Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.adb.org
1
The Garbage BookSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN METRO MANILA
2
Printed for the Department of Environment and Natural Resourcesby the Asian Development Bank under TA 3848-PHI: Metro ManilaSolid Waste Management Project.
© 2004Asian Development Bank6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City,0401 Metro ManilaPhilippines
All rights reserved.First printed in March 2004.
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed here arethose of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its member governments.ADB cannot guarantee the accuracy of the data included in thispublication, and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for anyconsequences of their use.
The material in this work is copyrighted. No part of this work maybe reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording, orinclusion in any information storage and retrieval system—withoutthe prior permission of ADB. ADB encourages dissemination of itswork and will normally give permission promptly and, when thereproduction is for noncommercial purposes, without asking a fee.
3
Contents
Urgent Need for Change 8History of the Waste Disposal Crisis 22Waste Collection 30Waste Disposal 36
Leachate 44Dangers of Dump Sites 48Waste Picking 50Disposal Capacity Projections 52
Cost of Solid Waste 54Garbage, Poverty, and the Environment 62
Payatas 64Catmon 66Pier 18 68Tanza 70Lupang Arenda 72Rodriguez 74
Opportunities for Change 76RA 9003 77Community-Based Initiatives 79Recycling 80Composting 83Moving to Sanitary Landfills 84
Action Plan for Change 86
4
Eric
Sal
es
4
5
For most, the garbage crisis is limited to itscollection. As long as the mounds of garbageare removed...
For most, the garbage crisis is limited to itscollection. As long as the mounds of garbageare removed...
5
6
Eric
Sal
es
6
7
...it is a problem out of sight and out of mind. ...it is a problem out of sight and out of mind.
77
8
Urgent Needfor ChangeMetro Manila is a metropolis in crisis. Due to the forced closure of two primary disposalfacilities, the metropolis has been without any means to adequately and safely dispose of its garbage.The solid waste management sector requires a massive and urgent overhaul. Change must come.
For most, the garbage crisis is limited to its collection. As long as the mounds of garbage areremoved, it is a problem out of sight and out of mind.
But the crisis continues—environmentally, socially—as an unceasing tidal wave of refuse over-whelms the metropolis. In the absence of a functional system of waste reduction, reuse, recycling, anddisposal, local governments cope the best they can.
Eric
Sal
esEr
ic S
ales
Eric
Sal
esEr
ic S
ales
9
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
9
10
Eric
Sal
es
10
11
Some 1,500 tons daily isdumped illegally on private land,in rivers, creeks, Manila Bay...
11
Some 1,500 tons daily isdumped illegally on private land,in rivers, creeks, Manila Bay...
12
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
12
13
...or openly burned, adding tothe heavily polluted air shed.
13
14
Of the estimated 6,700 tons gen-erated per day, approximately 720tons per day is recycled or composted.The balance—some 6,000 tonsdaily—is either hauled to the city’sdump sites, dumped illegally on privateland, in rivers, creeks, Manila Bay, oropenly burned, adding to the heavilypolluted air shed.
Thousands of scavengers andwaste pickers live and survive on thiswaste, eking out a harsh existence onmountains of smoldering waste. Someare children as young as 5 years old.Taking into account their families, thehundreds of junk shops and their work-ers, the thousands of eco-aides, thethousands of garbage trucks and theircrews, and the tens of thousands ofslum dwellers living on, around, andnear the dump sites, an estimated150,000 residents of Metro Manilaknow the sight and smell of garbage asan integral part of their daily lives.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Ram
Cab
rera
14
1515
16
Eric
Sal
es
Eric
Sal
es
Eric
Sal
esEr
ic S
ales
Eric
Sal
es
17
...an estimated 150,000 residents of MetroManila know the sight and smell of garbageas an integral part of their daily lives.
...an estimated 150,000 residents of MetroManila know the sight and smell of garbageas an integral part of their daily lives.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Ram
Cab
rera
18
The severity of Metro Manila’s garbagecrisis is illustrated by the Payatas dump sitetragedy. In July 2000, after a weekend of heavyrain, a mountain of garbage collapsed, buryinghundreds of homes. Later, due to a dangerousmix of methane gas and downed electrical utilitypoles, fires spread across the dump site.The bodies of 205 people were recovered and,reportedly, hundreds more remain missing.
In December 2000, the site was “perma-nently closed,” with plans to fast-track a newsanitary landfill project. A crisis in collection en-sued, with mountains of garbage left uncollectedthroughout the metropolis. Over time, without anyalternatives in place, dumping at Payatas hasresumed.
Ram
Cab
rera
Ram
Cab
rera
18
Ram
Cab
rera
In July 2000, after a weekend of heavy rain,a mountain of garbage collapsed, buryinghundreds of homes.
In July 2000, after a weekend of heavy rain,a mountain of garbage collapsed, buryinghundreds of homes.
19
Metro Manila’s dump sites aredangerous, exposed, and generate po-tentially toxic liquids called “leachate.”As these toxins flow along the surfaceand seep into the earth, they risk poi-soning the surface and groundwaterthat are used for drinking, aquatic life,and the environment. Waste fires atthese sites are common, which sendplumes of toxic emissions into the air.Other sites are critically unstable, pre-senting the possibility of anotherdeadly garbage slide.
The majority of Metro Manila’sdump sites will reach capacity during2004. The likely result may be anothervisible crisis in collection and the hur-ried expansion of remaining sites. Inthis haste, longer-term, more sustain-able solutions may be ignored.
Despite the promotion of wastesegregation and collection at source,adoption has been at a very slow pace.Efforts must be dramatically scaled upto have any effect on the unceasingwave of garbage generated by MetroManila.
The not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY)phenomenon is hard at work in MetroManila. Despite numerous efforts, nocommunity has been willing to takeMetro Manila’s garbage. A surveyfound that while 67% of residents be-lieved that Metro Manila has a seriousgarbage problem, 73% did not want tosee a sanitary landfill in their commu-nity. Notably, 78% of surveyed house-
Garbage Everywhere22 October 2001
Philippine Daily Inquirer Editorial
Forget about anthrax. Forget aboutbioterrorism. We are not going to die fromthese things. The people of Metro Manila arefacing much more lethal, much more immedi-ate threats to their health and well-being.These threats come from the mountains ofgarbage that dot almost every other block ofthe metropolis.
Metro Manila’s dump sitesare dangerous, exposed, andgenerate potentially toxicliquids called ‘leachate’.Er
ic S
ales
20
The Surat, IndiaExperienceIn September 1994, nearly 30 years afterthe last urban outbreak in India, plaguestruck Surat, a city in western India. Thisserved as a chilling reminder of how rapidurbanization and deterioration of the urbanenvironment can bring people into contactwith forgotten diseases. Pneumonic plague,a highly contagious form of the disease, kills100% of its victims if left untreated. Crowd-ing and poor sanitation provide ideal condi-tions for its spread. Because it is socontagious, the outbreak caused extremepanic locally and internationally, with onequarter of the populace fleeing the city.Fortunately, the outbreak was diagnosedquickly, widespread treatment began, andthe death rate dropped dramatically.
WhWhWhWhWhy an Epidemic?y an Epidemic?y an Epidemic?y an Epidemic?y an Epidemic?Evidence points to the squalid conditions inmuch of Surat and the occurrence of twonatural disasters, an earthquake and heavyflooding, which brought plague-infectedrats into contact with the human population.Surat’s sanitation problems then helped therat population grow dramatically. A city of2.2 million, Surat generates close to 1,250tons of garbage each day, 250 tons of whichremain uncollected. To make matters worse,monsoon floodwaters inundated the city,particularly low-lying slum areas.
