs. Similarly, specific studies have also be en made by the Solid Waste Management Association of the Philippines (SWAPP) on the status of LGU compliance through a s ample study of 41 LGUs. 1.0 Establishment of solid waste management boards (Sec. 12) Data from the DILGs LGPMS system showed that as of 2004 there was overwhelming compliance of LGUs in the establishment of their local SWM boards that are compliant with the provisions of RA 9003. 22 Nearly all LGUs or more than ninety-three (93%) percent out of the more 252 LGUs have e stablished SWM boards. their More own than half to two-thirds of thes e s elected LGUs likewise has complied with most of the other requisites for an effective SWM Board such as the following: adopted mea sures to promote and ensure viability and effective implementation of its SWM Programme (67.5%); monitoring the implementation of its SWM Plan in cooperation with NGOs and private s ector (60%); adopted specific revenue gen erating measure s to promote the viability of SWM plan (55.5%); convened regular meetings of the SWM Board (57%); developed specific mechanics and guidelines for the implementation of their SWM plans (55.5%); and, recommended mea sure s and s afeguards against pollution and pres ervation of the natural resources (63.5%).

The s am e overwhelming compliance rate was reported by the LCPs internal compliance survey conducted in February 2005 among its membercities 23. All of the 43 city-respondents reported to have established their own SWM Boards as provided for under the Act. 2.0 Preparation and implementation of 10-year local solid waste management plans (Sec. 16)

administrative/institutional services). It replaces the local performance monitoring system earlier introduced by the DILG in 2000. The LGPMS is now being nationally being implemented through the DILGs Bureau of Local Government Services. ( www.blgs.gov.ph/lgpms) 22 The information is based on 2004 LGPMS data entered by selected city/municipal LGUs from Regions 6,9,10,11 and 12 totaling 260 LGUs as of end of October 2004. Updated profiles of the data can be viewed from the LGPMS website at www.blgs.gov.ph /lgpms. 23 The LCP internal compliance survey was conducted in February 2005 with assistance from the CIDALGSP where the author served as LGU technical policy advisor.

19

Bas ed on the LGPMS data, nearly 63% of respondent LGUs have prepared their 10-year SWM plans in accordance with the provisions of RA 9003. Similarly, except for wa ste proces sing procedures, almost all of the SWM plans contained effective provisions under the law related to the establishment of an effective SWM system in the locality. Thes e include RA 9003 technical provisions on waste characterization (57%) , collection system and transfer system (65%), source reduction (53%), waste recycling (50%), composting (61%), and final disposal site/facility (65%). The LGPMS indicators noted bas ed on its performance benchmark that between 35-57% of the s elected LGUs SWM plans were deficient in a number of aspects, particularly in waste proces sing where more than half of the LGUs were deficient. 24 The LCP members survey also showed almost total compliance by the respondent cities in the preparation of their SWM plans. Almost eighty (80%) percent have prepared their 10-year SWM plan. However, only around 40% or 17 LGUs have submitted their plans for approval by the NSWMC. On the other hand, more than half or 58% of the LGUs are already implementing their SWM plans. This shows that despite the lack of approval by the NSWMC of their SWM plans, many LGUs have been implementing their programmes to addres s the problems of solid waste in their communities. Whilst this might be viewed as an inappropriate action on the part of the LGUs, field conditions in LGU constituencies demand that they addres s the immediate issues of solid waste rather than wait for the tedious approval and prolonged delay in the NSWMCs approval proces s. 25 One of the key problems in the approval of SWM plans by the NSWMC is the lack of technical staff that would evaluate the approved SWM plan s. Whilst a NSWMC guideline have been issued to DENR regional offices of the Environmental Managem ent Bureau to proces s the evaluation of local SWM plans thes e have been hampered by the lack of dedicated SWM personnel in the regional EMB offices. 3.0 Establishing mandatory solid waste diversion (Sec. 20) This provision is one of the mandatory provisions of the Act that is timebound. It provides for mandatory diversion of at least 25% of solid wa ste from waste dispos al facilities within 5 years of the approval of the Act (2001). The date for achieving the diversion goal as dictated by the Act is J anuary 25, 2006. S everal studies us ed in this study showed a high range of diversion ( 10 % - 30%) being achieved by LGUs involved in the s e studies. In some ca s e s, the studies reported almost a hundred percent achievement in the diversion goal of 25%. LGPMS data showed that of the 205 LGU respondents on solid waste
It should be noted that the minimum requirements provided by RA 9003 for LGU compliance on an acceptable SWM Plan uses a slightly different parameter with the LGPMS performance benchmark for effectiveness. As provided in RA 9003, LGU SWM plans are to be submitted and approved by the NSWMC. No indicator in the LGPMS data would validate if the SWM Plans monitored have been received and approved by the NSWMC. 25 At the time of the preparation of this paper, no report has been obtained on the number of SWM plans approved by the NSWMC.
24

