East Asia and Pacific Region: MARINE PLASTICS SERIES An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal of Metro Manila An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal of Metro Manila Copyright © by International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000, Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of staff at The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpreta- tions, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Citation: World Bank. 2022. An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal of Metro Manila. Washington DC. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover photo: Shutterstock / Alex Traveler. Further permission required for reuse. An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal of Metro Manila CONTENTS Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................................ 7 Abbreviations..........................................................................................................................................................8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................ 18 CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS..................................... 20 CHAPTER 3. DEMOGRAPHIC AND GEOPHYSICAL SETTING.................22 CHAPTER 4. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS.......................... 26 4.1 Socio-economic Profile of the LGUs........................................................................................................27 4.2 Waste Composition.................................................................................................................................... 28 4.3 Waste Generation........................................................................................................................................ 31 4.4 Waste Diversion........................................................................................................................................... 32 4.4.1 Diversion of Recyclables..................................................................................................................................32 4.4.2 Diversion of Biodegradables..........................................................................................................................34 4.4.3 Infrastructures for Waste Diversion...........................................................................................................34 4.4.4 Programs for Plastic Waste Management................................................................................................38 4.4.5 Rates of Waste Diversion................................................................................................................................41 4.5 Waste Collection.......................................................................................................................................... 41 4.6 Disposal.......................................................................................................................................................... 43 4.7 Institutional Set-up.................................................................................................................................... 45 4.8 Ordinances ................................................................................................................................................... 48 4.9 Waste Data Management System....................................................................................................... 49 4.10 SWM System Gaps.................................................................................................................................. 49 4.10.1 Gaps Affecting Plastic Waste Management............................................................................................49 4.10.2 Gaps Affecting the Overall SWM System of the LGUs........................................................................52 CHAPTER 5. COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF METRO MANILA LGUs..........................................................................................................................54 5.1 Waste Generation........................................................................................................................................ 54 5.2 Plastic Waste Management Programs................................................................................................ 54 5.3 Passed Plastic Management Ordinance.............................................................................................. 55 5.4 Facilities for Waste Diversion.................................................................................................................. 55 4 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila 5.5 System for the Recovery of Recyclables............................................................................................. 55 5.6 Population Density..................................................................................................................................... 55 5.7 Proximity to Waterways and Water Bodies....................................................................................... 56 CHAPTER 6. INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES ............................................ 58 6.1 Investments for Recycling ....................................................................................................................... 59 6.1.1 Centralized Recyclable Recovery Facility ..................................................................................................60 6.1.2. Enhancement of Existing MRFs and MRS Arrangements....................................................................61 6.1.3 Additional Barangay Trading Centers for Plastics..................................................................................62 6.1.4 Segregation Bins for Plastic Waste.............................................................................................................62 6.2 Investments for Collection ...................................................................................................................... 63 6.3 Proposed Studies for the Recommended Investments.................................................................. 64 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................... 68 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................71 ANNEX......................................................................................................................73 LIST OF BOXES Box 1. Basic vs. Mechanized or Automated MRFs..................................................................................................... 35 Box 2. Equipment Set for Chair Factory...................................................................................................................... 62 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Metro Manila showing the waterways and adjacent water bodies..................................... 24 Figure 2. Waste flow within the SWM systems of the Metro Manila LGUs.......................................................27 Figure 3. Percentage by weight of the major waste components across Metro Manila LGUs................... 29 Figure 4. Average waste composition of Metro Manila........................................................................................... 30 Figure 5. Population and waste generation of Metro Manila from 2020 to 2025......................................... 32 Figure 6. Location of designated disposal facilities in Metro Manila.................................................................. 44 Contents | 5 LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1. Matrix of proposed investments and targeted LGU tiers................................................................... 15 Table 1. Summary of demographic features of Metro Manila (in order of estimated 2020 population)............................................................................................................................................................................ 23 Table 2. List of LGU plans and effectivity period........................................................................................................27 Table 3. Summarized results of the Waste Characterization and Assessment Surveys (WACS) of Metro Manila LGUs (in the order of decreasing per capita generation)........................................................ 28 Table 4. Waste composition of Metro Manila and the national average........................................................... 30 Table 5. Projected daily waste generation of Metro Manila from 2020 to 2025 (in the order of decreasing generation)....................................................................................................................................................... 31 Table 6. Buying price of recyclables at junkshops.................................................................................................... 33 Table 7. Distribution of waste diversion facilities in Metro Manila........................................................................37 Table 8. Features of the plastic waste management programs of Metro Manila LGUs............................... 38 Table 9 .Reported waste diversion rate of LGUs as of October 2020................................................................. 41 Table 10. Summarized features of waste collection implemented by Metro Manila LGUs (arranged in the order of decreasing waste collection)............................................................................................................... 42 Table 11. Features of the Metro Manila solid waste disposal facilities................................................................ 44 Table 12. Current disposal rates of Metro Manila LGUsa at the three designated sanitary landfills........ 45 Table 13. Functional groups within each LGU responsible for SWM................................................................... 46 Table 14. Groups responsible for coordinating plastic waste management......................................................47 Table 15. Summary of ordinances on plastic waste management...................................................................... 48 Table 16. Available and additional SWM data for LGUs and agencies responsible for waste management........................................................................................................................................................................ 50 Table 17. Features affecting SWM systems of LGUs................................................................................................ 53 Table 18. Summarized assessment ratings of the Metro Manila LGUs ..............................................................57 Table 19. Matrix of proposed investments and targeted LGU tiers..................................................................... 59 Table 20. Top 10 most common waste in Pasig River.............................................................................................. 63 Table 21. Required surveys and studies for the recommended investments................................................... 65 Annex 1. Target Respondents of Data Request and on-line Interviews..............................................................73 6 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The study was conducted by Reynar R. Rollan (Technical Consultant) under the supervision of Junu Shrestha (Senior Environmental Specialist). Agnes Chung Balota (Environmental Specialist) led the engagement with government agencies. The work was done under the guidance of Anjali Acharya (Senior Environmental Specialist), and leadership of Ndiamé Diop (Country Director) and Mona Sur (Practice Manager). The report benefitted from comments provided by Hadji Huseynov (Senior Infrastructure Specialist) and Joop Stoutjesdijk (Lead Irrigation Engineer). Sarah Hollis produced the cover and report design. The team was assisted by Venessa Vaishali Sarkar. The study team would like to thank the following offices for providing details about the institutional and operational aspects of their respective solid waste management systems, issues that deter implementation, and existing and proposed programs for improvement: City Environment and Natural Resources Offices of Caloocan, Las Piñas, Malabon, Navotas, Parañaque, Pasay, Pasig, Pateros, San Juan, Taguig, and Valenzuela; City Environment Management Office, Marikina; Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office of Pateros; Department of Public Services – Manila; Department of Environmental Services of Makati; City Environmental Management Department of Mandaluyong; Environmental Sanitation Center – Muntinlupa; and Task Force on Solid Waste Management of Quezon City. Appreciation is extended to the Metro Manila Development Authority’s Solid Waste Management Office for providing data on the waste-collection practices of Metro Manila LGUs and data on the features of the three disposal facilities under its management; the National Solid Waste Management Commission for providing copies of the solid waste management plans of Metro Manila’s 17 LGUs; Metro Manila Linis-Ganda, Inc., for providing a description of their plastic-recycling efforts; and the Solid Waste Management Section of the National Capital Region for providing data on the Materials Recovery Facilities, Material Recovery System, and the collection system of Metro Manila LGUs. The Environment, Natural Resources and Blue Economy Global Practice enabled and supported the study. Funding for this study was provided by the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund (KGGTF), a partnership between the World Bank Group and the Republic of Korea that aims to mainstream inclusive green growth throughout the World Bank’s lending operations and to help World Bank client countries identify and implement the most innovative, technical, and operational solutions to their specific development challenges. Acknowledgments | 7 ABBREVIATIONS CBD Central Business District CEMD City Environmental Management Department CEMO City Environment and Management Office CENRO City Environment and Natural Resources Office CESO City External Services Office DAO Department Administrative Order DES Department of Environmental Services DPS Department Public Services DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DILG Department of Interior and Local Government DOH Department of Health EMB Environmental Management Bureau EMB-NCR Environmental Management Bureau-National Capital Region EPWMD Environmental Protection and Waste Management Department ESC Environmental Sanitation Center GDP Gross Domestic Product HDPE High-Density Polyethylene IEC Information, Education and Communication IRR Implementing Rules and Regulations KILUS Kababaihan Iisa ang Layunin Umunlad ang Sambayanan LDPE Low Density Polyethylene LGU Local Government Unit LLDPE Linear Low-Density Polyethylene MENRO Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office MMDA Metro Manila Development Authority MMFMP Metro Manila Flood Management Project MOA Memorandum of Agreement MRF Materials Recovery Facility MRS Materials Recovery System NGO Non-Government Organization NSLF Navotas Sanitary Landfill NSMSLF New San Mateo Sanitary Landfill NSWMC National Solid Waste Management Commission PAGASA Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration PCEX Plastic Credit Exchange PD Presidential Decree PET Polyethylene Terephthalate 8 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila PP Polypropylene PS Polystyrene PSA Philippine Statistics Authority PVC Polyvinyl Chloride RA Republic Act RPSLF Rizal Provincial Sanitary Landfill SLF Sanitary Landfill SUP Single Use Plastic SWAPP Solid Waste Management Association of the Philippines, Inc. SWM Solid Waste Management tpd tons per day WACS Waste Assessment and Characterization Survey Abbreviations | 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T his study performed an assessment of the solid waste management (SWM) plans and the collection, recycling and disposal conditions of the 17 Local Government Units (LGUs) of Metro Manila to determine the gaps and barriers hindering the effective implementation of Republic Act 9003 (RA 9003)—particularly the recovery and recycling of plastic waste. The results were used to identify potential investment opportunities that could contribute to improved plastic waste management and the overall SWM systems of LGUs. The assessment focused on the approved 10-Year SWM plans, online reports of the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC), data provided by the Metro Manila Development Authority, interviews with the heads and staff of the SWM functional groups of each LGU and related government institutions, and a web search on government and private sector initiatives on recycling and plastic waste management. Metro Manila is composed of 16 cities and 1 municipality, with a combined total 1,712 barangays. Its land area of 619.1 square kilometers is bounded by large bodies of water on the west (Manila Bay) and east (Laguna de Bay). The central section LGUs are traversed by the main channel of the Marikina-Pasig River and the rest are drained by the tributaries. These waterways and waterbodies are plagued by illegally disposed and uncollected waste. The condition is exacerbated during floods when additional uncollected waste and litter move down the gradient and clog man-made canals and natural waterways. Eventually, the waste is discharged into Manila Bay or deposited into the 50 existing pumping stations of Manila. The institutional, legal and financial aspects as well as the management of hazardous waste were not covered in this assessment. The assessment did not consider the effects of the pandemic on waste generation. Due to the restrictions brought on by the pandemic, field verification of the data gathered through interviews was not conducted. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS The actual implementation of the provisions of RA 9003 is anchored on the approved 10-Year SWM Plans. The Plans describe key components of the SWM systems, including socio-economic profiles and waste composition, generation, diversion, collection and disposal. In the 2013-2014 Waste Characterization and Assessment Surveys (WACS), only three of the seven plastic types—Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)—were consistently reported. The remaining plastic types were usually lumped with other inorganic materials as residual waste. Available data on waste density is limited with an indicative value of 174 kg/ cubic meter. Considering the predominantly urban character of Metro Manila, the available per capita waste generation data is underestimated and translates to a similar underestimation of the waste generation of the LGUs. Based on the NSWMC data, Metro Manila generated 9,500 tpd of waste in 2020, which is projected to 10 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila increase to nearly 10,400 tpd by 2025. Waste generation of the plastics sold to the junkshops and, ultimately, projections should utilize an increasing per capita to the consolidators and recyclers. waste generation based on the results of previous There is no available data indicating the quantity WACS and the gross domestic product (GDP) of the of the recyclables separated from the waste stream region. This was not done; hence the projection is and eventually sold to junkshops, consolidators and an underestimation. recyclers. The rates of waste diversion for Metro Manila LGUs, as Waste Diversion compiled by the Metro Manila Development Authority Waste diversion in Metro Manila includes the recovery (MMDA), vary from a low of 10 percent in Taguig to of recyclables and composting of biodegradables. a high of 77 percent in Malabon. In reality, the waste From source, the waste goes through four levels of that is delivered into the landfills is not separated into recovery of recyclables. the cited components and yields an overestimated diversion rate. The absence of data on the amount of • Level 1: Takes place at the source and is performed waste that has been recycled and composted makes at households and establishments. it challenging to generate a reasonable estimate. A • Level 2: Is performed by mobile pickers at drop-off memorandum order from the NSWMC on an accurate points of waste outside residences and waste method for determination of waste diversion is needed. generating establishments, at materials recovery facilities (MRFs) and at the pushcarts barangay Infrastructures for Waste Diversion eco-aides under the materials recovery system The primary government-mandated infrastructure for (MRS) arrangement. the recovery of recyclables and the processing of • Level 3: Takes place at the collection vehicles biodegradables is the MRF. Out of the 1,710 barangays of the LGU-managed collection system and is of Metro Manila, only 334—or about 20 percent—have performed by the truck crew. their own MRFs, usually a small shed or warehouse-type building with concrete floors where space is available • Level 4: Is performed by the informal waste pickers for the receipt and manual or mechanized processing at the disposal sites. of source segregated or mixed municipal solid waste. The progression from Level 1 to Level 4 in all the The floor area of typical barangay MRFs varies from SWM systems highlights the incomplete recovery 20 to 100 m2 and can usually accommodate sorting of recyclables in each level and the variable quality of recyclables and composting. The number of MRFs of the plastics. The recyclables recovered through processing both the recyclables and biodegradables these four levels are eventually sold to junkshops, is not known. where they are sorted and classified anew prior to The gap in the number of required barangays MRFs sale and delivery to the consolidators. Residuals are is partially attributable to the limited and expensive generated from Level 2 to 4 and at junkshops. The lots in the highly urbanized and densely populated plastics recovered at all levels include mainly PET, LGUs of Metro Manila. HDPE and PVC because these are preferred by the Recovery and trading of recyclables is also done at the junkshops. Based on interviews of several junkshop private sector through the junkshops. Currently, there operators in Quezon City, straws, styrofoam, sachets are at least 1,268 junkshops in Metro Manila. These and other single use plastics (SUPs) are not accepted. facilities sort, pack and sell recyclables to consolidators These materials will most likely be missed during or directly to recycling companies. The recyclables collection, disposed of improperly and potentially include paper, carton, metals, glass bottles and plastics deposited into waterways. such as PET, HDPE and PVC. The physical condition of the recovered plastics from In the absence of MRFs, the barangays of Metro the four levels are inherently different due to variable Manila entered into agreements with junkshops in conditions during retrieval from the waste stream. Due their respective jurisdictions to directly sell recyclables to the limited practice of segregation at source, the recovered by sorting of waste at mobile vehicles recyclables recovered at Level 2, Level 3 and Level 4 (like pushcarts) by barangay-designated personnel usually come from mixed waste. This affects the quality or eco-aides. This arrangement is referred to as the Executive Summary | 11 MRS. Monitoring of the placement and collection of the waste to the MRFs for segregation of recyclables residuals at the designated locations is not performed and composting of the biodegradables. The LGUs by the barangays. This condition contributes to the are tasked with the collection of the residual waste. leak in the collection system, which could pollute the With the limited resources of the barangays and the waterways with plastics. small number of MRFs, this condition has not been In reality, the outputs of the MRFs and MRS are not attained in the 17 LGUs of Metro Manila. known and cannot be properly evaluated. These In practice, the bulk of waste collection in Metro facilities and systems —which are inferred to recover Manila is now performed by the LGUs together with the bulk of the recyclables in the SWM systems under their contracted private haulers due to the limited Level 2—cannot process all the waste, as shown by resources of the barangays. Out of the 17 LGUs, 15 the recovery of recyclables at the waste collection use private haulers. vehicles and the disposal facilities. The amount of Based on data provided by MMDA, 33,000 m3 of recyclables that are recovered at Level 3 and Level waste is collected daily from all Metro Manila LGUs. 4 is referred to as the “recycling gap.” If there were Using the average density of 174 kg/m3, this translates sufficient and efficiently operated MRFs and MRS, to only about 5.742 tpd or about 60 percent of the then the recycling gap would be significantly reduced projected 9,498 tpd for 2020. This collection rate is and the unsanitary practice of sorting at collection low compared to Jakarta and Bangkok,1 which have vehicles and disposal sites would be reduced, if not waste collection rates of 74 percent in 2017 and 81 completely stopped. percent in 2018, respectively. Programs for Plastic Waste Management While LGU-operated or managed collection systems are present within Metro Manila with minor participation Aside from existing diversion facilities and systems, by barangay-managed systems, there is no information various programs for recycling of plastics are currently to indicate the actual coverage and efficiency of these implemented and/or planned for most of the LGUs of two systems. Non-collection is expected in areas that Metro Manila, in coordination with the private sector. are not covered by the barangay collection and not The most common program on plastic waste reached by the LGU collection trucks. These correspond management in barangays is the production of chairs to the narrow road networks that traverse the depressed and bricks. In support of this method of diversion and or slum areas. Additional loses are incurred due to to increase composting, the office of the Environmental non-collection of residuals from barangay MRFs and Management Bureau of the National Capital Region residuals from MRS and junkshops at designated (EMB-NCR) provided 14 LGUs of Metro Manila with a locations. These loses are not quantified, but are set of equipment for the operation of a small plastic manifested by the presence of litter in streets, vacant chair factory, a composter and a shredder. lots and waterways—particularly during flood events. While the LGUs and the government focused on chair and brick production from SUPs, the private sector and Disposal non-government organizations (NGOs) established Waste disposal in Metro Manila is managed by the and operated plastic redemption or trading centers MMDA. Currently, three privately operated facilities where cash or goods are given for an equivalent can accept waste from the 17 LGUs. These are the amount of plastic waste. Rizal Provincial Sanitary Landfill (RPSLF), New San The recovery of SUPs through cash payments or trading Mateo Sanitary Landfill (NSMSLF) and Navotas Sanitary for goods of manufacturing companies is performed in Landfill (NSLF). three LGUs, namely: Manila, Malabon and Valenzuela. The waste disposed into these three landfills is currently Waste Collection measured in cubic meters by using the number of trucks with known volumes. This method could lead Waste collection in Metro Manila LGUs is performed to inconsistent results due to the variability in the through the combined efforts of the barangays and fullness of the collection vehicles and the variability LGUs. of density of waste from the different LGUs. Best As required in RA 9003, collection of segregated waste is performed by the barangays, who deliver 1 Booklet on Thailand State of Pollution, 2018. 12 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Photo: Shutterstock / Kosol Phunjui. disposal practice requires the use of automated weigh Waste Data Management bridges at the gates of sanitary landfills for proper The maintenance and regular update of a waste data monitoring and systematic recording. management system is vital for effective monitoring and Data on the actual operation of the disposal facilities implementation of collection, diversion and disposal and the level of compliance with RA 9003 requirements of municipal solid waste of LGUs. on regular waste compaction, application of soil cover The barangays, LGUs and the Environmental and collection and treatment of leachate are not Management Bureau (EMB) do not have the necessary available. There is no official documentation of the and regularly updated data on waste management. previously reported practice of sorting and picking at The basic quantitative data on collection and diversion the disposal sites after the deposition of the waste. are not available at the barangay level. Institutional Set-up The quantified data available at the LGU level mainly Metro Manila LGUs essentially comply with the RA covers its collection efforts. Quantitative data on waste 9003 requirement for the establishment of the City diversion, however, is generally limited. The basic or Municipal Solid Waste Management Board and data on collection and diversion of the barangays the Barangay Solid Waste Management Committee. under its jurisdiction is not available. The law effectively placed the burden of SWM to The EMB only has data on the number of MRFs and the barangays with limited technical and financial MRS, SWM plans and disposal facilities. It does not resources. have data on diversion performed at the barangay Actual implementation of the SWM plan is performed and LGU levels. It relies on MMDA for the recording by functional groups under the office of the chief of the LGU-managed collection. executives of the LGUs. Interviews with the heads and Coordination between the LGUs and the barangays representatives of these groups showed that the basic is deficient or absent on the aspects of monitoring tasks of collection, disposal, sanitation, enforcement and of collection and waste diversion through MRFs and monitoring of the components of the SWM system are MRS. This is manifested by the absence of a unit regularly performed—notwithstanding the difference within the LGUs to monitor barangay MRF and MRS in hierarchy level organizational name. operations. Executive Summary | 13 As the lead agency in SWM, EMB should initiate Gaps affecting the overall SWM system of the LGUs systematic waste data collection at the barangay include: and LGU levels. It must develop a data checklist to • Use of inappropriate method of determining be regularly updated by the barangays and LGUs. waste diversion. Technical assistance could be extended by EMB to • Limited processing and composting of explain the filling-up and updating of the checklist. For biodegradables. its part, the NSWMC could issue a memorandum order requiring barangays and LGUs to regularly submit the • Use of the volumetric method and assumed waste collected data using conventional reporting methods density instead of weigh bridges at the designated or available and free online mobile phone applications disposal sites. such as Google Drive spreadsheets or Kobo Tool Box. • Absence of monitoring and evaluation in existing SWM plans. Ordinances • Non-evaluation of the physical and socio-economic The seventeen LGUs have passed ordinances mandating features of the LGUs, with respect to the various waste segregation at source, prohibiting littering and components of the SWM system. open dumping, and the practice of segregated waste collection. Based on interviews, the level of enforcement • Limited SWM data at the barangay, LGU and of these ordinances varies with each LGU. agency levels. The Metro Manila LGUs have differing approaches to how plastic waste should be managed. COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF METRO MANILA LGUS The cities of Las Piñas, Makati, Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Parañaque, Pasay, Pasig and Quezon A comparative assessment of the 17 LGUs was ban the use of plastics in their respective areas. performed to determine their level of readiness and Malabon, Manila, Marikina, Pasig and Pateros prohibit need to receive investments addressing gaps in the the use of plastics for dry goods and regulate the respective SWM systems. The assessment utilized the use of plastics on wet goods. Caloocan and Marikina following features of the respective SWM systems: (1) favor the regulated use of plastics over a total ban. waste generation, (2) existing plastic waste management Elsewhere, San Juan and Taguig are still planning programs, (3) passage of relevant plastic ordinances, to have ordinances regarding the use of plastics in (4) available infrastructure for diversion, (5) available their respective jurisdictions. Valenzuela, which hosts system for recovery of recyclables, (6) potential space a lot of plastic recycling companies, does not have for infrastructure and (7) proximity to waterways that can an ordinance on plastic use and management, but potentially receive uncollected waste. Each criterion implements a program to recycle SUPs. was assigned three equal grade levels of 1, 2 or 3, with 3 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. SWM System Gaps The level of implementation of the SWM plans was The gaps of the SWM systems of the Metro Manila considered but not used. This would have required LGUs were classified into two groups: those that affect an impartial assessment that could only be obtained plastic waste management and those that affect the through comprehensive visual surveys, a review of overall SWM systems of the LGUs. SWM records and person-to-person interviews. Gaps affecting plastic waste management include: This would include, among others, segregation at source, segregated waste collection, operation of • Incomplete waste collection. the MRFs, operation of the MRS, collection coverage • Limited number of MRFs and MRS arrangements. and compliance to ordinances on littering and use • Variable quality of recyclables retrieved though of plastics. the four levels of sorting and recovery. The institutional set-up was also considered, but not • Incomplete plastic waste data from currently used in the assessment due to the absence of clear-cut available WACS results. differences among the LGUs. The set-up—as presented in the SWM plans—varies, but the basic functions of collection, disposal, monitoring and enforcement 14 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila are present in differing degrees notwithstanding INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES the absence of officially designated units within the Investment opportunities have been identified to organization. In some LGUs (e.g., Caloocan, Makati, address the major gaps in recovery of recyclables Marikina and Parañaque), disposal and collection are and inadequate collection system. lumped together under one unit. The rest of the LGUs have separate units for collection and disposal. Table ES.1 presents the recommended investments and the corresponding members of the Tiers that Based on the criteria, the LGUs were classified into require the intervention. The investments per gap four tiers. were arranged in the order of decreasing impact to • Tier 1 corresponds to LGUs with high ratings in the SWM systems. the implementation of plastic waste management The main consideration for the selection of primary projects, passage of necessary plastic waste and secondary targets for investments is the Tier ordinances and diversion facilities, and moderate classification of the LGUs. The selection was then rating in MRS. These are Muntinlupa, Parañaque based on the number of existing facilities or systems and Pasig. that could be enhanced and the inferred large gaps • Tier 2 LGUs rank a close second in overall SWM in collection and recycling. management, but individually exhibit a wide range Implementation of the recommended investments in ratings per evaluation criteria. Tier 2 includes would require studies and surveys to gather data on eight LGUs with ratings of 16 to 15: Manila, Quezon the actual SWM conditions of the recipient LGUs. The City, Pasay City, Las Piñas, Makati, Malabon, investments should be accompanied by institutional Mandaluyong, and Marikina. strengthening of the concerned LGUs to ensure proper • Tier 3 LGUs rank significantly lower compared implementation as well as sustained operation and to Tier 2 in terms of overall SWM management. maintenance. Tier 3 includes five LGUs within a rating of 13 to 11: Navotas, Pateros, Valenzuela, Caloocan and Taguig. • The lone LGU under Tier 4 ranks lowest in overall SWM management and corresponds to the City of San Juan. Table ES.1. MATRIX OF PROPOSED INVESTMENTS AND TARGETED LGU TIERS SWM System Proposed Investment Primary Targets Secondary Targets Gap Recycling Gap Centralized Recovery Facility Tier 1 LGUs None Enhancement of MRFs Pasay City and Quezon City of Caloocan of Tier 3 Tier 2 Enhancement of MRS Pasay City and Manila of Tier 2 Caloocan of Tier 3 Additional plastic trading Tier 2 LGUs except Manila and Tier 3 LGUs except centers Mandaluyong Valenzuela Segregation bins LGUs with major Central None Business Districts (CBDs): Quezon City, Manila, Makati, Mandaluyong of Tier 2; Taguig of Tier 3; Muntinlupa of Tier 1 Collection Gap Pushcarts All LGUs Not applicable Skip bins All LGUs Not applicable Small collection vehicles Quezon City, Manila of Tier 2; Rest of Tier 2 Caloocan of Tier 3 Executive Summary | 15 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS criteria were used to determine their comparative An analysis of the SWM systems of the 17 LGUs of Metro readiness and need to implement investments to Manila showed the presence of gaps in collection, improve the SWM systems. recycling and methodologies employed in planning, The assessment led to a classification of the LGUs diversion and disposal, which hinder the effective into four tiers that could serve as the basis for the implementation of RA 9003—particularly plastic waste prioritization of recipients of proposed improvements management. Gaps in the available SWM data at the of the SWM system. Tier 1 (which includes Parañaque, barangay, LGU and agency level are also present. Pasig and Muntinlupa) will be considered for the Investments to improve recovery of recyclables construction of centralized facilities for the processing include the establishment of centralized facilities for of dry, potentially recyclable waste. The LGUs within the processing of dry, source-segregated dry waste, each of the remaining Tiers shall be considered for enhancement of the operation of the existing MRFs and the implementation of the other investments based MRS, establishment of additional plastic redemption on their respective needs. centers in all of the LGUs and deployment of plastic The proposed improvements of the SWM systems segregation bins in major commercial establishments of Metro Manila through appropriate investments at LGUs with major CBDs. in recycling and collection, better planning and the Investments in collection include the combination of establishment of a SWM database can be replicated in the following: acquisition and deployment of pushcarts other parts of the Philippines where similar gaps in the to barangays, deployment of skip bins near MRFs, MRS implementation of RA 9003 exist. The memorandum routes, and junkshops and small collection vehicles orders to be issued by the NSWMC on SWM planning, that can pass through narrow roadways of depressed diversion and waste data collection will apply to all areas. The pushcarts can simultaneously be used to LGUs of the Philippines. support the MRS of the barangays. The assessment and the data contained therein could The 17 LGUs were assessed in terms of (1) waste be used as the starting point in the formulation of generation, (2) existing plastic waste management the 25-Year SWM Plan for Metro Manila, subject to programs, (3) passage of relevant plastic ordinances, comprehensive field verification. Recommendations (4) available infrastructure for diversion, (5) available for monitoring and the parameters that need to be system for recovery of recyclables, (6) potential space monitored could be adopted by the EMB to enhance for infrastructure and (7) proximity to waterways. These its current system. 