Death TDeath TDeath TDeath TDeath Toll and Damageoll and Damageoll and Damageoll and Damageoll and Damagettttto the Indian Economo the Indian Economo the Indian Economo the Indian Economo the Indian EconomyyyyyIn relative terms, the death toll of 56 per-sons was minor. By any other name, theplague probably would not have caused thekind of panic that it did. In financial terms,however, the plague’s toll was much greater,costing the Indian economy in excess of$600 million. More than 45,000 peoplecanceled their travel plans to India, and thecountry’s hotel occupancy rate dipped to20% from 60%. Many countries stopped airand water traffic to India, while exportssuffered a $420 million loss.
World Resources Institute, World Resources1996-97
holds had no idea where their collectedgarbage was taken for final disposal.
Medical waste management pre-sents another challenge. Nearly 3,700health care facilities in Metro Manila gen-erate an estimated 47 tons of medicalwaste per day, with 56% of this waste, or26 tons, considered potentially infec-tious. A significant proportion of this dan-gerous waste finds its way into the mu-nicipal waste stream, and is handled bypeople who are poorly equipped andtrained, exposing them to infections andother health hazards.
The problem of medical waste dis-posal is further exacerbated by the man-dated closure of medical waste incinera-tors in hospitals in Metro Manila, as re-quired by the Clean Air Act. No alterna-tive is in place.
Against this grim context, a majoraccomplishment has been the passageof Republic Act 9003—the EcologicalSolid Waste Management Act of 2000.While a good beginning, much workremains to be done. Despite the sim-plicity of its prescription—reduce, re-use, and recycle at the local level—thelaw awaits serious implementation.
RA 9003 is an enlightened piece oflegislation, yet few local governments arefamiliar with it. The timetable is behindschedule, source reduction and segrega-tion efforts at the local level are sporadicand uneven, and there is little activepublic participation, understanding, orinterest. Significantly, the required SolidWaste Management Fund has not beenset aside as mandated by law, limitingthe level of investment.
Ram
Cab
rera
21
We owe it to thenext generationto resolve thiscrisis now.
The garbage business is lucrative.Over P3.54 billion is spent annually onwaste collection and disposal. Yet de-spite the amount of money in the sys-tem, it does not function in a safe,sustainable way.
The garbage crisis is real, serious,and poses even grave threats to publichealth if not resolved. The root causesof the problems are not technical orfinancial, but rather relate to gover-nance and political will.
We owe it to the next generation toresolve this crisis now.
Eric
Sal
es
22
History of theWaste DisposalCrisisThe Rise (Early 1991–Mid-1992): Early 1991 marked an importanttransition in Metro Manila waste disposal. Prior to this, the metropolisoperated numerous dump sites, including the internationally infamousSmokey Mountain dump site in the City of Manila. In 1991, and as aresult of mounting public pressure to improve waste disposal and closeSmokey Mountain, the World Bank-financed 73-hectare (ha) regionalsanitary landfill facility opened in San Mateo, Rizal. This was followed in1992 with the opening of the 65-ha Carmona regional sanitary landfillin Cavite, which coincided with the closure of Smokey Mountain. Bothfacilities were designed and constructed to international standards andrepresented a major accomplishment for the Government. Several largedump sites also operated during the early 1990s, including the Payatasand Catmon dump sites.
The Decline (Mid-1992–Late1997): Over time, operations at SanMateo and Carmona progressively im-pacted local communities. Design,construction, and operation standardsdeclined with each operational phase,raising concerns about environmentalrisks. Hundreds of trucks thunderedthrough communities nightly, strewinggarbage in their wake. The presence ofjunk shops, waste pickers, and informalshanties brought social impacts. Publicopposition mounted.
Disposal operations continued atthe ever-growing Payatas and Catmondump sites, as well as at the DoñaPetra dump site in Marikina, and theC4 dump site in Navotas. Dumping ac-tivities commenced at the LupangArenda dump site on the north shore ofLaguna de Bay.
Ram
Cab
rera
Bot
Pat
ena
23
Hundreds of trucks thundered through communitiesnightly, strewing garbage in their wake. The presenceof junk shops, waste pickers, and informal shantiesbrought social impacts. Public opposition mounted.
Hundreds of trucks thundered through communitiesnightly, strewing garbage in their wake. The presenceof junk shops, waste pickers, and informal shantiesbrought social impacts. Public opposition mounted.
Eric
Sal
es
23
24
The impending crisis led to the opening ofthe Lingunan dump site in Valenzuela, and thestockpiling of waste at Pier 18 in Manila.
Eric
Sal
es
24
25
Metro Manila was out of optionsfor disposal, and waste went largelyuncollected.
Prelude to Crisis (Late 1997–Late 1999): In early 1998, heightenedpublic opposition forced the suspen-sion of operations at Carmona. Thisplaced increasing pressure on SanMateo and major dump sites to accom-modate the additional waste. The im-pending crisis led to the opening of theLingunan dump site in Valenzuela, andthe stockpiling of waste at Pier 18 inManila. During 1998, waste disposaloptions were further limited by the pas-sage of the Clean Air Act, which effec-tively stalled plans to build incinerators.
Two major donor-funded studieswere also completed during this period,one of which evaluated toxic and haz-ardous waste, and another that devel-oped a metro-wide master plan forsolid waste. The recommendations ofthese studies were not implemented,even though one warned of an impend-ing disposal crisis.
The Crisis (Late 1999–Early 2001):The waste disposal crisis was a suddenphenomenon, marked by the forcedsuspension of operations of the SanMateo sanitary landfill in late 1999 dueto immense public opposition. Withinweeks, it brought about a near-cata-strophic collapse of the municipalwaste system and severe public healthrisks. Metro Manila was out of optionsfor disposal, and waste went largelyuncollected. Dumping at the existingsites was accelerated, and small-scale,private dump sites were developed.
As the Government searched forimmediate relief, private sector initia-tives were hastily conceived. These in-cluded plans to barge waste to Bataanto the northwest and Semirara Islandto the south. Both plans met fiercepublic opposition, and following theissuance of legal restraining orders,were curtailed. The Government alsosponsored a procurement process toselect a private sector consortium todevelop an integrated waste manage-ment system, including a disposal facil-ity in Rizal. This also encountered pub-lic opposition and a legal restrainingorder, and the plan remains stalled tothis day.
Uncontrolled dumping at thePayatas dump site led to a catastrophicwaste mass failure at the site in July2000. The tragedy signified the scaleof the crisis.
Subsequently, Payatas was tempo-rarily closed, only to reopen later. Othersmaller dump sites struggled to copewith the increased waste stream.Waste from the City of Manila contin-ued to pile up at Pier 18.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Eric
Sal
es
Eric
Sal
es
26
Since 2001, additional controlled dumpsites have been developed inan attempt to mitigate the crisis.
The Aftermath (Early 2001–Present): Since 2001, additionalcontrolled dump sites have beendeveloped in an attempt tomitigate the crisis. These includethe Rodriguez disposal facility inMontalban and the Tanza facility inNavotas. RA 9003 was also enactedduring this time.
A widely held perception isthat the crisis has subsided, and thatlonger-term waste disposal issues havebeen solved. This, unfortunately, is farfrom reality.