20

diversion and reduction goal of 25% was reached by ALL the LGUs. In fact, little more than one-third of the LGUs were able to reduce/divert their waste by more than thirty-one (31%) percent in 2004. 26 LCP data, on the other hand, showed that almost half (19 cities) of their 43 LGU respondents have achieved the diversion goal of 25% whilst thos e that have not yet achieved the diversion goal were averaging between 10 20% diversion rate. The LCP survey also took note of the various activities initiated by the LGUs to implement their diversion goals. In the survey almost all of the cityrespondents initiating several key SWM activities to achieve their diversion goals, namely mas sive public education campaign (98%), distribution/implem entation of s egregation system for recyclables and compostables (81%), technical and logistical support to barangays/NGOs (67%), and other programmes (54%). A SWAPP study of 41 LGUs (compos ed of SWAPP-member LGUs and non-SWAPP LGUs) showed that almost the entire SWaP P member LGUs (15 LGUs) achieved 36% diversion rate. Similarly, small non-SWAPP member LGUs (16 LGUs) that are mostly rural have a 29% diversion rate while big non-SWAPP LGUs (10 LGUs) only had a diversion rate of 5%. Meanwhile, the USAIDs EcoGov Project reported that the estimated waste diversion rates of its as sisted LGUs totaling six (6) LGUs was eleven (11%) per cent. It predicted, though, that thes e LGUs would be able to comply with the diversion rate by the end of J anuary 2006. It should be noted that in all thes e studies the waste diversion rates showed a great chance of being achieved. This is primarily due to the nature of the waste generated in many of the LGUs in the country. As earlier pres ented in this paper, a lot of Philippine LGUs were mostly poor and agriculturally-bas ed communities whos e major source of living and economy is tied to agricultural production. This means that most of the waste gen erated by many of thes e LGUs, as proven by the various studies, are largely biodegradable and therefore could easily be diverted or composted. On the average the estimated volume of biodegradable wastes generated by many communities was between 60-70%. 4.0 Establishment of solid waste disposal facilities (Sec. 40-41) Latest data (July 2005) from the NSWMC as shown in Table 8 pres e nts the over-all status of dispos al facilities in the country distributed by regions. As of July 2005, as many as 777 open dump sites are still operating nationwide despite the closure and its conversion into controlled dump facilities provision under S ec. 37 of the Act by January 25, 2004. Likewise, there was a noted increas e in

26

LGPMS computed the percentage of solid waste reduction from the volume of garbage composted (Vc) + volume of garbage recycled (Vr) total volume of garbage collected (Vt). The LGPMS performance benchmark indicator deemed acceptable was between 21%-31% waste reduction/diversion.