16 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Executive Summary | 17 Photo: Shutterstock / junpinzon. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION I n 2001, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, which is commonly referred to as Republic Act 9003 (RA 9003), was passed to address the growing problem of waste management of the, then, 80 million Filipinos. Nearly 20 years later, plus an additional 30 million residents, the issues concerning solid waste management have not been adequately addressed. Most of the 1,634 Local Government Units (LGUs) still employ the collect and dispose system with limited focus on reduction, reuse and recycling. This condition is aggravated by the limited number of sanitary landfills and materials recovery facilities (MRFs), restricted availability of funds for solid waste management (SWM) projects and the limited implementation of the law, among others. Based on the 2020 records of the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC), there are only 185 operational sanitary landfills in the country, mostly with capacities below 15 tons2 per day, servicing 378 LGUs (23 percent of total LGUs) and 10,722 MRFs—which correspond to about 33 percent of the 42,036 barangays in the country3. Based on estimates by the NSWMC, the 2021 waste generation of the Philippines would reach 21.8 million tons and attain 23.6 million tons by 20254. Related to these SWM conditions is the subsequent marine plastic pollution. In 2015, studies by Jambeck et al.5 indicated that the Philippines ranks third among the worst ocean plastic polluters in the world, after China and Indonesia. In 2019, Lebreton and Andrady6 estimated that the country generates 4.52 million metric tons of plastic waste per year, of which 0.81 million metric ton comes from Metro Manila. The 2020 market study commissioned by the World Bank7 on plastics circularity in the Philippines delineated the size and scale of the country’s plastics production and recycling industry. It showed that the Philippines recycled just 28 percent of the plastics it used in 2019. The value to the material loss is estimated to range from 790 to 890 million USD. The market study formulated the following measures to increase recovery and circularity of plastics: • Increase waste collection and sorting efficiency of post-consumer plastics. • Set recycled content targets across all major end-use applications. • Mandate national design for recycling standards for plastics, (i.e. for packaging). • Encourage increased mechanical and chemical recycling capacities. • Create industry-specific requirements to increase waste collection rates. • Restrict disposal of plastics in landfills and phase-out non-essential plastic items. 2 Under DAO 2006-10, which categorized the sanitary landfills of the Philippines into 4, the small LGUs with residual waste genera- tion of less than 15 tons per day can build their own sanitary landfills that fall under Category 1. Due to smaller costs, most of the landfills were built to correspond to Category 1 sanitary landfills. Only a few LGUs were able to construct the bigger, more expen- sive sanitary landfills belonging to Category 2, 3 and 4. 3 NSWMC Database as of June 2020. 4 Source: NSWMC, Projected Waste Generation from 2020 to 2025. 5 Jambeck et al. (2015): Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. 6 Lebreton and Andrady (2019): Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. 7 Market Study for the Philippines: Plastic Circularity Opportunities and Barriers. 2020. 18 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila The ongoing Top 10 Plastics Survey,8 which was also of the SWM system are implemented in each LGU and funded by the World Bank, confirmed the predominant in Metro Manila as a whole, and determine the gaps presence of SUPs within the main channel of Pasig and barriers that hinder the effective implementation River in Metro Manila, Philippines. of RA 9003—particularly the recovery and recycling This study corresponds to an assessment of the SWM of plastic waste. The results were used to identify plans and the collection, recycling and disposal potential investment opportunities that could improve conditions of the 17 LGUs of Metro Manila. It aims to plastic waste management. provide an understanding of how these components Photo: Shutterstock / Jill Gulles. 8 Microplastic and Plastic Field Surveys on Pasig River (2021). Chapter 1. Introduction | 19 CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS L etters requesting SWM data and copies of the 10-Year SWM plans were sent to chief executives of the Metro LGUs and heads of the NSWMC Secretariat, National Capital Region-Environmental Management Bureau (NCR-EMB), the Metro Manila Development Authority, (MMDA), the Solid Waste Management Association of the Philippines, Inc. (SWAPP) and representatives of the plastic industry. The submitted LGU data was validated through phone interviews with the heads and staff of the SWM functional groups of each LGU and related government institutions, including the head of the cooperative of junkshops in Metro Manila. A web search was conducted to gather additional information on government and private sector initiatives related to recycling and plastic waste management. The results of the studies: Market Study for the Philippines—Plastic Circularity Opportunities and Barriers and Microplastic and Plastic Field Surveys on Pasig River, both commissioned by the World Bank, were used as references and sources of quantified data on plastic waste management. An assessment of the solid waste management conditions of each LGU was performed. The assessment contributed to the identification and assessment of the gaps in SWM planning and the operational components of collection, diversion and disposal. Investment opportunities were identified, which—in combination with capacity building—could address the gaps in collection and diversion that affect plastic waste management. Based on a set of criteria that covers technical, legal and institutional aspects of the SWM systems, the LGUs were classified into four Tiers to designate where potential investments could be made to address the identified gaps. The institutional, legal and financial aspects as well as the management of hazardous waste were not covered in this assessment. The waste generation projection was based on data from the NSWMC for 2022-2025. This projection does not include the subsequent increase in plastic waste used in food packaging and in personal protection equipment such as masks, gloves, sanitizers, respirators, syringes and related equipment due to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. In the absence of updated data, the increased waste generation at households due to lockdowns, restricted travel, work from home arrangements, increased online shopping and higher food consumption has not been included. 20 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Photo: Shutterstock / MDV Edwards. CHAPTER 3. DEMOGRAPHIC AND GEOPHYSICAL SETTING M etro Manila is composed of 16 cities and one municipality, with a combined total land area of 619.1 square kilometers (Table 1). Quezon City has the largest land area at 165.33 km2, while the Municipality of Pateros is the smallest with a coverage of only 1.76 km2. These 17 LGUs have a total of 1,710 barangays. The barangay corresponds to the lowest form of government unit that must establish and operate the required MRFs and collect and segregate recyclables and biodegradables. Manila, which makes up 6.9 percent of the land area, has the largest number of barangays at 897 or 52.5 percent of the total. Other LGUs with a large number of barangays include Caloocan, Pasay and Quezon City with 188, 201 and 142 barangays respectively. Based on the 2015 census of the National Statistics Office, Metro Manila has a total population of 12.8 million. The estimated population as of 2020 is 14 million. The cities with high population and consequently large waste generation are Quezon City, Manila, Caloocan and Taguig. Manila and Mandaluyong have the highest density at 44,730 and 41,043 persons/km2, respectively. LGUs with high population densities will likely have difficulties in selecting and acquiring lots for proposed SWM facilities. The LGUs that host major business districts include Quezon City, Manila, Makati, Mandaluyong, Taguig and Muntinlupa. Metro Manila is bounded by large bodies of water on the west (Manila Bay) and the east (Laguna de Bay). As shown in Figure 1, seven LGUs—Navotas, Malabon, Caloocan, Manila, Pasay, Parañaque and Las Piñas—occupy the eastern rim of Manila Bay. The cities of Marikina, Pasig Mandaluyong, Makati and Manila are traversed by the main channel of the Marikina-Pasig River System. In addition to the main channel, Manila is drained by 30 major estuaries (esteros). The remaining LGUs are drained by the tributaries of the said river system. These waterways and waterbodies are plagued by illegally disposed and uncollected waste from residential, institutional and commercial establishments located adjacent to or above them. The condition is exacerbated during floods when additional uncollected waste and litter move down gradient into the main channel and contribute to their clogging. Eventually, the waste is discharged into Manila Bay or deposited into the 50 existing pumping stations of Manila. Data and updated information on the current operation and conditions of the pumping stations is unavailable. 22 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Table 1. SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF METRO MANILA (IN ORDER OF ESTIMATED 2020 POPULATION) No. LGUs/with Land % No. of % Total 2015 Estimated Density Major Business Area Land Barangays Barangays Population 2020 (persons/ Districts (km2) Area Population km2) 1 Quezon City 165.33 26.7 142 8.3 2,936,116 3,121,525 18,881 2 Manila 42.88 6.9 897 52.5 1,780,148 1,918,038 44,730 3 Caloocan 53.33 8.6 188 11.0 1,583,978 1,684,969 31,595 4 Taguig 45.18 7.3 28 1.6 804,915 1,005,299 22,251 5 Pasig 31.46 5.1 30 1.8 755,300 851,748 27,074 6 Parañaque 47.28 7.6 16 0.9 665,822 753,782 15,943 7 Valenzuela 45.75 7.4 33 1.9 620,422 669,018 14,623 8 Makati 27.36 4.4 33 1.9 582,602 641,588 23,450 9 Las Piñas 32.02 5.2 20 1.2 588,894 627,602 19,600 10 Muntinlupa 41.67 6.7 9 0.5 504,509 553,396 13,280 11 Marikina 22.64 3.7 16 0.9 450,741 478,999 21,157 12 Mandaluyong 11.06 1.8 27 1.6 386,276 453,939 41,043 13 Pasay City 18.64 3.0 201 11.8 416,522 441,599 23,691 14 Malabon 15.96 2.6 21 1.2 365,525 378,133 23,693 15 Navotas 11.51 1.9 18 1.1 249,463 249,795 21,702 16 San Juan 5.87 0.9 21 1.2 122,180 122,935 20,943 17 Pateros 1.76 0.3 10 0.6 63,840 63,534 36,099   Total 619.7 100 1,710 100 12,877,253 14,015,900   Chapter 3. Demographic and Geophysical Setting | 23 Figure 1. MAP OF METRO MANILA SHOWING THE WATERWAYS AND ADJACENT WATER BODIES Metro Manila is bounded by large bodies of water tributaries of the said river system. These waterways on the west (Manila Bay) and the east (Laguna de and waterbodies are plagued by illegally disposed Bay). As shown in Figure 1, seven LGUs—Navotas, and uncollected waste from residential, institutional Malabon, Caloocan, Manila, Pasay, Parañaque and and commercial establishments located adjacent to Las Piñas—occupy the eastern rim of Manila Bay. or above them. The condition is exacerbated during The cities of Marikina, Pasig Mandaluyong, Makati floods when additional uncollected waste and litter and Manila are traversed by the main channel of the move down gradient into the main channel and Marikina-Pasig River System. In addition to the main contribute to their clogging. Eventually, the waste channel, Manila is drained by 309 major estuaries is discharged into Manila Bay or deposited into the (esteros). The remaining LGUs are drained by the 50 existing pumping stations of Manila. Data and updated information on the current operation and 9 Source: 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan of Manila conditions of the pumping stations is unavailable. 24 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Photo: Shutterstock / Aragorn_19. CHAPTER 4. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS T he actual implementation of the provisions of RA 9003 is anchored on the 10-Year SWM Plans prepared by the 17 LGUs of Metro Manila as required under Rule VI, Section 2. As shown in Table 2, the approved plans have an effectivity period until 2023 or 2024. The SWM plan of the Municipality of Pateros, was completed and approved in 2019 and will be effective until 2028. Aside from the description of the socio-economic profile, each plan presents data on waste composition and generation, such as existing and planned collection, waste diversion and disposal systems including related equipment and facilities, collection vehicles and MRFs. The plans also describe the functional groups within each LGU, which are responsible for policy formulation, implementation and monitoring. In addition, ordinances presenting the legal basis for implementing the SWM system are presented. Although not required by RA 9003, it would be in the best interest of the LGUs to update key sections of the plan for better implementation. These include population, urban development, waste diversion and collection. Population growth and increased urban development directly translate to increased waste generation, which will affect the ongoing and planned collection activities. The plans were made in 2013 and 2014 using the latest available population data from the 2010 census. Since then, the 2015 census has been completed and results of the 2020 census will soon be published. These should be used to update the population and waste generation projections. Urban development will translate to different consumption and resource and space utilization, which will affect per capita waste generation and composition. Increases in population and urban development will affect the quantity and composition of the waste that needs to be diverted. Waste collection systems need to be upgraded in response to the increased waste generation. Timely and adequate updates in the SWM plans— notably in diversion and collection—will translate to improved waste management. Figure 2 provides an overview of the flow of waste from the Metro Manila LGUs from generation through diversion, collection and disposal. From source, the waste goes through four levels of recovery of recyclables. • Level 1: Takes place at the source and is performed at households and establishments. • Level 2: Is performed by mobile pickers at waste drop-off points outside residences and waste generating establishments, at MRFs and at the pushcarts barangay eco-aides under the MRS arrangement. • Level 3: Takes place at the collection vehicles of the LGU-managed collection system and is performed by the truck crews. • Level 4: Is performed by informal waste pickers at the disposal sites. The progression from Level 1 to Level 4 in all the SWM systems highlights the incomplete recovery of recyclables at each level and the variable quality of the plastics. 26 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Table 2. The recovered recyclables eventually end up at the LIST OF LGU PLANS AND EFFECTIVITY PERIOD junkshops for final sorting and baling before being LGU Approved Period of delivered to the recyclers by the consolidator. Effectivity Composting is done in limited amounts at households, Caloocan 2015 - 2024 schools and MRFs under Level 1 and Level 2. Collection Las Piñas 2015 - 2024 is performed by the barangays, the LGUs and their private haulers. Disposal takes place at the designated Makati 2014 - 2023 sanitary landfills. The flow highlights the gaps in the Malabon 2015 - 2024 collection performed by the barangays and the LGUs, as Mandaluyong 2015 - 2024 well as the inferred leaks at MRFs, MRS and junkshops. Manila 2015 - 2024 These components of the SWM system are discussed Marikina 2014 - 2023 and evaluated in the following sections along with key features of the 10-Year SWM plan. Gaps in composting Muntinlupa 2015 - 2024 and the quality of recyclables are also presented. Navotas 2015 - 2024 Parañaque 2015 - 2024 4.