Metro Manila has less than 2 yearsdisposal capacity, assuming optimisticestimates. The potential for anotherwaste disposal crisis is high unlessimmediate action is taken.
Without doubt, current wastedisposal practices pose significant pub-lic health, environmental, andsocial risks. Over the short term, an-other tragedy like Payatas is possible,while long-term and increasingly costlydamage to the environment is a cer-tainty.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
27
Metro Manila has less than 2 yearsdisposal capacity, assuming optimisticestimates.
2828
Dou
bleS
lash
30
WasteCollectionUnder RA 9003, the local government is responsible forcollecting nonrecyclable materials and special wastes, whilebarangay units are given the task and responsibility ofcollecting and segregating the biodegradable, compostable,and reusable wastes. Of Metro Manila’s 17 cities andmunicipalities, 11 contract out garbage collection to the pri-vate sector and 6 collect garbage themselves as part of theirlocal government functions.
Eric
Sal
esEr
ic S
ales
Eric
Sal
es
31
323232
Dou
bleS
lash
32
33333333
34
The common collection practiceis through house-to-housecollection. Many local govern-ments have detailed local planscovering waste collectionservices, and detailed routemaps for collection vehicles.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
34
35
MarikinaMarikina City has a separated waste collection service within itsbarangays. The city collects solid wastes from households, mar-kets, and commercial establishments, with two trucks travelingin tandem collecting biodegradable or nonbiodegradablewastes. The nonbiodegradable fraction is taken to the recyclingstation for sorting, where workers extract materials utilizing amechanized conveyor system. Recyclable materials are thenplaced in large bins for temporary storage before being trans-ferred to downstream private recyclers for eventual further pro-cessing and reuse. The biodegradable fraction is taken to thedisposal site where it is spread, compacted, and covered withsoil. The barangays are not allowed to collect recyclable materi-als, except for tree cuttings and garden and yard wastes. Thedump site is in the process of being closed.
Pasay CityPasay City’s waste collection and disposal is undertaken throughprivate sector “total package” contracts. The contractors are re-sponsible for the entire collection, transfer, and disposal of wastes.The city is divided into five sectors, for which the number of trucktrips has been agreed between the city and the contractors. Fourcontractors run a total of 102 truck trips. The contractors dump“wherever they can,” including Rodriguez, Montalban. Transfer anddisposal are considered “expensive, taking up to 4 hours per load,and costing up to P1,500 ($27) per truck for tipping fees at privatedump sites.”
Of Metro Manila’s 17 cities and municipalities, 11 contract outgarbage collection to the private sector and 6 collect garbagethemselves as part of their local government functions.
Current Collection and Disposal System
LocalGovernmentUnit
CaloocanLas PiñasMakatiMalabonMandaluyongManilaMarikina
Muntinlupa
NavotasParañaquePasay
Pasig
Pateros
Quezon CitySan JuanTaguigValenzuela
Collection
ContractAdministrationContractAdministrationContractContractAdministration
Contract
ContractContractContract
Contract
Contract/MMDAContractContractContractAdministration
ReportedCoverage
(%)
80
95100100
85
95
100
90
80
OwnDisposalFacility
YesNoNoYesNoNoYes
No
YesYes
No
No
YesNoNoYes
ReportedWaste Disposal
Location
RodriguezPulang LupaRodriguezCatmonRodriguezRodriguezDoña PetraRodriguezRodriguezSan PedroBacoorTanzaSan PedroRodriguezSan PedroRodriguezTaytayPayatasRodriguez
PayatasRodriguezRodriguezLingunan
35
36
WasteDisposalWaste disposal is a necessary part of anintegrated system for managing solid waste, one in whichwaste minimization and recycling initiatives should beprioritized. At the same time, practical and achievable wastedisposal improvements are required to reduce the acutepublic health, environmental, and social impacts caused byexisting dumping practices.
Accurate engineering and other technical data arevirtually absent for existing disposal facilities and practices,and an assessment can only be prepared from cursory siteobservations and verbal site reports. Nevertheless, MetroManila must act immediately to improve waste disposalpractices and establish sanitary landfill facilities in accor-dance with RA 9003. Until this is achieved, waste dumpingwill continue to cause serious public health, environmental,and social damage.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Eric
Sal
es
3737
383838
Dou
bleS
lash
3939
4040
Dou
bleS
lash
41
4242
Dou
bleS
lash
4343
44
LeachateSamples of liquid runoff, or leachate, from theRodriguez and Payatas dump sites were tested andwere found to have levels of contaminants that werefar above the maximum allowed in drinkingwater. Most of this leachate seeps untreated intogroundwater, a source of drinking water, and runs intothe Marikina and Pasig River systems, and Manila Bay,a fisheries resource. The risks to human health areenormous.
Eric
Sal
es
Eric
Sal
es
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
45
Lead: Lead levels in thesamples were found to be up to22 times above standards.Lead poisoning is a leading en-vironmentally induced illness inchildren, causing decreasedmental abilities, learning diffi-culties, and reduced growth.Lead can affect almost everyorgan and system in the humanbody. The most sensitive is thecentral nervous system. Leadalso damages kidneys and thehuman reproductive system.Unborn children can be ex-posed to lead through theirmothers.
Arsenic: Arsenic levels werefound to be 60 times abovemaximum safe levels, with ahigh of 84 times above safestandards. Potential healtheffects from contact or in-gesting arsenic includes skindamage, circulatory systemproblems, and an increasedrisk of cancer.
Nitrogen: Total nitrogenlevels of the tested sampleswere elevated up to 32times over safe levels. In-fants below the age of 6months who drink watercontaining nitrite, a subsetof total nitrogen, in excessof safe levels can becomeseriously ill and, if un-treated, may die. Symptomsinclude shortness of breathand blue-baby syndrome.
Other DangerousContaminants: While notindicated in the limited sam-pling taken from these twosites, leachate from munici-pal landfills is highly variableand typically contains highconcentrations of manyother dangerous contami-nants, such as heavy metals(zinc, copper, barium, man-ganese, cadmium, and chro-mium), hazardous organics,and possibly strains of op-portunistic pathogens.
Fecal Coliform: Not neces-sarily a health threat in it-self, this measure is used toindicate whether potentiallyharmful bacteria may bepresent, and is generallydue to feces. The high levelsof fecal coliform confirmsthe presence of a largeamount of human waste inthe dump sites and sur-rounding areas, which ispresumably generated byhouseholds that lack alter-natives to sanitation.In the samples tested,fecal coliform values werefound to be an average of7 million, with a high of30 million, indicating signifi-cant contamination. Risks towaste pickers and otherswho handle this waste aresignificant.
Biochemical OxygenDemand (BOD): High BODlevels that enter surfacewaters will deplete dissolvedoxygen necessary to supportfish and other aquatic or-ganisms. Generally, waterwith BOD levels of 100 partsper million (ppm) or greateris considered very polluted.In the samples tested, BODlevels were up to 98 timesabove this very pollutedlevel.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
46
Based on leachate sampling,Rodriguez and Payatas generate anestimated 26 kilograms of lead and76 kilograms of arsenic annually...
46
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
47
...which is released into the groundwater,rivers, lakes, and bay of Metro Manila.
47
...which is released into the groundwater,rivers, lakes, and bay of Metro Manila.
4848
Dou
bleS
lash
4949
50
One of the most serious concerns ofthe current dump site operations is thepresence and operations of waste pick-ers and scavengers. Over 4,300 wastepickers operate at the dump sites,working in dangerous and filthy condi-tions. They are poorly organized andlargely unprotected against the dangersof waste handling. Children, as youngas 5 years, work at some of thesedump sites.