21

the number of controlled dump facilities by 106 sites compared to last year or a total of 321 operating controlled landfills nationwide. In the cas e of sanitary landfills (SLFs), no significant increas e has be en s e en from the number of operating SLFs from 2-3 sites 27 while the number of propos ed sites has decreas ed from 220 at the end of last year to 161 propos als at the end of July 2005. The LMP survey provides a more concrete scenario of the efforts by LGUs to comply with the establishment of alternative dispos al facilities (i.e. sanitary landfills). From the 43 city LGU-respondents, around 16 are in the proces s of e stablishing their own SLFs. Of this number only 5 are in the construction phas e and only two are near operational (Digos SLF and Puerto Princes a SLF). The rest of the other propos ed SLFs are all in the feasibility and fund sourcing stages. This obviously reflects the earlier argued financial and technical limitations of many LGUs to establish and operate SLFs according to the provisions of the Act. It is likewise obvious that with this situation, many LGUs in the country will not be able to comply with the deadline for alternative dispos al facilities for controlled dumping facilities, i.e. conversion to SLFs, by the J anuary 25, 2006 deadline imposed under RA 9003. The s ame condition shows the status of establishment of MRFs in all barangays as provided under S ec. 32. The total number of operating MRFs at the end of 2004 numbers is only 842 sites s e rving 1,140 barangays. This is only a mere 2.7% of the total number of 41,975 barangays that are required by RA 9003 to establish an MRF. It is worthy to note that a good number of MRFs e stablished are located in the more economically-developed and highlypopulated areas of NCR, Region III, IV, V, VI and VII. D. Policy Proposals and Recommendations 1.0 Use of volume of waste generated or material balance principle in the operationalisation of an effective SWM system particularly on disposal facilities at the local levels The key implementation issue confronted by LGUs in the whole SWM system is the dispos al system and facility provision of the Act. Bas ed on the realities faced by many LGUs in the establishment of an effective SWM system in the country a key factors that should determine the operationalisation of the provisions of the Act should be the bas ed amount of waste or volume gen erated for dispos al by each LGU. It has been estimated that only a small fraction of LGUs in the country generates more than 100 tons of garbage per day compared to more than a 1,000 LGUs that gen erate les s than 10- 15 tons per day. Such low volume of waste gen erated is further compos ed of almost 60-70% biodegradable and recyclable wastes. This means that a good portion of the solid waste gen erated by almost two-thirds of our LGUs can be diverted, recycled or reus e.
27

The Puerto Princesa SLF has just started operation in November 2005.

22

The fact that many of LGUs survey by different studies cited in this pap er showed that most LGUs would be able to divert their waste away from dispos al facility. Likewise, out of the 30% non-biodegrad able waste gen erated only a sm all portion of thes e re sidual wastes and other types of waste will be destined to be dispos ed in a dispos al facility. Table 8. LGUs SWM Status under Regional Economies Economy SWM Facilities (2) Region GRDP Growth Open Controlled LFs MRFs Per 2004 Dumps Operating Propos ed Operating S erved Capita % No. No. No. No. Barangays (1) NCR 241 7.6 1 4 223 126 CAR 139 4.1 12 3 2 53 19 R1 56 5.7 63 26 11 106 99 R2 59 10.7 56 10 4 35 94 R3 80 2.1 86 4 26 32 192 RIV-A 97 3.3 92 85 2 61 75 RIV-B 98 4.6 34 15 20 20 127 R5 48 6.3 59 12 31 37 88 R6 97 7.9 54 5 7 52 54 R7 96 7.2 130 43 16 48 48 R8 50 6.9 7 11 13 8 17 R9 72 4.9 25 4 12 26 27 R10 96 6.0 54 31 41 45 R11 95 6.9 29 23 31 62 53 R12 82 6.4 24 16 1 9 26 R13 43 5.8 51 29 35 29 50 ARMM 23 5.4 1 Total 100 6.1 777 321 211 842 1,140
(1) GRDP (Gross Regional Domestic Product) 2004, National Average (P13,590) = 100, NSCB (2) Open Dumps & Controlled Landfills are as of end July 2005, MRFs (Materials Recovery Facilities) are as of December 2004. NSWMC

Becaus e of this situation, the operation of a controlled dump facility or a s anitary dispos al facility (a hybrid-CDF with key features of an engine ered land fill) within an integrated SWM system (particularly waste diversion, recycling, composting and waste s egregation systems in place) in an LGU will be sufficient to contain and manage the LGUs with less than 10 -25 tons per day of waste. Such a propos al would largely benefit the poor and low-income clas s e s of LGUs, i.e. 4th-6th clas s municipalities and 4th-5th class cities, totaling more than 1,000 LGUs.