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE Pasay City 2015 - 2024 OF THE LGUS Pasig 2015 - 2024 The physical and socio-economic features of each Pateros 2019 - 2028 LGU—such as land area, drainage, population growth, Quezon City 2015 - 2024 density, number and size of households, land use, San Juan 2015 - 2024 institutions, economic activities, industries and economic establishments—were extensively discussed in their Taguig 2015 – 2024 respective plans, but were not correlated with the Valenzuela 2015 – 2024 various components of the SWM systems. The spatial distribution of households with various income classes, Figure 2. WASTE FLOW WITHIN THE SWM SYSTEMS OF THE METRO MANILA LGUS Consolidators Recyclers Variable quality of plastics; Variable quality of plastics; contaminants present Junkshops contaminants present Collection leak 2nd Level 3rd Level 4th Level 1st Level Recovery Sanitary Land lls: WASTE Recovery Recovery Recovery Navotas GENERATION Drop-off Points Waste Collection New San Mateo (17 LGUs) Disposal Source MRFs, MRS Rizal Provincial Vehicles Sites Limited composting of biodegradables Barangay Collection Collection leak LGU Collection Non-Collection Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 27 commercial establishments and institutions—which The per capita waste generation exhibited a wide affect generation, waste diversion, collection and range from the low 0.265 kg/day in Taguig to the potential illegal disposal—are not indicated and high of 1.065 kg/day in Parañaque City. assessed. The proximities to natural and man-made Based on the National Solid Waste Management Status drainage systems and large water bodies were not Report (2008-2018), the synthesized per capita waste evaluated in relation to illegal disposal and consequent generation of Metro Manila for the base year 2010 clogging and flooding. The impact on the availability of ranged from 0.27 – 1.0 kg/person per day while the lots for SWM facilities was not evaluated with respect weighted average was 0.69 kg/person per day. All to population density, land area and land use. These LGUs in the country, except Metro Manila, have a gaps need to be incorporated in the next versions of weighted average of 0.34 kg/person per day. the SWM plans, which will be submitted for approval A comparison of the 2010 rate of Metro Manila with before 2024. those presented in Table 3 showed that the per capita 4.2 WASTE COMPOSITION values obtained in 10 of the 17 LGUs of Metro Manila are still lower than 0.69 kg/person per day. These Table 3 shows the compilation of the results of the LGUs include Manila, Las Piñas, Caloocan, Pasig, WACS, which was performed primarily in 2014 and Pateros, Muntinlupa, San Juan, Valenzuela, Navotas 2015. It includes data on per capita waste generation, and Taguig. Realistically, per capita waste generation density, number of days and year when the WACS was should increase over time due to economic growth and conducted, and the basic components of recyclables, rise in consumption of resources. These values would biodegradables, residuals and hazardous and special lead to an underestimate of the waste generation. waste. The low per capita waste generation values are attributed to the implementation of the four-day, Table 3. SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF THE WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND ASSESSMENT SURVEYS (WACS) OF METRO MANILA LGUS (IN THE ORDER OF DECREASING PER CAPITA GENERATION) Metro Per Density Year Days Recyclables, Bio- Residuals Hazardous Plastics Manila Capita (kg/m3) Conducted Conducted including degradables (% and (% LGUs (kg/day) Plastics (% Weight) Weight) Special (% Weight) (% Weight) Weight) Parañaque 1.065 115 2015 7 49.74 28.36 12.37 9.52 22.72 Quezon City 0.880 266 2013 7 20.30 53.95 18.75 7.00 9.64 Malabon 0.833 127 2014 3 22.10 41.94 28.71 7.25 26.53 Marikina 0.804 126 2014 4 41.17 40.69 10.85 7.29 15.41 Makati 0.773 No Data 2018 4 39.28 43.91 15.84 0.97 20.56 Mandaluyong 0.728 286 2014 4 32.00 46.00 8.00 14.00 23.2 Pasay City 0.673 141 2014 9 42.68 40.75 6.22 10.35 21.95 Manila 0.607 153 2015 4 32.21 49.88 5.13 12.78 17.75 Las Piñas 0.569 No Data 2014 4 32.85 39.19 14.98 12.98 15.37 Caloocan 0.508 225 2015 3 24.04 48.60 25.53 1.83 No Data Pasig 0.450 145 2014 4 40.90 43.99 3.90 11.21 18.79 Pateros 0.443 109 2014 4 42.44 35.81 15.70 6.05 20.46 Muntinlupa 0.417 158 2011 7 47.94 43.35 8.34 0.37 26.53 San Juan 0.404 No Data 2014 4 40.45 44.18 7.38 7.98 20.96 Valenzuela 0.310 33 2012 4 38.00 46.00 15.00 1.00 20.00 Navotas 0.297 97 2015 4 39.03 40.56 9.97 10.44 19.37 Taguig 0.265 No Data 2015 4 46.93 40.33 5.39 7.35 23.58 28 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila non-consecutive day period instead of the usual in planning collection and disposal for LGUs and will seven-day continuous period for the WACS. The directly affect payment of tipping fees once weigh four-day WACS was performed in 13 of the 17 LGUs. bridges are installed in the designated disposal facilities. Only Quezon City, Muntinlupa, Parañaque City and Accordingly, density should be properly determined Pasay City employed the standard seven-day duration in all LGUs during the next waste surveys. for waste characterization. The shorter period would The recyclables include plastics, metal, glass and paper, lead to the averaging of all available per capita values, and range in weight percentage from 20.3 percent including the low ones. The longer period allows the in Quezon City to 49.74 percent in Parañaque. The judicial use of what are considered representative higher percentages of recyclables were recorded at values. The WACs results in each of the plans did LGUs with predominant commercial and business not indicate the statistical treatment of potential low, establishments like Parañaque, Muntinlupa, Taguig, outlying values for the per capita generation, which Pasay City, Marikina, Pasig, San Juan, Makati and the could have affected the results. small municipality of Pateros. Considering the predominantly urban character The lowest percentage of recyclables were recorded in of Metro Manila, the range in the per capita waste Caloocan and Quezon City, which have the largest land generation should be higher and needs to be rectified areas and highest population densities, and correspond by conducting another seven-day period WACS. to the main residential areas of Metro Manila. Waste densities obtained from the WACS exhibited a The last column of Table 3 shows the percentage wide range from 33 kg/m3 in Valenzuela to 286 kg/m3 of plastics with respect to the total weight of waste in Mandaluyong. The values obtained for Valenzuela, generation. The LGUs with comparatively higher Navotas and Pateros are deemed low and unrealistic percentages of plastics include Malabon, Muntinlupa, considering that the biodegradable components of Taguig, Mandaluyong and Parañaque. With the the waste from these LGUs is significant. The average exception of Malabon, which has a fish-based industry, density of the Metro Manila LGUs—without considering the rest of the LGUs have established major commercial the very low values obtained from Valenzuela, Navotas centers within their respective domains. and Pateros—is 174 kg/m3. Waste density is important Figure 3. PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT OF THE MAJOR WASTE COMPONENTS ACROSS METRO MANILA LGUS Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 29 Figure 4. AVERAGE WASTE COMPOSITION OF METRO MANILA Hazardous & Plastics Special Waste Other Recyclables 7.55% Plastic & Other Recyclables Residuals 37.18% 12.47% Biodegradables 42.79% Figure 3 shows the waste composition of the different LGUs of Metro Manila. Although there is no current LGUs. available WACS data, it is inferred that there will be The biodegradables include kitchen waste, wood, yard a progressive increase in the quantity of potential waste and other organics. This component ranges recyclables and special waste and a decline in the from 28.36 percent of the weight in Parañaque and quantity of biodegradables. This is due to a continuing 53.95 percent in Quezon City. shift toward the urban lifestyle, changes in consumption habits and resource utilization, increased packaging The residuals consist of textiles, rubber, leather, and the development of the manufacturing sector, fiberglass and other inorganic materials. The available WACS data did not indicate the composition of the which tends to use potentially recyclable materials. inorganic materials, which could potentially include Of the seven major plastic types, only three were non-recyclable plastics. This component ranges from consistently reported as a composite percentage in the 3.9 percent of the weight in Pasig to 28.71 percent WACS results. These are Polyethylene Terephthalate in Malabon. (PET), High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and polyvinyl The hazardous and special waste component ranges chloride (PVC). These types of plastic command better from 0.37 percent in Muntinlupa to 14 percent in prices in junkshops. The other plastic types include Mandaluyong. low density polyethylene (LDPE), Polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS) and polycarbonates, which are usually The average waste composition of Metro Manila is presented in Figure 4. The plastic components lumped with other inorganic materials as residual waste. correspond to 54 percent of the potentially recyclable Future WACS should include the identification and materials and 20 percent of the total waste generation, quantification of all plastics components. indicating both a high potential for recycling as well as for sources of pollution if not properly managed. Table 4. The major waste components of Metro Manila are WASTE COMPOSITION OF METRO MANILA AND THE NATIONAL AVERAGE significantly different from the national average reported in the National Solid Waste Management Status Report Major Waste National Metro Manila [2008-2018]10 (see Table 4). The biodegradables of Metro Components Average (%) Average (%) Manila are lower by 10 percent while the recyclables are Biodegradables 52.31 42.79 higher by 10 percent. The special and hazardous wastes Recyclables 27.78 37.18 are also higher in Metro Manila. These differences are Residual 17.98 12.47 attributed to the highly urbanized condition of the 17 Special and 1.93 7.55 10 Prepared by the NSWMC. Hazardous 30 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila 4.3 WASTE GENERATION tpd of waste. These LGUs have larger populations compared to the rest of Metro Manila. The next 11 Table 5 presents the waste generation projection of LGUs have waste generation rates greater than 200 Metro Manila from 2020 to 202511. Current generation tpd, as of 2020. The small waste generators—Pateros, is around 9,500 tpd. This is expected to reach nearly San Juan and Navotas—have lower populations than 10,400 tpd by 2025, translating to an increase of 9 the rest of the Metro Manila LGUs and each generate percent over five years. The projection utilized a fixed less than 100 tpd of waste. per capita waste generation of 0.678 kg/per person over a six-year period. In practice, waste generation The projected annual waste generation and population projection utilizes an increasing per capita waste of Metro Manila is shown in Figure 5. Aside from generation based on results of previous WACS and population, waste generation is also driven by increased on the GDP of the region. Accordingly, the projected economic activity. At 5.8 percent GDP, Metro Manila waste generation is deemed underestimated and must ranked third nationwide in real, per capita GDP— be updated. behind the Bicol Region and Ilocos Region. It had The big waste generators include Quezon City, Manila the highest per capita index12 at 253.2 in 2019, which and Caloocan—each of which generate over 1,000 is more than twice the national average13. Table 5. PROJECTED DAILY WASTE GENERATION OF METRO MANILA FROM 2020 TO 2025 (IN THE ORDER OF DECREASING GENERATION) Metro Manila LGUs Projected Daily Waste Generation (tons) 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Quezon City 2,851 2,908 2,966 3,025 3,085 3,146 Caloocan 1,222 1,246 1,270 1,295 1,321 1,347 Manila 1,129 1,138 1,147 1,156 1,165 1,174 Parañaque 757 777 797 818 839 861 Makati 506 513 520 527 535 542 Pasig 414 425 436 448 460 472 Marikina 392 395 399 403 407 410 Las Piñas 361 366 371 377 382 388 Mandaluyong 318 325 332 339 347 354 Malabon 311 313 314 316 317 319 Pasay City 308 311 314 317 320 324 Muntinlupa 299 305 311 316 322 328 Taguig 260 269 279 289 299 310 Valenzuela 215 219 222 226 229 233 Navotas 76 76 77 77 78 78 San Juan 49 50 50 50 50 52 Pateros 29 29 30 30 30 30 Total 9,498 9,664 9,834 10,008 10,186 10,368 Source: NSWMC, Projected Waste Generation from 2020 to 2025. 12 A measure of the amount of money earned per person in a nation or geographic region. 11 Source: NSWMC, Projected Waste Generation from 2020 to 13 Source, Philippine Statistics Authority, https://psa.gov.ph/grdp/ 2025, grdp-id/163299 Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 31 Figure 5. POPULATION AND WASTE GENERATION OF METRO MANILA FROM 2020 TO 2025 4.4 WASTE DIVERSION The recovery is driven by the financial gain, no matter how small, which can be attained from the sale or Rule VII, Section 7 of the Implementing Rules and trading of recyclable materials. The same conclusion Regulations (IRR ) of RA 9003 requires all LGUs to was reached by the 2008 JICA study on recycling in attain a minimum of 25 percent diversion by 2006, with the Philippines. The study noted the major role played progressive increases every three years. Diversion, as by the informal sector—particularly in the recovery defined in the IRR, refers to all activities that reduce of recyclables. These conditions greatly affect the the amount of solid waste deposited into disposal segregation of SUPs, which have limited value in the facilities. To attain the progressively increasing diversion current market and innate low density, precluding the target, all SWM plans encourage waste generators to accumulation of an economically significant amount of practice the 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle recyclables) said materials. The 2020 Market Study for Philippines: and to undertake composting of biodegradables, Plastic Circularity Opportunities and Barriers established where practicable. the preferential recovery of PET, PP and HDPE over LDPE and linear low-density polyethylene LLDPE from 4.4.1 Diversion of Recyclables municipal solid waste. In Metro Manila, potentially recyclable materials First Level Recovery generated at households, institutions and commercial establishments typically go through four levels of This level entails the recovery of good quality recyclables sorting and recovery before reaching the junkshops at the generators’ level. Recovered materials include or consolidators and recyclers. As shown in Figure 2, glass bottles, PET bottles from juices and mineral the recovery of recyclables takes place at source (Level water, aluminum cans from sodas and cooking oils at 1), at MRFs and MRS of barangays and at drop-off households, carton boxes and packaging materials at points for collection (Level 2), at collection vehicles commercial establishments, and paper at institutions of LGU-managed collection vehicles (Level 3) and at and schools. The recovery of recyclables at high disposal sites (Level 4). The consistent progression from income residences is usually performed by the helpers. Level 1 to Level 4 indicates the incomplete recovery The recovery of the recyclables at the medium and of recyclables, particularly in Level 2 where the waste low-income residences are usually performed by goes through established facilities and systems for household owners or occupants. The output of the the recovery of the recyclables. first level segregation is not usually captured in the 32 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Table 6. BUYING PRICE OF RECYCLABLES AT JUNKSHOPS Recyclables Price Range (PhP) Paper 2 to 3 Carton 4 to 5 PET/PP 8 to 10 Hard plastic 14 to 15 Junkshops refer to warehouse-type structures made up of permanent or light materials where Soda cans 7 to 8 recyclables are purchased, re-sorted and baled Tin can 2 to 3 for subsequent sale to consolidators and recyclers. Metal 10 to 12 WACS conducted for LGUs.14 The quantity of recovered enroute to the disposal facilities. The collected materials recyclables is limited by the storage availability at correspond to the mixed and partially segregated waste the households, commercial establishments and picked up from the collection routes. The recovered institutions. The bulk of the recovered materials are recyclables are usually dropped off by the truck drivers sold to junkshops or to ambulant buyers, and only to junkshops located along the roads leading to the a small fraction like large glass bottles and plastic disposal sites. jugs are reused. SUPs are generally not recovered Fourth Level Recovery and are considered as residuals. Data on the areas of the junkshops in 16 of the 17 LGUs is not available. This is performed by pickers at the two designated In Malabon, the floor area of junkshops ranges from disposal sites in Rizal Province and at the transfer 20 to 370 m2. Table 6 shows the typical buying price station of the Navotas Sanitary Landfill in Pier 18, range of the recyclables in junkshops.15 Manila. Second Level Recovery In practice and based on interviews, the recyclables Recovery at the first level is not thorough and omits acquired by the junkshops from the four levels of most of the recyclables within the remaining waste recovery are sorted and classified anew prior to sale materials. These materials are subjected to a second and delivery to the consolidators. This final process round of sorting and recovery outside of the confines also generates residuals, which are also collected of the waste generators by: (1) mobile waste pickers under the existing system of the LGUs. who go through the bags or containers of mixed waste The informal sector plays a major role in the recovery or partially segregated waste at drop off points; (2) of recyclables in all four levels. Potentially, this sector barangay designated collectors who perform the could provide the skilled labor for any proposed facility sorting at mobile containers or pushcarts and deliver that will be established to increase recovery of plastics the recyclables directly to the junkshops; and (3) and other recyclables. MRF workers who sift through the segregated waste The plastics recovered at all levels include mainly PET, collected by the barangays from households. The PP and HDPE, which are preferred by the junkshops. materials recovered at this level comprise the bulk of the recyclables sold to junkshops. Based on interviews of several junkshop operators in Quezon City, straws, styrofoam, sachets and other SUPs Third Level Recovery are not accepted. These materials will be most likely This level of recovery is performed on waste loaded missed during collection, disposed of improperly and into the trucks of the LGUs and private haulers while could find their way into waterways. The preference for higher value plastics was also confirmed in the 14 The WACS process entails the placement and collection of all waste generated daily at source. As observed and in practice, Market Study for