Many thousands more live andwork within the arena of Metro Manila’sgarbage dumps—perhaps as many as150,000 people—and are in constantcontact with the city’s waste stream.
Waste Picking
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Eric
Sal
es
50
Over 4,300 waste pickers operate at the dump sites,working in dangerous and filthy conditions.Over 4,300 waste pickers operate at the dump sites,working in dangerous and filthy conditions.
50
51
Eric
Sal
es
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Eric
Sal
es
52
Disposal CapacityProjectionsShort-Term Dump SiteCapacityBased on current approximations, themajority of Metro Manila’s dump siteswill reach capacity in 2004. The ramifi-cations of this are potentially serious,and could trigger another crisis in gar-bage collection and disposal, and thehasty development of substandarddump sites throughout the metropolis.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Ram
Cab
rera
53
Longer-Term DisposalCapacityCumulative waste generationover the next 30 years will exceed 70million tons. This is equivalent to 35facilities of the size of Payatas, or manyhundreds of facilities the size of DoñaPetra or Palanyag.
54
Costof SolidWasteOver P3.54 billion (US$64 million) is spentannually on the collection and disposal of MetroManila’s solid waste, at an average cost of aboutP1,450 ($26.40) per ton. Despite this high levelof spending, the system requires significant im-provement. Sound financial management is key toefficient and sustainable operations.
Local governments are mandated by theLocal Government Code to collect fees for ser-vices. One of these is the collection of wastemanagement fees from business establishments,where the charges are incorporated in the annualapplication for a business permit. Although localgovernments are allowed to adjust feesevery 5 years, most have not.
Rates remain unrealistically low. For example,a typical fast food restaurant in one city pays onlyP17 per day for waste disposal, far below theactual cost.
Collection of waste management fees at thehousehold level is being implemented only in ahandful of wealthier barangays, but overall thewillingness of households to pay is limited.
In 2001, Metro Manila’s local governmentexpenses for solid waste management variedsignificantly, from about 5% to an astonishing24% of their total expenditures, with an averageof approximately 13%. The majority of theseexpenditures are spent on private haulingcontracts.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
55
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
5656
Dou
bleS
lash
5757
58
Local governments are not recoveringthe full cost of garbage collection ser-vice. Since it is only the business sectorthat is paying garbage fees, the rate ofrecovery of expenses is very low, rangingfrom only 2% to 24%. The large balanceis subsidized by local government.
Per capita cost for solid waste man-agement varies widely, from P64 perperson in Pateros to P1,164 per personin Makati. The same is true for the costper ton of solid waste collected and dis-posed.
Annual Per Capita SWM Cost, 2001
Total Percentagec Per CapitaLGU SWM Expensesa Populationb Cost
Caloocan 357,077 1,190,087 100% 300Las Piñas 76,360 477,791 100% 160Makati 418,577 449,583 80% 1,164Malabon 22,067 342,447 100% 64Mandaluyong 94,123 281,426 95% 352Manila 574,990 1,597,841 100% 360Marikina 52,804 395,316 100% 134Muntinlupa 91,377 383,331 85% 280Navotas 43,974 232,845 95% 199Parañaque 182,893 454,579 100% 402Pasay 243,807 358,670 100% 680Pasig 160,458 510,412 100% 314Pateros 2,988 58,016 80% 64Quezon City 941,828 2,196,874 100% 429San Juan 46,701 118,927 90% 436Taguig 120,949 472,329 100% 256Valenzuela 42,716 490,579 80% 109Average All LGUs 98% 393
LGU = local government unit, SWM = solid waste management.a Total expenses for SWM, in P’000.b Source: National Statistics Office, 2000 Census of Population and Housing. A growthrate of 2.36% was used to estimate 2001.c Percentage of population serviced by LGU waste collection.
Per capita cost for solid waste management varies widely,from P64 per person in Pateros to P1,164 per person in Makati.
Collection of Business Garbage Fees vis-à-vis Total SWMExpenses, 2001 (P’000)
SWM Rate ofLGU Garbage Feesa Expensesb Recovery (%)c
Caloocan 20,714 357,007 6%Las Piñas 12,820 76,361 17%Makati 13,835 418,577 3%Malabon 3,777 22,067 17%Mandaluyong 7,247 94,123 8%Manila 57,589 574,990 10%Marikina 7,053 52,804 13%Muntinlupa 7,012 91,377 8%Navotas 1,850 43,974 4%Parañaque 3,114 182,893 2%Pasay 5,473 243,807 2%Pasig 11,414 160,458 7%Pateros 406 2,988 14%Quezon City 56,107 941,828 6%San Juan 3,137 46,701 7%Taguig 4,040 52,370 8%Valenzuela 10,426 42,716 24%Average All LGUs 226,014 3,558,345 7%
LGU = local government unit, SWM = solid waste management.a Total garbage fees collected from business establishments.b Total expenses for SWM.c Percentage of total garbage fees collected as to total expenses for SWM.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
58
59
SWM Expenses vis-à-vis Total LGU Expenditures, 2001 (P’000)
LGU SWM Expensesa Total Expensesb Percentagec
Caloocan 357,077 1,491,883 24%Las Piñas 76,361 850,009 9%Makati 418,577 5,270,998 8%Malabond 22,067 348,800 6%Mandaluyong 94,123 1,129,801 8%Manilae 574,990 4,558,818 13%Marikina 52,804 778,475 7%Muntinlupad 91,377 1,059,651 9%Navotas 43,974 292,836 15%Parañaque 182,893 1,358,644 13%Pasay 243,807 1,219,353 20%Pasig 160,458 1,814,072 9%Pateros 2,988 62,186 5%Quezon City 941,828 4,467,316 21%San Juan 46,701 430,373 11%Taguig 52,370 432,394 12%Valenzuelad 42,716 734,606 6%Average All LGUs 3,558,345 26,300,215 13%
LGU = local government unit, SWM = solid waste management.aTotal expenses for SWM.bTotal current year expenditures of LGU.cPercentage total SWM expenses vis-à-vis total current year expense of LGU.dGarbage collection was done by administration.eGarbage collection was done partly by administration and partly by privatehauling contractors.
Collection of Business Garbage Fees vis-à-vis Total LocalIncome, 2001 (P’000)
PercentageShare of
LGU Garbage Feesa Local Incomeb Garbage Feesc
Caloocan 20,714 657,435 3.2%Las Piñas 12,820 414,004 3.1%Makati 13,835 3,187,442 0.4%Malabon 3,777 136,081 2.8%Mandaluyong 7,247 730,947 1.0%Manila 57,589 2,815,984 2.0%Marikina 7,053 460,673 1.5%Muntinlupa 7,012 491,287 1.4%Navotas 1,850 94,290 2.0%Parañaque 3,114 730,607 0.4%Pasay 5,473 609,778 0.9%Pasig 11,414 1,519,402 0.8%Pateros 406 22,551 1.8%Quezon City 56,107 2,368,986 2.4%San Juan 3,137 292,276 1.1%Taguig 4,040 275,560 1.5%Valenzuela 10,427 429,423 2.4%Average All LGUs 1.5%
LGU = local government unit.aTotal garbage fees collected from business establishments.bLocal Income includes taxes, fees, and charges collected by the LGU(excludes IRA, borrowings, and grants).cPercentage share of total garbage fees collected as to total local income.