23

The JICA institutional and financial performance evaluation study cited LGUs or communities in less active economic regions the problem of garbage dispos al will not pose a s erious problem yet to the local society for the fores e e able future so long as the people all handle their garbage properly. Recommendations: a. Upgrading technical criteria of controlled dump facility for LGUs with less than 20 tons per day waste generated for dispos al (final dispos al to a facility) and an integrated SWM system (i.e. 25% diversion of waste, in-place recycling, reus e and composting system, MRFs and waste s e gregation facilities); OR, a hybrid sanitary dispos al facility that supports the key features of an engineered landfill, i.e. drainage facilities, leachate treatment systems, and cell-dispos al facilities, but without the expensive features of lining materials, e.g. clay or synthetic liners 28 subject to sound hydrogeoloical studies and/or ground holding and carrying capacity of propos ed and existing LGU sanitary dispos al facilities. b. Complimentary to propos ed phas ed compliance for SLF as propos ed by submitted in the propos ed Department Administrative Order on Phas eCompliance (See Annex 1). c. Formulation of the sm all facility exemption provision (Rule XIV, Sec. 1z of IRR for RA 9003) in the alternative dispos al facility provision provided under the Act using the waste volume and waste diversion formula as basis for exemptions. A detailed propos al has been pres ented in October 2003 by a study made by the USAIDs EcoGov Project. 29 2.0 Phased implementation of RA 9003 according to socio-economic levels of development or growth status The degree of solid waste gen erated by a population or community is highly tied to the level of economic growth and status of the population and community. This means that the more affluent a community or hous ehold the more solid waste is generated. This has been proven in initial JICA study on Metro Manila Solid Waste in 1998. It showed that while Metro Manila gen erated almost 10,000 tons of waste per day, the per capita waste generated by hous ehold showed that hous eholds from class A-B generated more waste per hous ehold than the lower-income clas s e s. The more recent JICA institutional and financial performance study on SWM in the Philippines similarly supported the s ame obs ervation.
This is similar to the Category 1 proposal in the Draft Department Administrative Order for PhaseCompliance being discussed by the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC) with simpler technical design requirements (i.e. non-compulsory use of clay liner or synthetic liners) subject to sound hydrogeological studies and/or ground holding and carrying capacities for proposed and existing LGU sites. 29 Francis M. Sabugal. Integrated Solid Waste Management Relevant to the Requirements of RA 9003: Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2002, EcoGovernance Project, Quezon City. November 2003.
28

24

Bas ed on the studies analysis, that maximisation of the laws implementation will be achieved when economies of scale or mechanisms for market forces are involve. Thes e include among others: a) an effective garbage s egregation at the source; b) appropriate MRF sites are operative; and, c) recycled materials are produced in economically sufficient volume to meet market requirements. The JICA study concludes that such situation will only be viable in large cities only and not in small cities. Recommendations: a. Stage implementation of provisions of RA 9003 bas ed on economic growth status and market potential. For example: Stage 1 ( Full implementation of RA 9003 provisions) - all HUCs and 1 st clas s3 rd clas s cities and 1st class municipalities with population totaling more than 100,000 hous eholds. P eriod of implementation: 5-years grace period to comply after J anuary 25, 2006 deadline. No as sistance or limited as sistance from NSWMC. Phas ed-compliance will be applied Stage 2 (Progres sive implementation) all other clas s e s of LGUs with progres sive implementation of RA 9003 provisions as indicated in their 10year SWM plan. Period of implementation ( within 10 years or full implementation of 1st 10-year SWM plan). Limited and contracted as sistance from NSWMC. Phas e compliance will be applied. Stage 3 ( Partial/Assisted Implementation) all 4th-6th clas s e s of LGUs with prioritised as sistance to be provided by the national government. Full a s sistance from NSWMC and other agencies. P eriod of implementation (10 years and beyond). For the meantime they will be covered by the guidelines affecting volume bas e d compliance for dispos al facilities 3.0 Other recommendations a. Simplified proces s of accreditation of technical service providers and EIA approvals for dispos al facility; b. Formulation of the exemption provision under the alternative dispos al facility provision of the law; c. Revised policy for financial and funding and market development for solid waste management.