the Philippines: Plastics Circularity waste generators do not include the recyclables they recovered Opportunities and Barriers. The study estimated the during the WACS survey due to economic reasons. following percentages of recovery for four plastic types, 15 Prices based on interviews of ambulant waste pickers that sell recyclables to Quezon City junkshops. which range from 48 percent for PET, 30 percent for Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 33 PP, 30 percent HDPE and 10 percent for LLDPE/LDPE. rest of the LGUs perform small-sale composting in The Top 10 survey results recovered the following their respective MRFs. plastic materials from the channel of the Pasig River: There is no available data indicating the quantity of noodle wrappers, polystyrene pieces, sando bags, biodegradables that has been processed into compost. snack wrappers, drink wrappers, candy wrappers, PCP plastics and PET bottles.16 4.4.3 Infrastructures for Waste Diversion Collection and disposal of the residuals, including The primary government-mandated infrastructure low-value plastics left out during the second level of for the recovery of recyclables and processing of recovery and at junkshops, are not monitored. This biodegradables is the MRF. As required under Part condition contributes to the leaks in the collection III, Rule XI, Section 1 of RA 9003, all barangays must system and aggravates the plastic pollution in waterways establish their own MRFs. Out of the 1,710 barangays and water bodies within and around the Metro Manila of Metro Manila, only 334 or about 20 percent have LGUs. their own MRFs. See Box 1 for details on basic vs. The physical condition of the recovered plastics from mechanized MRFs. the four levels are inherently different due to the A typical MRF is a small shed or warehouse-type building variable conditions during retrieval from the waste with concrete-paved floor where space is available for stream. Good recyclables are usually recovered at the receipt and manual or mechanized processing of source. Due to limited practice of segregation at source segregated or mixed municipal solid waste. source, the recyclables recovered at Level 2, Level The floor area of a typical barangay MRF varies from 3 and Level 4 usually come from mixed waste. This 20 to 100 m2 and can usually accommodate sorting condition affects the quality of the plastics sold to the of recyclables and composting. junkshops and, ultimately, to the consolidators and recyclers. The Market Study reported the challenges MRFs that accept both biodegradables and recyclables recyclers face in sourcing high-quality plastics due to have separate processing and storage areas. Processing high contamination rates and the presence of organic of the recyclables entails the separation, weighing materials. and storage of plastics, metals, paper and carton for There is no available data for the quantity of recyclables subsequent sale to junkshops. that have been separated from the waste stream Processing of biodegradables initially starts with and eventually sold to junkshops, consolidators and shredding, using hammermills. Depending on the recyclers. size of the MRF and the available equipment, the shredded materials could be treated in any of the 4.4.2 Diversion of Biodegradables following methods: In the LGUs of Metro Manila, biodegradables generally 1. Placement in windrows or stockpiles, which consist of food waste, kitchen waste, peelings of fruits are aerated or mixed regularly until compost and vegetables, market waste and occasionally garden is generated. waste and tree cuttings. Given the urban character and limited space, the biodegradables of most LGUs 2. Placement in concrete or wooden bins, are reduced or processed through a combination which are aerated regularly until compost is of the following: (1) feeding of unused food to pets generated. and animals; (2) backyard composting usually in pots 3. Placement in electric powered rotating bins or and cans; (3) burial; and (4) small-scale composting bioreactors for at least 24 hours followed by in barangay and centralized MRFs. Composting is curing until the materials turn into compost. generally performed using the rotating bin method. 4. Placement of shredded biodegradables in Mandaluyong City and Pasay City process their elevated beds filled with worms that will biodegradables into compost in their respective offsite breakdown materials into vermicast. facilities in Morong, a municipality in Rizal province Due to limited space, waste processing temporarily located about 25 kilometers to the southeast. The stops or is reduced when the MRFs are filled up with sorted recyclables or processed biodegradables. Sorting 16 Source: Project Status Report, Microplastic and Plastic Field Surveys on Pasig River, Philippines. and composting resumes when the recyclables are 34 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila BOX 1. BASIC VS. MECHANIZED OR AUTOMATED MRFs Basic MRFs that process recyclables are equipped with Mechanized or automated MRFs utilize a combination weighing scales and sorting tables. Shredders are providers of trommel screens, conveyor belt systems, air classifiers for facilities that process biodegradables. Processing of and metal separators. Shredders and rotating bins are waste is done manually in most barangay MRFs. Facilities that used for processing the segregated biodegradables. utilize conveyor systems are referred to as semi-automated Considering the required equipment and trained manpower, MRFs. Processing of waste at manual or non-mechanized mechanized MRFS are more expensive than manual MRFs. MRFs utilize manual labor. These MRFs can process more waste compared to the non-mechanized MRFs. sold to the junkshops or when the processing time Aside from the five MRFs in Pasig, this LGU also hosts of the biodegradables has been attained. This can a mechanized MRF that can process non-segregated be addressed through proper management of the mixed waste. The facility is operated by IPM MRFs. Operationally, there should be a fast turnover of Environmental Services, Inc., through a contract that the sorted and baled recyclables to the junkshops to is renewed annually with the city. Reportedly, it can allow continuous facility operation. Depending on the process 2,000 m3 of waste per day. The contract of incoming waste from the host barangay, the capacity IPM Environmental Services, Inc. with Pasig ended in of the MRF could be increased through expansion February 2021. The new contractor, Eco-Waste, will also of its area. Income from the sale of the recyclables is build its own mechanized MRF similar to the facility that divided among the MRF personnel. Accordingly, only was previously operated by IPM. The annual renewal limited personnel are engaged by the barangays. of the solid waste collection and waste processing If an MRF also processes biodegradables, the use contract in Pasig prevents the sustained operation of rotating bin technology is recommended. This and recovery of investments from any contractor for technology facilitates the processing and production the mechanized MRF. Based on the interview with of compost in a shorter time period compared to SWM staff of Pasig, the LGU prefers an arrangement the conventional windrows method. The rotating bin where the contractor construction and operation of technology requires a higher operational cost, which a mechanized MRF does not require any expense on should ideally be offset by revenues generated from the part of the government. the sale of the compost and recyclables. The gap in the number of required barangay MRFs EMB-NCR funded the construction of 130 of the existing is partially attributable to the limited and expensive 334 MRFs. Each of these government funded MRFs have lots in the highly urbanized and densely populated a floor area of 50 m2. 14 of these MRFs process both LGUs of Metro Manila. recyclable and biodegradable waste. The remaining The recovery and trading of recyclables is also done 116 process only recyclable waste. Data on the nature at the private sector through the junkshops. Currently, of waste processed in the 204 barangay-constructed there are at least 1,268 junkshops in Metro Manila. MRFs is not available. These facilities sort, pack and sell recyclables to Metro Manila has 13 centralized MRFs that process consolidators or directly to recycling companies. The waste from the central section of the LGUs and nearby recyclables include paper, carton, metals, glass bottles barangays. These are operated by the following LGUs: and plastics such as PET, HDPE and PP. Caloocan (1), Mandaluyong (1), Marikina (1), Muntinlupa In the absence of MRFs, the barangays of Metro (2), Parañaque (1), Pasay City (1) and Pasig (6). These Manila entered into agreements with the junkshops facilities range in size from 200 to 1,000 m2 and are in their respective jurisdictions for the direct sale of used mainly for composting. Caloocan intends to use segregated waste recovered by sorting at mobile its central MRF as the redemption center for its planned vehicles like pushcarts by barangay designated cash to trash program. Marikina uses its central MRF personnel or eco-aides. This arrangement is referred both for recovery of recyclables and for composting. to as the MRS. In a barangay, the MRS utilizes several Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 35 pushcarts or manual tricycles for collection and recovery facilities. These facilities melt the plastics and turn them of recyclables. Each vehicle is operated by one barangay into pellets that can be used to manufacture other designated eco-aide. plastic products. Other than the initial generation of pellets, this study has no other data on the additional Under the MRS, the payment for recyclables is reportedly products and processes of the recycling facilities in kept by the designated barangay personnel to augment Valenzuela. their small income. Evidently, the intention of the barangay is to provide additional revenue to some The large number of plastic recycling facilities in of its employees. The residuals, which were left out Valenzuela is attributed to the historical preference after the recovery of the recyclables, are reportedly of recyclers to establish their facilities in the said delivered by pushcarts to the designated locations LGU, which has persisted to this day. This could be within the LGU where they will be picked up by the attributed to the local availability of skilled workers collection crew. At present, there are about 1,022 who have experience in recycling. barangays that use the MRS to collect, sort and sell The distribution of the central MRFs, barangay MRFs, recyclables to junkshops without the use of a fixed MRS and recycling facilities among the 17 LGUs of sorting or storage facility. Metro Manila is presented in Table 7. Manila, which The central MRFs and the barangay MRFs are not has 897 small barangays, has only three MRFs that are included in the MRS system. complemented by 642 MRS arrangements with the junkshops. Caloocan has 20 barangay MRFs and 120 Recovery of recyclables through the MRS is usually MRS for its 188 barangays. Quezon City has 61 MRFs and performed at designated waste collection points in front 84 MRS for its 142 barangays. The dense population of of households and establishments, on the pushcarts Manila and the small land areas of barangays precluded and on other mobile equipment where they place the the establishment of the required MRFs and led to waste enroute to the junkshops. Given the limited the development of more MRS. Although Caloocan time and space for proper segregation, the quality of and Quezon City have large land areas, it has been recovered recyclables though MRS is expected to vary. utilized mostly for residential purposes, limiting the Under the MRS, the residuals—including SUPs that lots available for MRFs and favoring the development remained during the sorting process while enroute to of MRS arrangements with junkshops. the junkshops—could potentially be left out during As previously cited, the MRS arrangement could be the actual waste collection process. Monitoring of enhanced to increase recovery of recyclables while the placement and collection of the residuals at the the limited MRFs could be expanded to increase designated locations is not performed by the barangays. processing capacity. This practice contributes to the leak in the collection Pasay City has 156 MRFs and 45 MRS for its 201 system that could pollute the waterways with plastics. barangays. Based on information provided by Notwithstanding the issues on quality of recyclables, EMB-NCR, the MRFs of Pasay City correspond to the absence of revenue for the barangays from the sale very small facilities with areas ranging from 5 to 10 of these recyclables and the potential non-collection of m2 that basically serve as storage for the recovered residuals, the large number of the MRS arrangements recyclables. Where space permits, the small MRFs of presents an opportunity for increased recovery of adjacent barangays can be replaced by a larger facility recyclables and waste within the LGUs through to optimize the recovery of recyclables. Unfortunately, enhancement of the system. This could be done data on the actual capacities of the MRFs and MRS through the deployment of additional pushcarts, training are not available. designated personnel on reporting and monitoring, Muntinlupa, Pasig, San Juan and Taguig also have and ensuring that residuals are properly collected. limited numbers of MRFs and each have one MRS. Institutions like schools, offices and commercial Based on interviews and on the existing 10-Year SWM establishments have their respective programs for Plans, only three cities intend to build additional MFs: the recovery of recyclables and subsequent sale to Muntinlupa, Pasig, and San Juan. junkshops. According to the SWM head of Muntinlupa, the current Among the Metro Manila LGUs, only Valenzuela (90+) number of MRFs in the LGU will be complemented and Malabon (2) have established plastic recycling by a single MRS. Pasig, which has five central MRFs, 36 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Table 7. DISTRIBUTION OF WASTE DIVERSION FACILITIES IN METRO MANILA LGU No. of No. of No. No. MRFs No, of Junkshops Recycling Barangays Central of of + MRS Barangays – Facility MRF MRFs MRS (MRFs + MRS)) Pasay City 201 1 156 45 201 0 39 None Quezon City 142  0 61 84 145 0 273 None Caloocan 188 1 20 120 140 48 86 None Taguig 28  0 19 1 20 8 114 None Pasig 30 5 17 1 18 12 69 None Malabon 21  0 12 10 22 0 28 2 Makati 33  0 10 16 26 7 33 None Marikina 16 1 7   7 9 34 None Muntinlupa 9 2 7 1 8 1 25 None Parañaque 16 1 7 8 15 1 72 None Navotas 18  0 4 14 18 0 22 None Valenzuela 33  0 4 29 33 0 280 90+ Manila 897  0 3 642 645 252 62 None San Juan 21  0 3 1 4 17 10 None Las Piñas 20  0 2 18 20 0 52 None Mandaluyong 27 1 2 27 29 0 58 None Pateros 10  0 1 9 10 0 11 None Total 1,710 12 335 1,026 1,361 355 1,268 92+ NOTES: A barangay MRF serves as a waste processing facility for waste generated in that particular political unit. A centralized MRF processes waste from the población or main barangay of the LGU, including those from adjacent barangays. It is comparatively bigger than a barangay MRF. MRS refers to the memorandum of understanding between a barangay and a junkshop wherein the recyclables recovered from barangay waste collection are directly sold to the junkshop The MRS is implemented in barangays without the MRF. Recovery of recyclables is performed at mobile vehicles, such as pushcarts, by the barangay-designated eco-aide or personnel. The recycling gap refers to the potential quantity of recyclables that were not recovered under Level 2 through the established MRFs and MRs arrangements with the junkshops. These recyclables are sorted at the collection vehicles under Level 3 and at disposal sites under Level 4. currently has a privately-operated mechanized MRF respectively defined and appropriated. Marikina does that can process 2,000 m3 of waste per day. Based on not have an MRS arrangement with junkshops and the interview with the CENRO-designate of San Juan, prefers to utilize its centralized MRF and existing the LGU plans to build additional MRFs. barangay MRFs for the recovery of recyclables. LGUs that plan to build additional MRFs need to While a limited number of MRFs can facilitate better consider the current capacities of the existing facilities sorting and recovery of the recyclables, the significantly and MRS (if present), the actual waste generation and greater number of MRS of the barangays could be collection of the host barangay or cluster of barangays, improved through a combination of better pushcarts updated WACS and available space and funds. Based or mobile vehicles and monitoring of the disposal of on interviews and the review of the 10-Year SWM residuals and the quantity of recovered recyclables plans, the timetable and funding for the new MRFs through the use of portable weighing scales. An for Muntinlupa, Pasig, and San Juan have not been improved MRS can complement the limited capacity Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 37 and coverage of the MRFs. This assumes that each MRF and Level 4 is referred to, in this assessment, as the or MRS can process and segregate recyclables in each recycling gap. If there are sufficient and efficiently of the served barangays. On paper, and assuming that operated MRFs and MRS, then the recycling gap would the MRS and MRFs can process all of the recyclables in be significantly reduced and the unsanitary practice their respective barangays, the combination of MRFs and of sorting at collection vehicles and disposal sites will MRS arrangements would reduce the MRF requirement also be reduced, if not completely stopped. of Metro Manila to 355. In Caloocan, Quezon City, Malabon, Muntinlupa, Parañaque, Navotas, Valenzuela, 4.4.4 Programs for Plastic Waste Management Las Piñas, Mandaluyong and Pateros, this combination Aside from existing diversion facilities and systems, essentially matches the number of barangays. Manila various programs for recycling of plastics are currently has the largest need for more MRFs or MRS at 252. implemented and/or planned in most of the LGUs In reality, the outputs of the MRS and the MRFs are of Metro Manila, mainly in coordination with the not known and cannot be properly evaluated. These private sector as shown in Table 8. These programs facilities, which recover the bulk of the recyclables in the vary in coverage from the entire city as in Malabon, SWM systems under Level 2, are unable to process all Mandaluyong, Manila, Marikina, Muntinlupa, Pasig the waste as evidenced by the recovery of recyclables and Valenzuela and in select barangays as in Las Piñas, at waste collection vehicles and disposal facilities. The Makati, Navotas and Parañaque. amount of recyclables that are recovered at Level 3 Table 8. FEATURES OF THE PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS OF METRO MANILA LGUS LGU Plastic Waste Diversion Programs Current/Planned Plastic Source Caloocan City plans to implement a trash to cash program to encourage segregation Entire LGU and trading of SUPs for equivalent product or food item. LGU still looking for company to support said program. This is a small-scale undertaking that needs to be supported. Las Piñas Villar Foundation has a facility in Barangay Ilya that makes chairs from SUPs. The Select barangays plastics are shredded, washed, dried, melted and molded into school chairs. The chairs are donated to different schools in various parts of the country. Makati Eco bricks from sachets are made at the existing MRF at Barangay East Rembo. Single barangay Malabon Malabon started implementing the May Kita sa Basura Program in 2014, where Entire LGU plastics and other recyclables are sold to the members of the National Recyclers Organization of the Philippines (NROP). The purchased items include paper, PET, plastic containers, thin plastic bags, styrofoam, tires and car batteries. The Robinson’s Mall serves as the venue for the sale of these recyclables. Mandaluyong Mandaluyong has an on-going program which utilizes plastics for brick making, Entire LGU Bricks used on various pavement projects of the LGU. Manila Plastic Credit Exchange (PCEX), together with Manila and with support from Entire LGU PepsiCo Foundation, established the Aling Tindera Waste to Cash Program in 2020. It uses the women-owned sari-sari stores as redemption centers for plastic sachets, wrappers and other SUPs. PCEX provides each store with a 20-foot container, one manual baler donated by the PepsiCo Foundation and starting capital. The baled plastic within the filled-up container is purchased with the help of PCEX by a partner company that processes these materials using envi- ronmentally sound technologies. The actual extent of this program is not known. Marikina The central MRF uses a combination of used cooking oil, Styrofoam and plastic Entire LGU bags to make decorative bricks for pavements and benches.   