Eric
Sal
esEr
ic S
ales
59
The rate of recovery of expensesis very low, ranging from only2% to 24%. The large balance issubsidized by local government.
6060
Dou
bleS
lash
6161
Garbage, Poverty,and theEnvironment
Garbage, Poverty,and theEnvironment
Eric
Sal
es
62
6363
64
Payatas,Payatas,Payatas,Payatas,Payatas,
September 2003PAYATAS, SEPTEMBER 2003For the past 30 years, the Payatas dump site has most likely beenreleasing leachate into groundwater and river systems……an amount currently estimated at 2 liters per second or63 million liters each year……a rate that would fill one 18-wheeled tractor trailer tankertruck every 5 hours.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Eric
Sal
esEr
ic S
ales
64
65
Eric
Sal
esEr
ic S
ales
Eric
Sal
es
66
CATMON, SEPTEMBER 2003Located in a dense residential area prone to flooding,the Catmon dump site has most likely been generatingleachate for the past 17 years with unknownconsequences.
Eric
Sal
es
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
67
Eric
Sal
es
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Eric
Sal
es
68
PIER 18, SEPTEMBER 2003Planned as a temporary facility, Pier 18 is fastbecoming a permanent fixture in the Port area, andrisks becoming the next Smokey Mountain.
68
69
Eric
Sal
es
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Eric
Sal
esEr
ic S
ales
70
TANZA, SEPTEMBER 2003The 11-hectare Tanza dump site, with a plannedexpansion to another 100 hectares, risks seriouslycontaminating nearby fish and shrimp ponds, akey food resource for Metro Manila.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
71
Eric
Sal
es
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Eric
Sal
esM
atth
ew W
estfa
ll
Eric
Sal
es
72
LUPANG ARENDA, SEPTEMBER 2003On the edge of Laguna de Bay, a community of 125,000urban poor is being built over 2 million cubic meters ofdecomposing garbage, at great risk to public health and thesurrounding natural environment.
Eric
Sal
es
73
Eric
Sal
es
Eric
Sal
esEr
ic S
ales
Eric
Sal
es
74
RODRIGUEZ, SEPTEMBER 2003Each year, the Rodriguez facility generates over63 million liters of leachate, enough to fill over 28Olympic-size swimming pools, the bulk of which flowsinto the Marikina River system.
Mat
hhew
Wes
tfall
75
Eric
Sal
esEr
ic S
ales
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Eric
Sal
es
76
RA 9003 has the potential to effectively addresssolid waste managementRA 9003 has the potential to effectively addresssolid waste management
Eric
Sal
es
76
Opportunitiesfor Change
77
RA 9003RA 9003 is a sweeping legislation thathas the potential to radically transformand improve the solid waste manage-ment sector. Key elements include� a national ecology center to provide
information, training, and network-ing services;
� mandatory segregation and recy-cling of solid waste at the barangay
level;� formation of solid waste manage-
ment boards at the provincial, city,and municipality levels; and
� forming multipurpose environmentcooperatives in every local govern-ment.The National Solid Waste Manage-
ment Commission is tasked with devel-oping a national status report andframework. Local governments are re-quired to formulate 10-year solid wastemanagement plans; divert 25% of allsolid waste through reuse, recycling,and composting by 2006; and estab-lish reclamation and buy-back centersfor recyclables.
Eric
Sal
esEr
ic S
ales
Eric
Sal
es
78
At the barangay level, materialsrecovery facilities are to be establishedfor final sorting, segregation, compost-ing, and recycling, with residual wastesto be transferred to a sanitary landfill orother long-term facility.
RA 9003 has the potential to ef-fectively address solid waste manage-ment. However, implementation is be-hind schedule, source reduction andsegregation are happening on an indi-vidual barangay level or not at all, andthere is little or no active public partici-pation. Significantly, the Solid WasteManagement Fund has not been setaside.
A comprehensive, integrated infor-mation, education, and communicationplan is critical to the successful imple-mentation of RA 9003.
Lind
a Eg
gert
h
Lind
a Eg
gert
h
Lind
a Eg
gert
h
Lind
a Eg
gert
hLi
nda
Egge
rth
79
Community-BasedInitiativesWhile the extent of formal recyclingthrough local government initiatives hasbeen limited, informal and private sectorrecycling is extensive, at all points fromwaste generation through to final dis-posal. Scavenging forms a significantelement of this activity.
It is estimated that between around10% of total solid waste generated isrecycled. With the passage ofRA 9003, increased recycling is takingplace, with an ambitious target of 25%waste reduction over a 5-year period.
Civic-minded professionals, with astrong sense of environmental conserva-tion, started the zero-waste recyclingmovement in the Philippines in the1970s. Their dedication to promoting aclean and better environment has in-
Eric
Sal
esEr
ic S
ales
80
spired others to initiate the conceptwith community-based solid wastemanagement programs in theircommunities.
Zero-waste recycling does notmean there is no waste to be collectedor disposed of because everything willbe recycled. Rather, it is a holisticapproach at handling solid wastematerials where any waste materialsthat are still useful are not allowed togo to waste.
Community-based initiatives involvewaste segregation at source, recycling,and composting. Programs have beenattempted in many barangays through-out Metro Manila—some have suc-ceeded, others have failed for onereason or another. Leadership is thekey factor in successful programs. Inmost cases, the initiative is led by theBarangay Captain or nongovernmentorganization aligned with the zero-waste movement.
RecyclingRecyclable materials include “factory-returnable” fractions such as paper,plastics, glass and metals, and alsocertain biodegradable materialswhich are composted. They areprimarily recovered at source throughcommunity-based and recycling organi-zations from households and other es-tablishments, by collection truck per-sonnel during transfer to the dumpsites, and by informal waste pickerswho scour the waste piles and dumpsites of Metro Manila.
The market demand for certain re-cyclable materials appears to be un-matched by the limited available sup-ply. One large paper company, for in-stance, is willing to buy all recyclablepaper materials obtainable from MetroManila, but only 10% of its require-ments can be supplied.
Most eco-aides who collect recy-clable materials in Metro Manila arepart of a network organized by theLinis-Ganda Foundation. The networkincludes the Metro Manila Federationof Environmental Multi-Purpose Coop-
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
81
eratives; the federation’s 17 individualmember multipurpose cooperativesrepresenting the 17 local governmentsof Metro Manila; 572 junk shops,2,500 junk shop workers, 1,200 eco-aides; and 132 drivers.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
82
Eric
Sal
es
Eric
Sal
es
Eric
Sal
es
83
CompostingOver 2,000 tons of biodegradablehousehold waste is estimated to begenerated daily in Metro Manila. At astandard conversion rate of 50% fromraw material to compost, a potentialdaily production of some 1,000 tons ofcompost could be obtained. But the fewcomposting facilities in Metro Manila, atfull capacity, can only process 10 tonsof compost per day.
An assessment of implementingmetrowide composting in each barangay
as mandated under RA 9003 suggestsproblems with its viability. An annualrequired investment of P1.5 billionwould generate an estimated return ofonly P750 million, or only half theamount required to make the systemfinancially viable.
The greater problem is the market-ing of compost, since its enormouspotential supply can hardly be matchedby demand in Metro Manila or even thatin nearby provinces. Quality of compostand adhering to standards are alsocritical to keep shredded waste, and itscontaminants, from entering the foodsupply chain.
Eric
Sal
es
Eric
Sal
es
84
An incremental three-step progression is the logical path to transform-ing Metro Manila’s dangerous open dump sites to more controlled,environmentally sound dump sites, followed by their phase out andclosure, and the establishment of properly engineered sanitary landfills.