25

26

Annex 1: PROPOSED PHASED COMPLIANCE AND GUIDELINES The following propos al for phas ed compliance takes into consideration the basic features which ne ed to be s atisfied by a dispos al facility.

1. Planned cap acity with phas ed cell development 2. Site preparation and containment engineering 3. Compaction of waste to minimum specified target densities 4. Sp ecified operational procedures to protect amenities including vector control 5. Fence, gate and other site infrastructure with surfaced primary acce s s road 6. Full record of waste volumes, types and source 7. Sp ecial provisions and procedures for dealing with special waste 8. Fully trained staff and experienced site management 9. Provision for aftercare following site restoration and closure 10. No waste picking The site should attain full or partial hydrogeological isolation using a combination of the natural features of the site, liner and appropriate drainage system. In addition to this, the amount of waste diversion for Level 1 and Level 2 SLF should initially be at 25%of the waste generated at the time of the application for NTP or IEE. By the time the facility is constructed and operated, the percentage of diversion would be 35% and to progres sively increas e by 10% for each succeeding year of operation until full diversion is attained and su stained.

27

Level 1 - Level 1 shall be applied to LGUs generating wastes equal or less than 30 MT a day. It shall also apply to a cluster of LGUs whos e collective waste generation is less than or equal to 30 tons per day. Level 2 - Level 2 shall be applied to LGUs generating waste equal to 30 but less than 70 MT a day. It shall also apply to a cluster of LGUs whose collective waste generation is equal to 30 but less than 70 MT a day. Level 3 Level 3 shall be applied to LGUs gen erating waste equal to 70 or greater than 70 MT a day. It shall also apply to a landfill operated by a cluster of LGUs collectively generate waste at 70 tons or greater per day.

Facilities Soil Cover Embankment Drainage Facility Gas Venting Leachate Collection

Level 1 X X X X X Natural Attenuation

Level 2 X X X X X

Level 3 (SLF) X X X X X Physicobiological/ mechanical X

Leachate Treatment Leachate Recirculation Liner Clay liner Clay liner and/or synthetic liner Permit Site Design

Pond system

Modified NTP

IEE

IEE Based on IEE

Based on hydrogeological considerations

28

ANNEX 2:

DENR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.______ Series of 2005 Subject: Providing for the Guidelines on the Categorized Final Disposal Facilities

Section 1. Background During the initial 5 years of the implementation of the Ecological Solid Waste Managem ent Act (RA 9003), there were indications of an accelerated take-off on compliance, as national, local and private sectors efforts on solid waste increas ed particularly on waste recycling, reduction and re-use. The dispos al aspect however lagged mainly due to the combined effect of the prevailing institutional, technical, financial, environmental and socio-political issues which have not been sufficiently addres s ed to this date. The same issues which led to the countrys s etbacks in operating the Carmona, San Mateo and Cebu sanitary landfills of the 1990s clearly stres s this point. With less than 2 months left before the deadline on the closure of controlled dumps, only a few LGUs have made their own significant strides towards the development and operation of their respective engineered dispos al facilities. Thes e are Bais, Negros Oriental, Capas, Tarlac, Puerto Princes a, Palawan and Rodriguez, Rizal. The Bais SLF in Negros Oriental is a small facility built with a s sistance from the German government. The CDC SLF was built and is currently being operated by a German company. The recently opened Pu erto Princes a SLF was constructed through an ADB loan. The Rodriguez dispos al site 30 serve s a s the main waste repository for most of the Metro Manila LGUs. Likewis e, German government a s sistance has facilitated the on-going construction of the small SLF in Dalaguete, Cebu. The rest of the more than 1600 LGUs continue to dispos e of their waste on open dumps or on a small number of controlled dumps. Considering their financial, technical and institutional capabilities, it is now considered unlikely thes e LGUs or cluster of LGUs will be able to develop their respective sanitary landfills or dispos al facilities as defined under RA 9003. Thes e LGUs will, in all probability, continue using open dumps with some attempting to convert them to a controlled dump. Given the above premise and to effectively addres s the LGUs MSW dispos al problem within their limited capability, the most practical approach is to progre s sively move in pha s e s from the basic waste
30