Muntinlupa In coordination with the city, an NGO collects SUPs through redemption centers Entire LGU in every barangay. Instead of cash or goods, a competition is regularly held to award barangays with the largest volume of collected plastics. The soft plastics are used as components for brick making. The rest of the plastics are collected by the NGO. 38 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila LGU Plastic Waste Diversion Programs Current/Planned Plastic Source Navotas Palit bigas and grocery program is implemented in two barangays. Plastics (PET, Select barangays PVC, HDPE) are traded for rice and grocery items in the barangay MRFs. The program is funded by the two barangays. Traded plastics are sold by barangays to junkshops. Parañaque Under the Zero Plastic Project, all types of plastics from schools and Schools and homeowners’ associations are collected by the city, brought to the central MRF Homeowners for processing and used for reinforced polytrade and as brick components. Associations Pasay City Currently, the city has no existing program regarding SUPs. The city is still Not applicable looking for partners to implement a program on SUPs. Pasig Implements recovery of recyclables via Mobile Recyclable Redemption using its Entire LGU own funds where recyclables, including plastic, are replaced with grocery items. In barangay Ugong, bags and slippers are produced from plastic juice pouches (Zest-O) through the Kababaihan Iisa ang Layunin Umunlad ang Sambayanan (KILUS) Foundation, Inc. The bags were exhibited in the April 2002 international trade fair organized by the Center for International Trade and Exposition Mission.  Pateros Planning to implement a project involving trading SUPs for groceries and other Entire LGU food items; looking for a private partner, but search is hampered by the amount of waste required by manufacturers. Quezon Currently, the city has no existing program regarding SUPs. Its junkshops are Not applicable included in the Linis Ganda Program, which accepts low-value, SUPs. San Juan Currently, the city has no existing program regarding SUPs. Not applicable Taguig Ayala Land built its pilot Arca South recycling plant in Taguig where plastics Ayala Malls in are shredded and mixed with sand, cement and gravel. Its partner, Green Quezon City, Makati Antz Builders, uses these materials to produce eco bricks, eco pavers and eco and Taguig casts, among others. Ayala Land buys these products and uses them for its construction projects. Taguig has an ongoing self-funded program that entails the construction of a centralized recovery facility with an area of 2,000 m2. Source segregated waste is collected from the households by designated eco-aides. The recovered recyclables are offered for sale to the junkshops. The residuals, which include plastics not accepted by the junkshops, are delivered to the facility for processing into bricks and chairs. Valenzuela The LGU has implemented the May Balik sa Plastic Program with Nestle Entire LGU since 2019. Laminates and SUPs are traded for Nestle products at barangay redemption centers. The collected plastics are brought to a baling station in Barangay Dalandanan where they are shredded. These plastics are taken by Republic Cement who has a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Nestle. Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 39 The most common program on plastic waste The cooperative of the junkshops in Metro Manila known management in barangays is the production of as Linis Ganda has its own program on plastic waste chairs and bricks. The technology involved is not management. This is implemented in coordination complicated and can easily be done at the barangay with Unilever and Tetra Pak Philippines. Under this level. In sequence, the recovered plastics are shredded, program, participating junkshops reportedly purchase washed, dried, melted and molded into designed parts sachets, plastic bags, and other single-use packaging of chairs. The various parts can then be assembled to from different barangays in Quezon City, Valenzuela form the corresponding chairs. Shredded plastics are and Parañaque. These plastics are then brought to also used as components in making bricks. a facility in Valenzuela to produce chairs. The actual In support of this method of diversion, and to increase number of junkshops currently participating in this composting, the office of the EMB-NCR provided 14 program is not known. This program could still be LGUs of Metro Manila with a set of equipment for the expanded as the network of junkshops has already operation of a small plastic chair factory, a composter been established. and a shredder. The recipient LGU is required to provide Similar LGU-wide programs with the assistance of an area of at least 200 m2 for the factory and 100 m2 private companies include the May Kita sa Basura for composting. Pateros, Makati and Mandaluyong of Malabon, Aling Tindera Waste to Cash Program, were not included in the grant. Aling Tindera Waste to Cash Program of Manila, Zero The chair and brick program needs the following for Plastic Project of Parañaque and the May Balik sa sustained implementation: Plastic Program of Valenzuela. 1. Funds for the purchase of the low-value plastics The trading and/or purchase of SUPs can be potentially and the operation of the facility. implemented in the other 14 LGUs of Metro Manila by adopting the models used in Valenzuela, Malabon and 2. A market for the chairs and the bricks. The Manila. The LGUs can take the lead by working out current outputs are normally donated to arrangements with the manufacturing companies and schools and utilized within the barangays. A providing the necessary facilities and organizational study is needed to assess the marketability support to expedite the recovery of plastics. of these products outside the barangays or LGUs where these are produced. Such a study All the existing programs and projects of the LGUs, needs to look into the durability and design NGOs and the private sector entail the recovery of of the chairs and the suitability of the bricks the single use and less valuable plastics for one or a for infrastructure projects. combination of the following purposes: 3. It should not be operated as a stand-alone • Sale or trade for goods of the manufacturing program and should be integrated with the companies recovery and sale of major recyclable materials. • Manufacturing of bricks or chairs, or production While the LGUs and the government focused on chair of bags and brick production from SUPs, the private sector • Sale to cement factories as fuel has also played a role in plastic waste management. Considering the low density of these materials, the The manufacturing companies supporting plastic weight of the materials and the equivalent payment waste management program of LGUs include Nestle for the recovered plastics would not be significant. Philippines Inc., Unilever Philippines, Coca-Cola Bottlers, A good market for the bricks, bags and chairs needs Philippines Inc. and Tetra Pak Philippines, among others. to be identified and developed. These companies utilize plastics in their products and have their respective environmental programs aimed Among the LGUs, only Taguig will construct a centralized at reducing pollution and increasing circularity. facility to recover and purchase all plastic types and the more valuable recyclables like glass, metal, paper Recovery of SUPs through cash payments or trading and cartons. The good quality recyclables, including for goods of manufacturing companies is performed plastics, will be offered for sale to junkshops or recyclers in three LGUs of Metro Manila: Manila, Malabon and while the residuals, including low value plastics, will Valenzuela. be processed and made into chairs and bricks. Aside from ensuring the proper disposal of the residuals, 40 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila this facility can potentially sustain its operation via Table 9. the processing and sale of all potentially recyclable REPORTED WASTE DIVERSION RATE OF LGUS AS OF OCTOBER 2020 materials and products like bricks, bags and chairs. The more affluent cities can adopt the ongoing program LGUs % Diversion of Taguig. Caloocan 39.8 For other LGUs, plastics can be baled and stored for a Las Piñas 50.4 time and sold to cement companies for use as part of Makati 54.0 their fuel requirements. This would require significant Malabon 77.8 quantities, which could be attained by pooling the Mandaluyong 50.0 collection of several barangays or LGUs and processing Manila 33.0 the waste in large, centralized facilities. Marikina 50.0 4.4.5 Rates of Waste Diversion Muntinlupa 33.8 The rates of waste diversion of Metro Manila LGUs Navotas 59.0 compiled by MMDA are presented in Table 9. Rates Parañaque 58.4 vary from a low of 10 percent in Taguig to a high of Pasay City 58.0 77 percent in Malabon. The formula used by MMDA for estimating waste diversion is: Pasig 60.0 Pateros 30.0 Diversion Rate17 = Volume Collected / Estimated Waste Generation Quezon City 56.0 The volume collected is equal to the sum of the San Juan 21.6 Recyclables + Biodegradables + Residuals with Taguig 10.0 potential. In reality, the waste that is delivered into the Valenzuela 79.0 landfills is not separated into the cited components. Average 48.3 This method does not consider the uncollected amount and yields an overestimated diversion rate. The correct formula is: and composting of the biodegradables. The LGUs are tasked with the collection of the residual waste. Diversion Rate = With the limited resources of the barangays and the Processed Waste / Generated Waste small number of MRFs, this condition has not been Processed waste refers to the recyclables and attained in the 17 LGUs of Metro Manila. biodegradables that are removed from the waste Table 10 shows that the bulk of waste collection in stream through recycling and composting. The issue Metro Manila is now performed by the LGUs together here is the absence of data on the amount of waste with their contracted private haulers. This is done recycled and composted. along defined routes, available MRFs and designated The NSWMC has yet to come up with a memorandum locations. The frequency varies from two to three order regarding the formula to be used for determining times per week, with separate days for segregated waste diversion. biodegradables and recyclables. Daily waste collection is performed at main highways, markets and busy 4.5 WASTE COLLECTION areas of the cities. As shown in Figure 2, waste collection in Metro Manila Out of the 17 LGUs, 15 use private haulers. Valenzuela LGUs is performed through the combined effort of uses its fleet of trucks to collect waste. Collection in the barangays and LGUs. Las Piñas is performed jointly by the city government As required in RA 9003, the collection of segregated and a private contractor. The amount of collected waste is performed by the barangays who deliver waste is measured by the number of trucks of known the waste to the MRFs for segregation of recyclables volume multiplied by the number of trips made per unit time to the three designated disposal sites. 17 MMDA letter dated March 19, 2021, on waste collection cover- age and efficiency and diversion rate in Metro Manila. Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 41 Table 10. SUMMARIZED FEATURES OF WASTE COLLECTION IMPLEMENTED BY METRO MANILA LGUS (ARRANGED IN THE ORDER OF DECREASING WASTE COLLECTION) LGU Daily Coverageb Waste Collector Collectiona (m3) Quezon City 5,676 Residential and commercial areas Six private haulers: of the LGU, except Barangay 1. LEG Hauling Services Corp. Holy Spirit which operates its own 2. ACY Transport Corp. collection system 3. OMNI Hauling Services, Inc. 4. IPM Construction and Development Corp. 5. 316 Metro Transport, Inc. 6. Halrey Construction, Inc. Collection from inaccessible areas through barangay managed pushcarts Manila 5,507 Residential and commercial areas Leonel Waste Management Corp. Caloocan 4,511 Residential areas and institutions; Private hauler: International Solid Waste commercial establishments have Integrated Management Specialist, Inc. their own haulersc Parañaque 2,638 Residential and commercial areas Leonel Waste Management Corp. Makati 2,531 Residential and commercial areas Private hauler: International Solid Waste Integrated Management Specialist, Inc.; Six affluent barangays have their own private collectors Marikina 2,260 Residential and commercial areas LGU Marikina Taguig 1,708 Residential and commercial areas Two private haulers: Leonel Waste Management Corporation and IPM Environmental Services, Inc. Valenzuela 1,522 Residential and commercial areas LGU Valenzuela Pasig 1,433 Residential and commercial areas Private hauler: IPM Environmental Services, Inc with support from e-collectors of the city; IPM was replaced by Eco-Waste in February 2021 Muntinlupa 1,234 Residential and commercial areas Private hauler: IPM Environmental Services, Inc Pasay City 938 Residential and commercial areas Two private haulers: IPM Environmental Services, Inc, and International Solid Waste Integrated Management Specialist, Inc. Malabon 826 Residential and commercial areas Private hauler: Leonel in combination with barangay managed collection of recyclables using pushcarts Navotas 641 Residential and commercial areas LGU Navotas Las Piñas 637 Residential and commercial areas LGU Las Piñas and private hauler: L.E.G. Hauling Services Corporation San Juan 581 Residential and commercial areas Two private haulers: Dominus Construction and of the LGU, except barangay Services Corporation, International Solid Waste Greenhills which has its own Integrated Management Specialist, Inc. garbage haulerd Mandaluyong 98 Residential areas and institutions; Private hauler: IPM Environmental Services, Inc commercial establishments have their own haulers Pateros 75 Residential and commercial areas Leonel Waste Management Corp. Total 33,017     a Source: MMDA Solid Waste Management Office. b There is no available data to indicate where the waste collected by haulers, other than those contracted by the LGUs, are delivered. c Data on the amount of waste collected from commercial establishments of Caloocan is not available. d Data on the amount of waste collected from Barangay Greenhills is not available. 42 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila The cities of Caloocan, Manila and Quezon have residuals from MRS and junkshops at designated the largest daily collection volumes at 4,511, 5,507 locations. These loses are not quantified, but are and 5,676 m3, respectively. Pateros has the smallest manifested by the presence of litter in streets, vacant collection rate of 75 m3 per day. Based on a 10-month lots and in waterways, particularly during flood events. average from January to October 2020, about 33,000 With the knowledge that collection gaps occur in m3 of waste is collected on a daily basis from all Metro depressed areas that are not reached by either the Manila LGUs. Using the average density of 174 kg/m3 barangay or LGU-managed collection, the logical (based on limited WACS data), the collected waste approach is to determine actual vehicular access to of 33,000 m3 per day translates to about 5.742 tons these areas, estimate waste generation, and adjust the per day. This corresponds to about 60 percent of the size, number of collection vehicles and trip frequencies. projected 9,498 tpd projection for 2020. This collection The collection leaks at the MRFs, MRS routes and rate is low compared to Jakarta18 and Bangkok,19 which junkshops could be addressed through the deployment had waste collection rates of 74 percent in 2017 and of large capacity bins that provide temporary storage of 81 percent in 2018, respectively. residuals and other waste components to be regularly According to MMDA, the density it uses is 287 kg/ covered by the LGU-managed haulers. Through m3 based on historical records. Using this density, effective coordination between and barangays and the daily collection rate of 33,000 m3 is equivalent to LGUs, monitoring of expanded collection at depressed about 9,500 tpd, which matches the projected waste areas and at identified points of leakage could be generation of NSWMC for 2020. The obtained value attained for collection is not realistic as it suggests 100 percent collection for Metro Manila. The representative density 4.6 DISPOSAL of the waste of Metro Manila should be determined by conducting WACS. Waste disposal in Metro Manila is managed by the MMDA. Currently, there are three privately operated The barangays in the cities of Malabon and Mandaluyong facilities that can accept waste from the 17 LGUs (Figure perform actual collection and delivery to designated 6). These are the Rizal Provincial Sanitary Landfill locations in the LGU for subsequent pick up by the (RPSLF), New San Mateo Sanitary Landfill (NSMSLF) private haulers. In the case of Malabon, collected and Navotas Sanitary Landfill (NSLF). The RPSLF and waste is delivered to the Pier 18 transfer stations. NSMSLF are inland facilities east of Metro Manila. The barangays in the rest of the Metro Manila LGUs Possible spillage of waste enroute to these sites does reportedly perform waste collection using their limited not pose a direct threat to Manila Bay due to distance. resources. Most portions of the waste gathered by the barangays are eventually included in the collection The NSLF corresponds to an offshore facility constructed performed by the LGUs through existing transfer on a series of fishponds. Waste is delivered to this stations and designated pick-up points for haulers. facility from the transfer station in Pier 18 using barges. In the absence of monitoring data, this cannot be Unexpected spillage from these barges during transport quantified. can cause significant pollution of Manila Bay. While LGU-operated or managed collection systems are The main features of the disposal facilities are presented present within Metro Manila with minor participation in Table 11. The NSLF, which started operation sometime by barangay-managed systems, there is no information in 2006, has the largest capacity at 58.6 million m3. At to indicate the actual coverage and efficiency of these the current waste acceptance of 7,415 m3 per day, this two systems. Non-collection is expected in areas that facility will be filled up by 2025. The NSMSLF has a are not covered by the barangay collection and not capacity of 43 million m3 and is estimated to be filled reached by the LGU collection trucks. These correspond up by 2029 given the current disposal rate of 13,054 to the narrow road networks that traverse the depressed m3 per day. The RPSLF, which receives an average of or slum areas. Additional loses are incurred due to 16,571 m3 of waste per day, has an estimated remaining non-collection of residuals from barangay MRFs and lifespan of 14 years. 