Moving to Sanitary LandfillsM
atth
ew W
estfa
llM
atth
ew W
estfa
ll
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Controlled Dump SitesShort-term measures in the absence of longer-term, environmentallysound approaches.
Open Dump SitesDangerous, with high environmental, public health, and social risks.
Metro Manila’s local governmentofficials visit the Waimanalo SanitaryLandfill in Honolulu, Hawaii, duringthe Mayors’ Asia-Pacific EnvironmentalSummit, September 2003.
85
Sanitary LandfillsInevitably, a rational system of engineered sanitary landfills will needto be constructed. A metrowide system would likely include transferstations to receive, disinfect, process, and compact residual wastescollected in Metro Manila. The wastes would then be sent to one ormore regional sanitary landfills, where waste would be placed in sani-tary landfill cells equipped with engineered environmental protectionsystems, including landfill lining systems, to act as a barrier betweenthe original ground and the waste.
Typically, a sanitary landfill has leachate and landfill gas collec-tion and treatment systems, groundwater monitoring wells, and land-fill cover systems. Once full, a soundly managed sanitary landfill canbe closed and converted to other uses, such as a park, golf course,or other open space.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
86
Action Planfor ChangeSector PlanningIssuePrior to RA 9003, there was little guid-ance, regulation, or coordination ofsolid waste management in MetroManila
SolutionsRA 9003 empowers local governmentsto take primary responsibility for, andenforcement of, their solid wastemanagement systems. They are nowrequired to� establish city-level solid waste
management boards;� develop and implement 10-year
solid waste management plans;and
� serve as members on the MetroManila Board.
Next Steps� Prepare and implement long-term
financial plans setting out requiredcapital and recurrent expendituresover a 10-year planning period.
� Progressively introduce marketprinciples in solid waste manage-ment, including householdgarbage fees for collection anddisposal.
� Expand local government’s role toprovide monitoring and enforce-ment of required standards.
� Establish and enhance recyclinginitiatives to progressively reducethe waste taken to dump sites.
Eric
Sal
es
87
Dump Site Deficiencies andEnvironmental RisksIssueDump sites lack engineered control systems. They seriouslydamage the environment, threaten public health, and causesignificant social impacts.
SolutionsRA 9003 provides for� closure of “open dump sites” in 2004;� operation of “controlled dump sites” to 2006; and� establishment of fully operational sanitary landfills by
2006.
Next StepsEmergency Action Plan
� Urgent stability assessments and mitigation for thePayatas and Rodriguez sites
� Leachate mitigation at the Payatas and Tanza sites� Cease dumping and construction at Lupang Arenda
and the provision of emergency measures to protect thecommunities living on the waste
� Cease housing construction over waste at theBagumbong (private) site
Short-Term Improvement Program
� Implement basic low-cost engineering and environmentalupgrades at each facility to comply with interim con-trolled dump site standards
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Eric
Sal
es
88
RecyclingIssueHistorically, recycling operations have been informal, ineffi-cient, and unregulated, with high social impacts.
SolutionsRA 9003 mandates comprehensive source reduction, wasteminimization, and increased recycling at the barangay level.
Next Steps� Hold promotional campaigns at the barangay level to
promote community-based solid waste management.� Review and evaluate composting technologies and
programs and explore how processing capability can beimproved.
� Establish the needed material recovery facilities andsupport systems in every barangay or barangay clusterand synchronize with the intensive market promotion ofcompost.
Disposal CapacityIssueThe majority of Metro Manila’s dump sites will reach capacityin 2004. Attempts to develop facilities face extreme publicopposition and legal challenges.
Solutions� Rationalize available dump site capacity in conjunction
with dump site improvements� Establish an integrated, metrowide disposal facility
development program� Accelerate waste segregation and recycling
Next StepsLong-Term Solid Waste Disposal Program
� Formulate dump site closure plans followed bypostclosure maintenance for at least 10 years.
� Urgently develop long-term, regulatory-compliant regionalsanitary landfill facilities.
� Expand existing dump sites needed on an emergency,short-term basis, which must be properly designed withenvironmental protection systems, and be fully inte-grated with the proposed short-term improvements.
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Eric
Sal
es
89
Eric
Sal
es
Eric
Sal
es
Eric
Sal
es
8989
90
SystemAccountabilityIssueHistorical lack of technical and finan-cial information, and overall lack ofaccountability in system operations,particularly in waste collection anddisposal.
SolutionsRA 9003 mandates progressive im-provements, such as a 10-year plandevelopment, waste characterizationstudies, information databases, andadvocacy.
Next Steps� Improve contracting procedures,
regulate private sector waste dis-posal performance, and improverecord keeping and access toinformation
� Undertake independent audits ofcosts of all parts of the wastemanagement system
� Introduce true cost accounting sys-tems for waste management ser-vices (identifying all social, hidden,and transferred costs)
� Establish itemized accounts toidentify annual capital and opera-tional costs, creating separate costcenters for each part of the wastemanagement system
� Introduce the concept ofsustainability into financial man-agement procedures, and continueto search for innovative methods offinancing
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
91
Institutional CapacityIssueLocal governments face extreme capacity deficiencies,especially relating to waste disposal.
SolutionRA 9003 provides the mandate and authority to local gov-ernments to progressively improve institutional capacity tomanage their own systems.
Next Steps� Implement an extensive training program for staff
involved in waste management operations� Improve overall coordination and cooperation at the
regional, city, municipal, and barangay levels� Provide an incentive system to award excellence and
innovation
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Mat
thew
Wes
tfall
Eric
Sal
es
92
Regulatory EnforcementIssueHistorically, regulations have been poorly interpreted anddifficult to enforce, and regulators have been inadequatelytrained and funded.
SolutionsRA 9003 mandates widespread regulatory reforms, setsregulatory standards, rationalizes responsibilities, andstrengthens enforcement mechanisms.
Next Steps� Strengthen metrowide and local regulatory enforcement
procedures and practices at the regional level, includingcapacity building programs and training of regulatoryenforcement personnel
� Establish and implement regulatory monitoring programstogether with measurable objectives, strategies, andschedules
� Provide adequate and sustainable funding for regulatoryenforcement programs
Eric
Sal
es
93
End NoteFor anyone who has lived or worked in Metro Manila, thegarbage crisis has been a stark and highly visible reminderof the challenges we face in managing one of Asia’s largesturban centers—a sprawling metropolis comprised of17 separate local governments, bounded together by history,geography, and increasingly, the shared burden of solidwaste management.
Solving the crisis and developing long-term, sustainablesolutions remain the key priorities of the Government. Giventhe critical need to provide useful information and work to-gether to adopt lasting solutions, I am pleased to share withyou The Garbage Book: Solid Waste Management in Metro
Manila.
This publication is a synthesis of the findings and recom-mendations developed under an advisory technical assis-tance funded by the Asian Development Bank, the MetroManila Solid Waste Management Project, carried out in col-laboration with the Department of Environment and NaturalResources and the Department of Health. Undertaken from
July 2002 to February 2004, the study provided support tothe National Solid Waste Management Commission andother agencies involved in solid waste management in MetroManila. The results of the study can be viewed on the website of the National Solid Waste Management Commission atwww.nswmc.gov.ph.