An ECC was recently issued allowing the adjacent 14 hectare lot to be developed as a sanitary landfill

29

containment to the more sophisticated method of dispos al. It is in this light that the guidelines for categorized final dispos al facilities are being issu ed by the National Solid Waste Management Commission to support the local government units planning and implementation strategies on ecological solid waste man agem ent.

Section 2. Legal Basis 2.1 The Department of Environment and Natural Resources is mandated under Section 3, (e) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9003 to provide technical and other capability building as sistance and support to LGUs in the development and implementation of local solid waste management plan s and programs. The National Solid Waste Managem ent Commission, pursuant to Section 1, (t), sub item 2 of the IRRs shall undertake the study and review of criteria and guidelines for siting, design, operation and maintenance of solid waste man agem ent facility. The propos ed guidelines for the categorization of dispos al facilitie s are e s s entially consistent with the objectives of S ections 37, 40, 41 and 42 of the Act which resp ectively refers to the Closure of Open Dumps, Criteria for Siting, Establishment and the Operation of Sanitary Landfills, by providing the basic environmental and engineering s afeguards. Rule XIV of the IRRs also provides additional and detailed criteria for siting, establishment, and operation. Significantly, the propos ed guidelines are rationalized bas ed on the use of potential solid waste generation for s etting the entry level of LGUs into the various categories of dispos al facilities.

2.2

2.3

2.4

Section 3. Technical Basis 3.1 P arameters us ed in es tablishing waste dispos al categories The potential daily wa ste that can be generated by the 1,610 LGUs in 2006 was estimated using projected NSO population data and applying the following per capita gen eration rates 31: 0.3 kg/day for rural areas, 0.5 kg/day for urban areas, 0.7 kg/day for the National Capital Region 32 and 0.4 kg/day for capitals. Four (4) potential LGU groupings are evident in Table 1. Thes e are the < 15 tons per day (tpd), the 16 to 75 tpd, the 76 to 200 tpd and the > 200 tpd. A comparison with the income clas s clas sification shows that the LGUs with less than 75 tpd fall under the low
31 32

Must be adjusted per LGU if per capita waste generation data is available The Philippines Environment Monitor 2001, World Bank

30

income bracket 33. The LGUs with dispos able waste range exceeding 75 tpd generally include major cities 34 and some urbanized municipalities. On a regional basis, most of the LGUs falling within the 76 to 200 tpd range belong to either NCR or Region 4. The rest correspond to the cities and urbanized municipalitie s in Regions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and Caraga. The LGUs exceeding 200 tpd consist of Metro Manila cities (NCR) and those in Regions 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11. Table 1 LGU Waste Generation Features bas ed on Projected 2006 Population Total No. of % Total Waste Waste Gen Range (tpd) %of LGU Waste LGUs Gen Gen (tpd) 1 up to 15 1163 72.24% 8,948 26.62% 16 up to 75 76 up to 200 > 200 386 40 21 1610 23.98% 2.48% 1.30% 100.00% 10,548 4,442 9,675 33,613 31.38% 13.21% 28.78% 100.00%

In an ideal situation, recyclables, compostable s and hazardous wastes will not be allowed to be dumped in waste dispos al facilities. Therefore, the criteria for dispos al facilities need not be as stringent compared to a situation where mixed wastes are s ent to the SLF. Even recognizing that the ideal is unlikely to be achieved, it is still possible to set a range of situations where different criteria for dispos al facilities can apply. We propose below 4 categories of dispos al facilities, specifying realistic categories and reasonable conditions for meeting the legal requirements. In summary, it is submitted that an LGU or a cluster of LGUs may establish a dispos al facility other than a fully developed sanitary landfill subject to the following considerations: 1. The open dump or controlled dump of the LGU must be closed (subject to the guidelines being developed by the NSWMC); 2. The waste dispos al facility of the LGU must have none of the characteristics of an open or controlled dump; 3. The environmental protection measures, safeguards and standards for the e stablishment and operation of the waste dispos al facility must be more than that prescribed by the Act for controlled dumps.

33 34

This refers to the 4 , 5 and 6 class municipalities rd nd st This refers to the 3 , 2 , 1 class municipalities and cities

th

th

th

31

IV. Categories of Disposal Facilities Four (4) categories of waste dispos al facilities are propos ed which consider potential waste generation of LGUs reckoned from the projected 2006 population. Each LGU or cluster of LGUs may develop and operate their respective facilities and progres sively move from a lower to a higher level facility a s the amount of dispos able waste increas e s over time. The dispos al categories to be adopted by the LGUs of cluster of LGUs may be lowered with more extensive diversion via recycling and composting. Given the current financial and technical capacities of LGU, the categorized dispos al facilities will enable LGUs to satisfy in a more practical and sustainable basis the requirements of RA 9003 with respect to waste dispos al. All dispos al categories have been developed and designed to meet the environmental standards. Category 1 Category 1 dispos al facility shall be applied to LGUs generating waste less than or equal to 15 tpd. It shall also apply to a cluster of LGUs with a collective dispos able waste of les s than or equal to 15 tpd. Category 2 Category 2 dispos al facility shall be applied to LGUs generating waste greater than 15 tpd but less than or equal to 75 tpd. It shall also apply to a cluster of LGUs with a collective dispos able waste gre ater than 15 tpd but less than or equal to 75 tpd. Category 3 Category 3 dispos al facility shall be applied to LGUs generating waste greater than 75 tpd but less than or equal to 200 tpd. It shall also apply to a cluster of LGUs with a collective dispos able waste gre ater than 75 tpd but less than or equal to 200 tpd. Category 4 Category 4 dispos al facility shall be applied to LGUs generating waste greater than 200 tpd. It shall also apply to a cluster of LGUs with a collective dispos able waste greater than 200 tpd.

V. Summary of Features of the Categorized Final Disposal Facilities The summary of the ba sic features of the propos ed levels of dispos al facilities is pres ented in Table 2. Each category of dispos al facility must satisfy the basic siting criteria of Section 40 of the Act and meet the following requirements.

32

Table 2 Summary of Features of Propos ed Categories of Dispos al Facilities Features Category 1 Category Category 3 Category 4 15 tpd > 15 2 tpd, > 75 tpd, > 200 tpd 75 tpd 200 tpd Daily and Intermediate Soil Cover Embankment/Cell S ep aration Drainage Facility Gas Venting Leachate Collection Combination of Pond Leachate Treatment Pond System Pond system physical, system biological & chemical At a later Leachate ReAt a later stage At a later Treatment stage of stage of circulation of operation operation operation Clay liner Clay liner and/or synthetic liner 35 36

37

38

35 36

Clay liner be at least 60 cm thick and has a permeability of 10 cm/sec -6 Clay liner must be at least 75 cm thick and has a permeability of 10 cm/sec 37 -7 Clay liner at least 75 cm thick clay liner with a permeability of 10 cm/sec or better, if not available, an equivalent replacement would be a composite liner consisting of at least 1.5mm thick HDPE membrane over -6 at least 60 cm thickness of compacted fine materials with permeability no more than 10 cm/sec. 38 Synthetic liner at least 1.5mm thick HDPE membrane over at least 60 cm thickness of compacted clay materials with permeability no more than 10-7 cm/sec.