I hope this publication will provide the basis for enlight-ened discussion on Metro Manila’s solid waste crisis, con-tribute to a better understanding of the issues, raise thelevel of policy debate, and more importantly, encourage ev-eryone to assume responsibility for waste management, aswe are all producers of waste. Only by doing this can weachieve a cleaner, greener, and more sustainable metropolis.
ELISEA GOZUN
Secretary, Department of Environmentand Natural Resources
Eric
Sal
es
94
Page 10: Some 1,500 tons daily is dumpedillegally on private land, in rivers, creeks,Manila Bay… Accurate information on theamount of illegally dumped waste is not avail-able, and therefore must be inferred. This esti-mate is based on the calculations noted in theparagraph below, findings of ADB TA 3848-PHI:Metro Manila Solid Waste Management
Project, 2003, and by updating and refiningthe 1999 JICA-funded Metro ManilaMasterplan Study estimate that 27% of allMetro Manila’s solid waste is illegally dumped.
Page 14: Of the estimated 6,700 tons gen-erated per day, approximately 720 tons perday is recycled or composted. The bal-ance—some 6,000 tons daily—is eitherhauled to dump sites, dumped illegally onprivate land, in rivers, creeks, Manila Bay,or openly burned, adding to the heavilypolluted air shed. The daily population ofMetro Manila (2003) is estimated to be ap-proximately 11,989,297, or rounded to ap-proximately 12 million. This is estimated byadding the official Philippine Government Na-tional Statistics Office medium assumptionprojection for 2003 (10,899,361 population)to a Metro Manila Development Authority esti-mate of an additional 10% population increase(1,089,936) to account for the additional day-time population within the metropolis. Theaverage per capita waste generation rate forMetro Manila (0.56 kg/person/day) is esti-mated from the results of the Metro ManilaSolid Waste Managment Masterplan, funded bythe Japanese International Cooperation Agency(JICA), in 1999. The total solid waste genera-tion rate estimate is therefore calculated bymultiplying the estimated population(11,989,297) by the estimated average percapita waste generation rate (0.56 kg/person/day), equating to approximately 6,700 tons.The estimate of recycled and composted wasteof 720 tons per day is based on: (i) informationfrom the major Metro Manila recycling associa-tion (500 tons per day); (ii) an extrapolationthat other recyclers recycle an additional 200tons per day; and (iii) an extrapolation thatapproximately 20 tons daily of biodegradablewaste is composted.
Page 17: An estimated 150,000 residentsof Metro Manila know the sight and smellof garbage as an integral part of their dailylives. This estimate is considered conserva-tive, and is based on visual observations andextrapolations including (i) registered wastepickers reported at the dump sites (4,300); (ii)junk shop workers (2,500); (iii) “eco-aides”(1,200); (iv) drivers and crews of collectionvehicles (5,000); (v) dump site personnel(90); (vi) low-income residents at LupangArenda (reported at 125,000); (vii) occupantsof dwellings near the major dump sites andtrucking routes, including Payatas (5,000),Catmon (2,000), Lingunan (2,000), PulangLupa (2,000), Bagumbong (1,000), and Pier18 (1,000); (viii) solid waste managementstaff of the 17 cities and municipalities (over5,000); (ix) MMDA operations staff (50); and(x) MMDA street sweepers (1,000).
Page 19: A total of 78% of surveyedhouseholds had no idea where their col-lected garbage was taken for final dis-posal. Based on a Metro Manila householdsurvey completed under ADB TA 3848-PHI:Metro Manila Solid Waste Management
Project, 2003.
Page 20: Nearly 3,700 health care facili-ties in Metro Manila generate an esti-mated 47 tons of medical waste per day,with 56% of this waste, or 26 tons, consid-ered potentially infectious. Based on thefindings of ADB TA 3848-PHI: Metro Manila
Solid Waste Management Project, 2003,which collated and synthesized available datafrom surveys conducted by the Department ofHealth, JICA, and the ADB TA.
Page 21: Over P3.54 billion is spent annu-ally on waste collection and disposal.Based on review of available financial informa-tion provided by the 17 Metro Manila localgovernment units (LGUs) during the conduct ofADB TA 3848-PHI: Metro Manila Solid Waste
Management Project, 2003.
Page 32: In the next 30 years, Metro Ma-nila will generate over 70 million tons ofsolid waste. Currently, Metro Manila gener-ates an estimated 6,700 tons per day of solidwaste (above). This equates to approximately
2.4 million tons per year (6,700 tons per daymultiplied by 365 days), which equates to over70 million tons in 30 years (2.4 million tonsper year multiplied by 30 years). This is signifi-cantly conservative, as it does not includewaste generation increases due to populationand economic growth.
Page 32-33: Collection of this waste willrequire…
a …a line of waste trucks going threetimes round the earth and over halfway tothe moon. On average, collection trucks areassumed to transport approximately3.25 tons of waste. In 30 years, the cumula-tive 70 million tons of waste generated will,therefore, require 21.5 million truck trips(70 million tons divided by the average truckcarrying capacity of 3.25 tons). Assuming anaverage length of a truck plus the gap to thenext truck of 15 meters, the 21.5 milliontrucks would extend 322 million meters(21.5 million trucks multiplied by 15 metersaverage length and gap), which equates to322,000 kilometers (km). The circumferenceof the earth is approximately 39,000 km,therefore three times round the earth is117,000 km (the circumference of the earth,39,000 km, multiplied by 3). The distance tothe moon is approximately 384,000 km,therefore half way to the moon is 192,000 km(the total distance of 384,000 km divided by2). The distance of three times round the earthand half way to the moon is, therefore,309,000 km (192,000 km plus 117,000 km).
b. …a cumulative waste truck travel dis-tance equal to a distance over 4,000times around the earth and to the sun.Assuming each of the 21.5 million truck trips(mentiond in a.) travels an average distance of15 km, then the cumulative waste truck traveldistance equates to 322 million km (21.5million truck trips multiplied by 15 km). Sincethe circumference of the earth is 39,000 km(mentioned in a.), then 4,000 times round itequates to 156 million km (39,000 km multi-plied by 4,000). Since the distance to the sunis approximately 150 million km, then the cu-mulative distance of 4,000 times round theearth and to the sun equates to 306 millionkm (156 million km plus 150 million km)
Calculations and Assumptions
95
c. …at a cost of over P100 billion ($1.9billion). This conservatively assumes the cur-rent annual expenditure on Metro Manila solidwaste management (P3.54 billion) multipliedby 30 years.
Page 38-39: In the next 30 years, MetroManila will generate over 230 million cubicmeters of solid waste. This is calculated bydividing the estimated 70 million tons of wasteover the 30-year period by an assumed loosesolid waste density of 0.3 tons per cubic meter,equating to over 233 million cubic meters.
a. An amount that equates to … a “knee-deep” layer of waste over the entire me-tropolis (over 630 km2). Since the approximateland area of the 17 cities and municipalities ofMetro Manila is 630 km2 or 630 million m2,then dividing this into the generated solidwaste volume (233 million cubic meters) overthe 30-year period equates to an averagedepth of approximately 0.35 meters.
b. …which would fill the country’s largestshopping mall over 175 times. Since thelargest shopping mall has an approximate vol-ume of 1.3 million cubic meters, dividing thisinto the total 30-year solid waste volume of233 million cubic meters equates to filling theshopping mall over 175 times (233 millioncubic meters divided by 1.3 million cubicmeters).
Page 46-47: Based on leachate sampling,Payatas and Rodriguez generate an esti-mated 26 kg of lead, and 76 kg of arsenicannually, which is released into thegroundwater, rivers, lakes, and the bay ofMetro Manila. Leachate sampling at Payatasand Rodriguez indicates combined averageconcentrations for the two sites of lead (0.21milligram[mg]/liter) and arsenic (0.6 mg/liter).Assuming that each site emits on average 2liters per second of leachate (therefore 0.42mg of lead and 1.2 mg of arsenic per second),then in 1 year, this equates to an averagefor each site of 13 kg of lead and 38 kg ofarsenic. This is calculated by multiplying thequantity per second (in mg) by 3,600 secondsper hour, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year,and dividing the total by 1 million for the con-version factor of mg to kg).
Page 53: Cumulative waste generationover the next 30 years will exceed 70 mil-lion tons. This is equivalent to 35 facilitiesof the size of Payatas, or many hundredsof facilities the size of Doña Petra orPalanyag. Although accurate survey data andvolume calculations are not available for the
dump sites, the order of magnitude of thePayatas dump site waste mass is around3-4 million cubic meters, or possibly up to2 million tons, therefore 35 such facilitieswould be needed to dispose of 70 million tonsof solid waste. The smaller dump sites haveinferred volumes ranging from less than10,000 cubic meters up to several hundredthousand cubic meters; therefore several hun-dreds of such small dump sites would be re-quired to accommodate 70 million tons ofsolid waste.
Page 54: Over P3.54 billion ($64 million) isspent on the collection and disposal ofMetro Manila’s solid waste, at an averagecost of about P1,450 (P26.40) per ton.Based on review of available financial informa-tion provided by the 17 Metro Manila localgovernment units (LGUs) during the conduct ofADB TA 3848-PHI: Metro Manila Solid Waste
Management Project, 2003. Dividing the totalestimated annual expenditure (P3.54 billion)by the estimated total annual waste generation(2.44 million tons) provides an average costper ton (P1,450).
Page 56. On average less than P25($0.45, forty-five cents) is collected percapita to recover costs through direct usercharges. Based on review of available finan-cial information provided by the 17 Metro Ma-nila LGUs during the conduct of ADB TA3848-PHI: Metro Manila Solid Waste Manage-
ment Project, 2003. Dividing the total esti-mated annual expenditure (P3.54 billion) bythe estimated population of Metro Manila(11,989,297), provides an average of P295per person.
Page 64: For the past 30 years, thePayatas dump site has most likely beenreleasing leachate into groundwater andriver systems. As with many dump sites, dueto the lack of engineered environmental pro-tection systems, it is assumed that leachatehas been emitted from the site over the longterm, possibly approaching the entire life ofthe dump site, which reportedly is approxi-mately 30 years.
a. An amount currently estimated at 2 li-ters per second or 63 million liters eachyear. Based on visual field observations andsite personnel discussions, surface leachateemissions are estimated to average 2 liters persecond. Annually, this equates to 63 millionliters, calculated by multiplying the quantity persecond (2 liters) by 3,600 seconds per hour,24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
b. A rate that would fill one 18-wheeledtractor trailer tanker truck every 5 hours.Multiplying an assumed leachate emission rateof 2 liters per second by 3,600 seconds pro-vides an estimate volume of 7,200 liters perhour. This is equivalent to one 18-wheeledtractor trailer tanker every 5 hours (having avolume of approximately 34,000 liters).
Page 72: On the edge of Laguna de Bay, acommunity of 125,000 urban poor is beingbuilt on 2 million cubic meters of decom-posing garbage, at great risk to publichealth. Although accurate topographic, engi-neering, demographic, and other records areunavailable for the area, verbal statementsfrom site personnel infer that the entire area ofdumping extends to 80 hectares, and housesan urban poor population of 125,000 (25,000homes with an average family size of 5 per-sons). From verbal accounts and visual obser-vations, solid waste is placed at an averagethickness of approximately 2.5 meters overthe entire 80-hectare area, inferring that ap-proximately 2 million cubic meters is presentimmediately beneath the residential areas(2.5 meters thickness, multiplied by 10,000square meters per hectare, multiplied by 80hectares).
Page 74: Each year, the Rodriguez facilitygenerates over 63 million liters ofleachate, enough to fill over 28 Olympic-size swimming pools, the bulk of whichflows into the Marikina River system.Based on visual field observations and sitepersonnel discussions, surface leachate emis-sions are estimated to average 2 liters persecond. Annually, this equates to 63 millionliters, calculated by multiplying the quantity persecond (2 liters) by 3,600 seconds per hour,24 hours per day, 365 days per year). Sincean average Olympic-size swimming pool con-tains approximately 2.2 million liters (50meters length multiplied by 22 meters width,multiplied by average 2 meters deep, multi-plied by 1,000 liters per cubic meter) then theannual 63 million liters of leachate would fillover 28 Olympic-size swimming pools (63 mil-lion liters divided by 2.2 million liters).
96
Written and Produced byMatthew S. WestfallandNicholas Allen
PhotographyTomas Eric C. SalesMatthew S. WestfallRamiro Cabrera
Publication DesignRamiro Cabrera
Publication Graphicsand Cover DesignDoubleSlash Media
Miguel Kaluag – ManagementJohn Flores – Creative DirectionMichael Cortes – Art Direction and LayoutRonald Eugenio – Assistant ArtistMiguel Aranaz – Assistant ArtistJo Avila – Photographer
Copy Editing and ProofreadingCorazon Murakami – Copy EditingRicardo Chan - Proofreading
ADB Technical Assistance Study TeamManjit Kahlon, AEA TechnologyRichard Pook, AEA TechnologyNeil Varey, AEA TechnologyNicholas Allen, GlobalworksLevi Buenafe, GlobalworksAgnes Palacio, GlobalworksJoey Sta. Ana, GlobalworksLuis F. Diaz, CalRecoveryLinda Eggerth, CalRecoveryGrace Favila, ENR ConsultantsRoger Lopez, ENR ConsultantsReynar Rollan, ENR Consultants
Asian Development BankSoutheast Asia DepartmentKhaja Moinuddin, Director GeneralShamshad Akhtar, Deputy Director GeneralPeter L. Fedon, Director, Southeast Asia Social Sectors
DivisionMatthew S. Westfall, Principal Urban Development
SpecialistKaren Guzman, Senior Administrative Assistant
SPECIAL THANKS TO:
Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesSecretary Elisea Gozun, Rafael Camat, Jr.,Albert Magalang, Grace Favila, Ellen Basug,Emmy Aguinaldo, Mei Velas
Nongovernment OrganizationsAyala Foundation, Inc.Concerned Citizens Against PollutionFederation of Multi-Purpose CooperativesKaunlaran sa KalikasanLinis-Ganda FoundationMiriam Public Education and Awareness Campaign
for the EnvironmentMother Earth LimitedSolid Waste Management Association of the PhilippinesZero Waste Recycling Movement of the Philippines
Foundation
Asian Development BankBradford Philips, Thomas Crouch, Richard S. Ondrik,Nancy Convard, Ann Quon, Lynette Mallery,Raul B. Del Rosario, Tomas Eric C. Sales, andRaveendranath Rajan.
We would also like to acknowledge Philippine LongDistance Telephone Company; Ortigas Center Associa-tion; Ayala Center Malls; Alabang Town Center; FilinvestFestival Mall; Rockwell Center; Palms Country Club;Ayala Alabang Village Association; Marites andShannen Allen; Laura, Alexandra, Samantha, andNicole Westfall; Butch Jimenez; and John Simon.
Credits