-5

33

VI. Facility Operating Requirements All waste dispos al facilities, regardles s of category, shall meet the following operating requirements, except as otherwise provided: Planned cap acity with phas ed cell development. Site preparation and containment engineering. Compaction of waste to minimum specified target densities. Sp ecified operational procedures to protect amenities. Fence, gate and other site infrastructure with surfaced primary acce s s road. Full record of waste volumes, types and source. S ep arate cells for MSW, THW or HCW. Handling and managem ent of thes e types of wastes should be in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Administrative Order (DENR-DOH) #02 and RA 6969. Facility operation by a pool of fully-trained staff Provision for aftercare following site restoration and closure. Prohibition of waste pickers at the immediate dispos al area.

34

Annex 3 List of Materials and References Joint LMP-LCP Policy Is su e P ap er of Technical Working Group on Solid Waste Management, LMP-LCP pap er (unpublished), February 2005, Manila. Commission on Audit 2003 Audited Financial Reports of Cities, Municipalities and Provinces. Department of Finance-Bureau of Local Government Finance, Status of Income and Expenditure DataBas e s (2001-2004). Adriana Bianchi, W. Cruz and M. Nakamura (ed s). Local Approaches to Environmental Compliance, World Bank Institute. Washington. 2005 Philip Rushbrook and Michael Pugh. Solid Waste Landfills in Middle-and LowerIncome Countries: A Technical Guide to Planning, Design and Operation. World Bank Technical Paper No. 426. World Bank, Washington. 1999. Developing and Implementation of a Sustainable Funding Mechanism for Solid Waste Managem ent De sign Schematics for Material Recovery Facility: Bais City (Final Report). Solid Waste Managem ent As sociation of the Philippines (SWAPP). Makati. 2004 Developing and Implementation of a Sustainable Funding Mechanism for Solid Waste Managem ent De sign Schematics for Material Recovery Facility: Bayawan City (Final Report). Solid Waste Managem ent Association of the Philippines (SWAPP). Makati. 2004 Developing and Implementation of a Sustainable Funding Mechanism for Solid Waste Managem ent De sign Schematics for Material Recovery Facility: Tacurong City (Final Report). Solid Waste Managem ent Association of the Philippines (SWAPP). Makati. 2004 Lisette C. Cardenas. Developing a Sustainable Funding Mechanism for Solid Waste Managem ent Services: The Philippine Experience, Solid Wa ste Management Association of the Philippines (SWAPP). Makati. 2004 Noboyuki Yamamura. Institutional and Financial Performance Evaluation on Solid Waste Management in the Philippines, JICA Philippines. November 2005. Zenaida M. Sumalde. Cost of Implementing Solid Waste Management Programs by Local Government Units (PowerPoint Pres entation). SWAPP 2004 Conference. Zamboanga City.

35

Todd R. Pepper. Memorandum Report on RA 9003 Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. Ess ex-Windsor Solid Waste Authority, Canada. 11 August 2003. Reynar R. Rollan. Inputs to Phas e Compliance in Solid Waste Dispos al (draft report). Philippine EcoGovernance Project Phas e 2. Pasig City. 2005. Elmer S. Mercado. Strengthening Local Governance with a Strengthened LMP Organizational Review(draft report). Philippine EcoGovernance Project, League: Quezon City. July 2004. LCP Issue Notes on Solid Waste Managem ent Implementation. League of Cities of the Philippines. 2005. LGPMS Solid Waste Man agem ent Monitoring Report. LGPMS. 2005 Basic Study on the Selection of High Priority Cities/Municipalities for the Establishment of Suitable SWM System in the Philippines, JICA Philippines, Manila, November 2004. Francis M. Sabugal. Integrated Solid Waste Management Relevant to the Requirements of RA 9003: Ecological Solid Waste Managem ent Act of 2002, EcoGovernance Project, Quezon City. November 2003 . Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9003. Department of Environment and Natural Resources . (pamphlet).

36