18 Evaluation for The Implementation of New Presidential-Regula- tion on Solid Waste Management in Jakarta, Indonesia, 2019. 19 Booklet on Thailand State of Pollution, 2018. Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 43 Figure 6. LOCATION OF DESIGNATED DISPOSAL FACILITIES IN METRO MANILA Table 11. FEATURES OF THE METRO MANILA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES As of Area Fill Start- Total Volume Remaining Remaining Daily November 1, (has) Area up Year Capacity Utilized Capacity Lifespan Disposal 2020 (has) (million m3) (million m3) (million m3) (years) Rate (m3) RPSLF 50 32.95 2007 50.14 11.56 38.58 14.25 16,571 NSMSLF 45 44 2011 43 9.34 33.66 9 13,054 NSLF 41.12 39.67 2006 58.61 49.16 9.45 4.5 7,415 In approximately four years, when the NSLF is full, Table 12 presents a summary of disposal records the transport and disposal of waste from three of provided by MMDA based on a 10-month average the six LGUs that currently utilize this facility will be from January to October 2020. 33,017 m3 of waste affected. These include Malabon, Manila and Navotas, is collected daily from the 17 LGUs, while MMDA which are located at the western coastal section of collects an additional 17 m3 per day through street Metro Manila. There is a longer distance of between sweeping and clean-up of the 50 pumping stations. these LGUs and the RPSLF and NSMSLF, which will The equivalent weight in tons of 33,033 m3 of collected affect the turnaround time of the collection trucks waste using the WACS density of 174 kg/m3 is about and impact efficiency. 5,747 tons. This is the daily amount deposited at the three sanitary landfills. 44 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Table 12. CURRENT DISPOSAL RATES OF METRO MANILA LGUSa AT THE THREE DESIGNATED SANITARY LANDFILLS LGU/Other Sources Daily Disposal Rate (m3) Disposal Sites Quezon City 5,676 RPSLF, NSL Manila 5,507 NSL Caloocan 4,511 NSMSLF Parañaque 2,638 NSL, NSMSLF Makati 2,531 RPSLF Marikina 2,260 NSMSLF Taguig 1,708 NSL Valenzuela 1,522 NSMSLF Pasig 1,433 RPSLF Muntinlupa 1,234 RPSLF Pasay City 938 RPSLF Malabon 826 NSL Navotas 641 NSL Las Piñas 637 RPSLF San Juan 581 RPSLF Mandaluyong 298 RPSLF Pateros 75 RPSLF Subtotal 33,017   MMDA Special Operations 14b NSL Pumping Station 2 c NSL Subtotal 16   TOTAL 33,033   a Source: MMDA Solid Waste Management Office. b Waste collected by street sweepers of MMDA. c Waste collected by MMDA from pumping stations. The waste disposed into the three sanitary landfills is available. There is no official documentation of the currently measured in cubic meters, using the number previously reported practice of sorting and picking at of trucks with known volumes. This method could lead the disposal sites after the deposition of the waste. to inconsistent results due to the variability in the manner of filling up of the collection vehicles and the 4.7 INSTITUTIONAL SET-UP variability of density of waste from the different LGUs. Under Rule VI, Sections 4 and 5 of the implementing Best disposal practice requires the use of automated rules and regulations of RA 9003, all LGUs should weigh bridges at the gates of sanitary landfills for establish a City or Municipal Solid Waste Management proper monitoring and systematic recording. Board and a Barangay Solid Waste Management Data on the actual operation of the disposal facilities Committee, respectively. The boards and committees and the level of compliance with RA 9003 requirements have been established in all of the 17 LGUs of Metro on regular waste compaction, application of soil cover Manila and are intended to provide the enabling and collection and treatment of leachate are not environment for RA 9003. Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 45 The key management functions of the City and Municipal The operating arrangements and set-up of these SWM Boards include: functional groups vary. In the case of Taguig, Pasig, 1. Development of the city or municipal SWM Parañaque, Las Piñas, Valenzuela and Pasay City, plan, and oversight and monitoring of its CENRO corresponds to a big department made up implementation. of several divisions that include SWM. 2. Adoption of specific revenue generating Similar department level groups in charge of SWM measures to promote the viability of the plan. have been established in Marikina, Caloocan, Manila, Makati, Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Quezon City, 3. Review of the plan every two years or as Valenzuela and Pateros. the need arises to ensure its sustainability and relevance to local and international In San Juan and Malabon, CENRO corresponds to a development in the solid waste sector. smaller division focused primarily on SWM. As mandated, the Barangay Solid Waste Management Interviews with the heads and representatives of Committee should have the actual operational SWM the functional groups showed that the basic tasks functions, which include the following; of collection, disposal, sanitation, enforcement and monitoring of the basic components of the SWM 1. Formulation of SWM programs consistent system are regularly performed, notwithstanding the with the city to municipal SWM plan. difference in hierarchy level or the absence of officially 2. Segregation and collection of biodegradables, designated units within the organization. compostable and reusable waste. The groups responsible for coordination of plastic 3. Establishment of MRF. waste management programs or projects in the LGUs 4. Allocation of barangay funds and continued are presented in Table 14. search for funding sources. The LGUs do not have records of the waste collection, 5. Organization of core coordinators. recovery of recyclables from MRFs, and recovery through MRS and composting, which are supposed 6. Submission of monthly report to city or to be performed at the barangay level. municipality. On collection, the use of similarly sized vehicles at the The tasks assigned to the barangays effectively place barangay level could facilitate the determination of the the burden of SWM on the smallest government unit quantity of collected waste. A record of the number with limited technical and financial resources. of trips made by these vehicles would translate to the Actual implementation of the SWM plan is performed volume of collected waste for a particular day. This by functional groups under the office of the chief is the method used in the LGU-managed collection executives of the LGUs (Table 13). system. Table 13. FUNCTIONAL GROUPS WITHIN EACH LGU RESPONSIBLE FOR SWM SWM Functional Group Local Government Units City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) Las Piñas, Malabon, Navotas, Parañaque, Pasay City, Pasig, San Juan, Taguig City Environment and Management Office (CEMO) Marikina, Caloocan Department Public Services (DPS) Manila Department of Environmental Services (DES) Makati City Environmental Management Department (CEMD) Mandaluyong Environmental Sanitation Center (ESC) Muntinlupa Task Force on Solid Waste Management Quezon City City External Services Office (CESO) Valenzuela Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office (MENRO) Pateros 46 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Table 14. GROUPS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT LGU Coordination/Monitoring Group Caloocan No designated unit Las Piñas Solid Waste Management Division Makati Plastic Monitoring Task Force Malabon Enforcement and Inspection Mandaluyong Collection Division Manila Operations Division Marikina Information Education and Communication (IECa) Unit Muntinlupa MRF Division Navotas Under the barangays Parañaque Solid Waste Management Division Pasay City Solid Waste Management Division Pasig Solid Waste Management Division Pateros MRF operation Quezon Climate Change Division of Environmental Protection and Waste Management Department San Juan MRF Operation Taguig Operation and Enforcement Valenzuela Collection Unit a This is the unit responsible for the information, education and communication campaign on various aspects of solid waste management. Purchases made by junkshops are based on the type As the greater political unit, the LGU should extend and quantity of recyclables. The issuance of receipts assistance to its component barangays for monitoring for the sale of the recyclables from the MRFs, MRS of collection and diversion. In coordination with the and ambulant pickers could facilitate monitoring. SWM functional groups of the EMB, the LGU can Although barangays do not directly benefit from conduct training of barangay personnel on the basic the sales, they could require designated personnel aspects of recording and monitoring. A monitoring for the MRS and MRFs to submit receipts on a daily checklist should be developed to include the following or weekly basis and use them to monitor recycling categories: activities. Alternatively, the barangays could require • Dimensions, capacity, equipment, inputs and the registered junkshops to submit the sales receipts outputs, manpower utilization and status of for monitoring. operation for MRFs. In MRFS where compost is produced, the barangay • Counterpart junkshops, size of the junkshops, could require their designated personnel to submit quantities of recyclables sold by the designated records of the quantity of compost produced on a eco-aides and transaction dates. monthly basis. The longer frequency of reporting is • The monthly list of junkshops, consolidators and due to the extended time needed to produce compost recyclers for the LGUs. from biodegradables. • Daily collection in cubic meters from regular routes Coordination between the LGU and the barangays for MRS and the number of truck trips and list of is deficient or absent on the aspects of monitoring covered barangays for the LGU-managed collection. of collection and waste diversion through MRFs and MRS. This is manifested by the absence of a unit within the LGUs to monitor barangay MRF and MRS operations. Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 47 Initially, monitoring can be jointly performed by LGU solid waste functional groups revealed varying approach and barangay personnel. Overtime, this activity can on how plastics and the corresponding waste could be performed by the trained barangay personnel. be managed, as shown in Table 15. Overall integration of monitoring data should be The cities of Las Piñas, Makati, Mandaluyong, performed at the LGU level. Muntinlupa, Parañaque, Pasay, Pasig and Quezon ban the use of plastics in their respective areas. Malabon, 4.8 ORDINANCES Manila, Marikina, Pasig and Pateros prohibit the use In response to the need for enabling policies on waste of plastics on dry goods and regulates its utilization management, the 17 LGUs have passed ordinances on wet goods, while Caloocan and Marikina favor the mandating waste segregation at source, prohibiting regulated use of plastics over a total ban. littering, open dumping and segregated waste On the other hand, San Juan and Taguig still plan collection. Interviews with the heads and staff of the to have ordinances regarding the use of plastics in Table 15. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCES ON PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT LGU Ordinance/ Main Feature Year Caloocan 0503/2013 Regulates the use of plastic and polystyrene, and provides mechanisms for its recovery and recycling. Las Piñas 1036-11/2012 Bans the use of plastic bags and polystyrene packs in all commercial establishments doing business in Las Piñas. Makati 2003-095/2013 Bans the use of plastics, styrofoam and other non-biodegradable packaging. Malabon 01/2013 Prohibits the use of plastic bags on dry goods, regulated use on wet goods and prohibits the use of styrofoam/styrophor. Mandaluyong 523/2013 Prohibited the use of plastic bags beginning in 2014. Manila 8282/2012 Prohibits the use of any form of plastic bags on dry goods and regulates their use on wet goods, as well as the use of polystyrene and similar materials as containers for food, goods and other products. Marikina 18/2012 Regulates the use of plastic packaging/bags on wet goods and bans the use of plastic packaging on dry goods. Muntinlupa 10-109/2010 Prohibits the use of plastic bags on dry goods, regulates its use on wet goods and prohibits the use of styrofoam/styrophor in the city. Navotas 14/2015 Prohibits the sale and use of non-biodegradable polystyrene packaging materials and plastic bags, and regulates the sale and use of biodegradable plastic bags. Parañaque 18-40/2020 Bans the use of SUPs for all dry goods, as well as the distribution of plastic bags, straws, spoons and forks, cups and stirrers. Pasay City 4647/2011 Bans the use of plastic bags and promotes the use of recyclable paper carryout bags and reusable bags. Pasig 09/2010 As of 2012, banned the use of any form of plastic on dry goods and regulated its use on wet goods. It also banned the use of styrofoam and similar materials for food, produce, and other products.  Pateros MO 10/2011 Prohibits the use of plastics on dry goods and regulates its use on wet goods. It also prohibits the use of styrofoam and styrophor. Quezon SP 2876 Bans the distribution and usage of SUPs. San Juan Currently none There is a proposal to pass an ordinance regarding plastic waste management. Taguig Currently none Plastic waste management is planned to be included in the ongoing formulation of the Environmental Code of Taguig City. Valenzuela None Implements a program to recycle SUPs. 48 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila their respective jurisdictions. Valenzuela, which hosts The limited data at the barangay and LGU levels is a lot of plastic recycling companies, does not have attributed to the lack of coordination between these an ordinance on plastic use and management, but political units. Monitoring at the barangay level is implements a program to recycle SUPs. limited or absent. These conditions hamper the The results of the Microplastic and Plastic Field Surveys collection and assessment of the data by EMB, which on Pasig River, Philippines20 could be used as IEC is dependent on inputs from the LGUs and the results materials by the LGUs in the enforcement of their of self-monitoring activities. The limited data of EMB respective plastic waste management ordinances. hinders updated assessments and the formulation of measures to improve waste management. 4.9 WASTE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM As the lead agency in SWM, EMB should initiate systematic waste data collection at the barangay and The maintenance and regular update of a waste data LGU levels. It must develop a data checklist that is management system is vital for effective monitoring and regularly updated by the barangays and LGUs. Technical implementation of collection, diversion and disposal assistance could be extended by EMB to explain how of municipal solid waste of LGUs. landfills are filling up and update the checklist. For its Table 16 presents the available data on waste part, the NSWMC could issue a memorandum order management at the barangay, LGU and agency levels requiring barangays and LGUs to regularly submit the based on interviews. The table also includes the basic collected data using conventional reporting methods data that must be available to facilitate effective waste or available and free online mobile applications such management. as Google Drive spreadsheet or Kobo Tool Box. As shown, the barangays, LGUs and the EMB do not have the necessary and regularly updated data on 4.10 SWM SYSTEM GAPS waste management. The gaps of the SWM systems of the Metro Manila The basic quantitative data on collection and diversion LGUs were classified into those that affect plastic are not available at the barangay level. waste management and those that affect the overall The quantified data available at the LGU level mainly SWM systems of the LGUs. covers its collection efforts. Quantitative data on waste diversion is generally limited. The basic data 4.10.1 Gaps Affecting Plastic Waste Management on collection and diversion of the barangays under its jurisdiction are not available. Incomplete Waste Collection The EMB only has data on the number of MRFs/MRS, This takes place in the areas that are not reached by SWM plans and disposal facilities. It does not have the big collection trucks of the LGUs, private haulers data on diversion performed at the barangay and and barangays. Due to the absence of monitoring, LGU levels. It relies on MMDA for the recording of the extent of these areas cannot be determined. The the LGU-managed collection. areas could correspond to the depressed sections of the LGUs that are occupied by low-income households The MMDA, which is mandated to manage waste and informal dwellers, where the streets are narrow disposal of Metro Manila solid waste, has the regularly and occupied by informal structures. The World Bank21 updated records of LGU-managed waste collection estimated that 42.9 percent of the urban population in and disposal data. The availability of updated data at the Philippines live in slum areas. In the case of Metro MMDA is linked with the agency’s role in the payment Manila, this would correspond to about 6 million of of tipping fees to the operators of the designated the 14 million projected population. Collection loss disposal facilities for each individual LGU. Accordingly, also takes place during the second level of recovery of it requires all LGUs to regularly submit data on waste recyclables through junkshops for 335 MRFs and 1,206 collection and perform their own monitoring at the barangay MRS. In the absence of monitoring, there is no gates of the designated sanitary landfills. available data to indicate that the residuals generated under this level were included in the LGU-managed 20 Performed by the University of the Philippines National Engi- 21 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.SLUM.UR.ZS: Popula- neering Center (2021) tion living in slums (% urban population). Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 49 Table 16. AVAILABLE AND ADDITIONAL SWM DATA FOR LGUS AND AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT Functional Available Data Additional Data for Effective Waste Management Group Barangay • Location and number of MRFs • Daily waste collection • Number of MRS • Number of vehicle and pushcart trips per day • Number of vehicles and pushcarts for • Capacity of vehicles and pushcarts waste collection and MRS operation • Capacity of MRFs • Capacity of MRS • Input/Output of MRFs/MRS • Recyclable output of each barangay and MRF • Processed biodegradable output of each barangay MRF • Recyclable output of each MRS LGU • Number and capacity of collection • Daily waste collection of each barangay vehicles used by LGU and private hauler • Capacity of each barangay and centralized MRF • Number of trips per day per collection • Capacity of each MRS vehicle of LGU and/or private hauler • Input/Output of each barangay/centralized MRF • Name of private waste hauler • Input/Output of each MRS • Daily waste collection in volume • Residual collection schedule at each barangay/ • Location and number of barangay MRFs centralized MRF • Location and number of centralized • Waste collection points along route of MRS MRFs pushcarts • Number of MRS • Recyclable output of each barangay and centralized • Location and number of junkshops MRF • Disposal facility for residual waste • Processed biodegradable output of each barangay • List and location of plastic redemption/ and centralized MRF trading centers • Recyclable output of each MRS • Amount of recyclables traded/redeemed in each trading center EMB • Number of central MRFs in each LGU • Location and capacity of each centralized MRF per • Number of barangay MRFs per LGU LGU • Number of MRS per LGU • Location and capacity of each barangay MRF per • Location, number and name of LGU designated disposal facilities • Capacity of each MRS per LGU • SWM Plans of Metro Manila LGUs • Input/output of each MRF and MRS • Diversion rate of each LGU • Daily waste collection per LGU • Daily waste disposal per LGU • Disposal facility used by each LGU • Location and capacity of accredited waste disposal facilities MMDA • Daily LGU-managed waste collection • Daily waste disposal per LGU • Location, number and name of designated disposal facilities • Total and remaining capacity of the disposal facilities 50 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila collection. Collection also takes place at the 1,268 arrangements amount to 1,361, still falling short of junkshops of Metro Manila where the monitoring of the required 355 for the rest of the Metro Manila LGUs. waste flow is not performed. As the principal facilities and systems for recycling, the Although there is no data on the quantity of uncollected MRF and MRS arrangements are unable to process waste, evidence of this condition is indicated by the all the recyclables that eventually reach the collection regular collection of plastics and residuals from the trucks and disposal facilities. MMDA pumping stations22, the presence of plastics in The recycling gap is aggravated by the absence of the channels of the Pasig River23 and its tributaries, as monitoring of the MRFs and the MRS system. Recorded well as litter in vacant lots of LGUs and the ubiquitous data on the type and quantities of waste that entered the occurrence of plastic waste in man-made and natural MRFs, the classification and weight of the recyclables, drainage systems of Metro Manila during flood biodegradables and residuals that were segregated events. As cited in the section on disposal, only 60 and processed, the number of barangay personnel percent of the generated waste goes to the disposal involved in the operation, and the number of sales of facilities, based on an assumed density of 174 kg/m3. the recyclables and compost are not available. Data The remaining undifferentiated 40 percent includes on the collection of the residuals is also not available. recovered recyclables, processed biodegradables and The MRS is likewise not monitored. Records of the uncollected waste, which collectively amount to an quantity of the collected waste, recyclables sold to unverified 3,500 tons of waste per day. the junkshop and omitted residuals are not known. Limited collection is aggravated by the absence of The placement of these materials along the route of monitoring at the barangay level. Waste collection at the LGU-managed collection system is not monitored the barangay level is performed using various modes by the barangays. If uncollected, the plastics and the of waste transport with unrecorded volumes. Where rest of the residuals can potentially spread as litter possible, the use of the same collection vehicles and/or accumulate as unwanted deposits in canals of similar capacities should be adapted. The use and waterways. of pushcarts with known and fixed dimensions for Variable Quality of Recyclables Retrieved though barangay-level collection should also be considered. the Four Levels of Sorting and Recovery This will facilitate the uniform approximation of collected Sorting and recovery of recyclables is performed in waste. The barangay eco-aide or equivalent personnel limited spaces, even in MRFs and under time constraints. should count and record the number of trips he makes Under these conditions, their overriding goal is simply to per day to arrive at the amount of collected waste. recover what is deemed valuable and will be accepted The use of portable, large weight capacity weighing by the junkshops without consideration of the quality scales can also be used to measure the collected of the materials. It is very likely that sorters under waste, particularly for households and generators all four levels are aware of the requirements of the that use garbage bags for temporary waste storage. recyclers. This results in the presence of contaminants The same pushcart method can be used to monitor in the plastics that were delivered to the recyclers, the residuals generated at the MRS and MRFS after as reported in the Market Study. The poor quality the second level of recovery of recyclables at the of the recovered recyclables is attributed to hasty MRF and MRS systems. sorting at collection vehicles and disposal sites, and Limited Number of MRFs and MRS Arrangements: the unsanitary condition of the sorting areas. The Currently, only 20 percent of the 1,710 Metro Manila organic component of the waste must, at the least, barangays have their own MRFs. This number shows be removed from the recovered plastics. Evidently, that the bulk of the potentially recyclable materials the current methods of segregation and recovery of cannot be processed by the currently available MRFs. plastics at the MRF, MRS and junkshops are not sufficient to remove the biodegradables and the poor-quality There are 1,026 barangays that have MRS arrangements recyclables. The recovered plastics need to undergo with junkshops. The combined MRF and MRS sorting, washing and drying processes prior to baling and delivery to the recyclers. These final steps could be done in big junkshops or in a centralized facility 22 Source: MMDA disposal records as of October 2020. 23 Source: Microplastic and Plastic Field Surveys on Pasig River, Philippines, 2021. Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 51 manned by trained sorters with access to washing The unprocessed waste has to be included into the and drying areas. LGU collection system for disposal into the landfills. Incomplete Plastic Waste Data from Currently The LGUs may consider composting outside their Available WACS Results boundaries, as practiced by Pasay and Mandaluyong. WACS were performed using different methodologies The biodegradables of these LGUs are collected by and durations. Based on the WACS data presented in private haulers and delivered to their composting the 10-Year SWM plans of the LGUs, the quantities of facilities in Morong, Rizal Province. the various plastic types have not been determined. The Use of the Volumetric Method and Assumed Waste major plastic types that are accepted by the junkshops Density Instead of Weigh Bridges at the Designated (PET, HDPE and PP) are reported, while the low-value Disposal Site and SUPs are reported as residuals. To develop a The current method of measuring the quantity of comprehensive plan for plastic waste management, deposited waste by counting the truck trips of vehicles all plastic types must be identified and quantified in of known volumes should be replaced by weighbridges, the forthcoming WACS, which are planned for the which automatically determine and record the weight of Metro Manila LGUs. The quantities and distribution incoming waste. Based on the information provided by will be used to estimate the sizes of the planned MMDA, weighbridges have already been installed at the recovery facilities, assess the RDF potential of the NSLF and at the RPSLF. Installation of the weighbridge plastics, determine the effectiveness of the plans being at the NSMSLF is ongoing24. This equipment should developed to manage waste and monitor the flow be put into operation as soon as possible. of these materials through the four levels of sorting The SWM Plans do not have a Section on Monitoring until their delivery to the junkshops, consolidators and Evaluation— Should Contain the Agreed Upon and recyclers. Performance Standards 4.10.2 Gaps Affecting the Overall SWM System The standards could include the diversion rate based of the LGUs on data from MRFs and MRS, collection coverage Use of Inappropriate Methods of Determining and waste collection rate as rated against the LGUs Waste Diversion projected waste generation. The missing section should be included in the updated version of the The current method used to divide the volume of waste 10-Year plan together with the performance standards. collected by the estimated waste generation is too The section on monitoring and evaluation and the simplistic and yields overestimated values of diversion. use of performance standards for monitoring waste It assumes that the waste that was not collected and management are not included in the Implementing disposed into landfills has been recycled, composted Rules and Regulations of RA 9003. and used for other purposes. It does not consider the losses in collection and transport. While it does not The Approved SWM Plans did not Evaluate the relate to plastic recycling, a correct estimate of waste Physical and Socio-Economic Features of the LGUs diversion provides a measure of the extent of recycling with respect to the Various Components of the and composting that has been performed within the SWM System LGU, as required in RA 9003. The regulating agency, These key features presented in Table 17, including NSWMC, should create a memorandum requiring the likely effect on the system, should be evaluated LGUs to use the quantity of diverted recyclables and in future updates of the SWM plans. biodegradables as the basis for determining diversion. Limited Processing and Composting of Biodegradables: Currently, the centralized MRFs of LGUs are used for processing biodegradables. These facilities can be expanded, where space permits, to accommodate 24 Updated information regarding the weighbridges was provided more biodegradables. The small barangay MRFs can by MMDA during the World Bank sponsored presentation on only process a limited fraction of the biodegradables. May 17, 2021. 52 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Limited SWM Data at the Barangay, LGU and the barangays and the LGUs should be generated and Agency Levels distributed by EMB. Regular updates of the collected data should be completed by designated personnel The gathering and updating of the SWM data should at the barangay, LGU and EMB levels through the use be initiated by the EMB through the LGUs. A basic of free mobile applications such as the Google Drive checklist of the data to be gathered and updated by Spreadsheet or the Kobo Tool Box. Table 17. FEATURES AFFECTING SWM SYSTEMS OF LGUS Physical and Socio-economic Features Effect on the SWM System Population density and distribution of This will affect the potential availability of sites for proposed SWM residents facilities. Proximity to major waterways and Waste collection in these areas should be efficient to prevent the vulnerability of low-lying areas to flooding movement of uncollected waste into the waterways. Spatial location of major waste generators Each income class has a different level of SWM awareness and economic need for recovery of recyclables. Planning collection systems should consider the difficult access to areas occupied by low-income residents and resulting mismanagement of uncollected waste. Population growth and density Increase in population translates to increased waste generation. Analyzing growth rate allows for better planning in the acquisition of equipment and facilities for SWM management. Density provides insight on the potential availability of space for future SWM facilities. These features increase annually and adjustments in collection trips should be made accordingly. Existing road network This should be evaluated to increase the areas reached by the waste collection vehicles of the LGU and the private haulers. Location of MRFs and junkshops The spatial location and sizes of the waste diversion facilities should be known. This would serve as the basis for monitoring and possible establishment of additional MRFs, where space permits. Photo: Shutterstock / Wireless Creators. Chapter 4. Solid Waste Management Systems | 53 CHAPTER 5. COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF METRO MANILA LGUs A comparative assessment of the 17 LGUs was performed to determine their level of readiness and need to receive investments to address gaps in their respective SWM systems. The assessment utilized the following features of their respective SWM systems: (1) waste generation, (2) existing plastic waste management programs, (3) passage of relevant plastic ordinances, (4) currently available infrastructure for diversion, (5) currently available system for the recovery of recyclables, (6) potential space for infrastructure and (7) proximity to waterways that can potentially receive uncollected waste. Each criterion was assigned three equal grade levels, with 3 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. 5.1 WASTE GENERATION The potential for a greater quantity of recyclables is directly proportional to waste generation, subject to proper collection and segregation at source, MRFs and MRS. The following ratings were used: Rating Waste Generation Feature 3 >1 million tpd 2 ≤ 1 million, > 400,000 tpd 1 ≤ 400,000 tpd The top ranked generators included Quezon City, Manila and Caloocan—each assigned a rating of 3. The second ranked LGUs included Parañaque, Makati, Pasig, Marikina and Las Piñas—each assigned a rating of 2. The third ranked LGUs included Mandaluyong, Malabon, Pasay City, Muntinlupa, Taguig, Valenzuela, Navotas, San Juan and Pateros—each assigned a rating of 1. 5.2 PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS This provides an indication of the initiative or openness of the LGU to support an investment regarding plastic waste management. It also reflects the political willingness of the LGU leaders to comply with the national policy on plastic waste management. The following ratings were used. Rating Plastic waste management programs 3 LGUs with extensive programs regarding plastic recovery 2 LGUs with programs covering one or several barangays 1 LGUs currently without plastic management programs Malabon, Mandaluyong, Manila, Marikina, Muntinlupa, Parañaque, Pasig and Valenzuela were assigned a rating of 3. Las Piñas, Makati, Navotas, Pasay City and Taguig were assigned a rating of 2. Caloocan, Pateros, Quezon City and San Juan and were assigned a rating of 1. 54 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila 5.3 PASSED PLASTIC MANAGEMENT 5.5 SYSTEM FOR THE RECOVERY OF ORDINANCE RECYCLABLES This provides an indication of the LGUs’ readiness The percentage of the number of MRS of each LGU to implement measures to improve plastic waste with respect to the number of barangays was used to management. The following ratings were used: rate the system for the recovery of the recyclables. This provides an indication of the LGUs ability to support Rating Passage of plastic management ordinance recycling even without a fixed waste diversion facility (MRF). The following ratings were used: 3 Passed ordinance which either regulates or bans the use of plastics Rating Percentage of MRS to number of 2 barangays 1 Without any ordinance which either 3 > 70 percent regulates or bans the use of plastics 2 ≤ 70 percent and > 45 percent San Juan, Taguig and Valenzuela were assigned a 1 ≤ 45 percent rating of 1. The remaining 14 LGUs were assigned Mandaluyong, Las Piñas, Pateros, Valenzuela, Navotas a rating of 3. and Manila post the highest percentages of MRS over the number of barangays and were assigned a rating 5.4 FACILITIES FOR WASTE DIVERSION of 3. Caloocan, Quezon City, Parañaque, Makati and The percentage of the number of MRFs of each Malabon had percentages ranging from 64 to 48 and LGU with respect to the number of barangays was were assigned a rating of 2. used to rate the available facilities for diversion. This Marikina, Muntinlupa, Pasig, San Juan and Taguig do indicates the proportion of the facilities in relation not have MRS arrangements with junkshops. Together to what is needed and required by law. It provides with Pasay City, which has a percentage of 22, these an indication of the LGUs willingness to comply with LGUs were assigned a rating of 1. the requirements of RA 9003 notwithstanding space, financing and resources for operation limitations. The 5.6 POPULATION DENSITY following ratings were used: This provides an indication of the potentially available Rating Percentage of the number of MRFs to space for infrastructure like a centralized MRF. The total LGU barangays following ratings were used: 3 > 70 percent Rating Population Density/km2 2 ≤ 70 percent and > 40 percent 3 < 20,000/km2 1 ≤ 40 percent 2 ≥ 20,000 km2 and < 30,000km2 Muntinlupa, Pasay City and Pasig registered > 70 percent 1 ≥ 30,000/km2 and were assigned a rating of 3, while Quezon City, Taguig, Malabon, Parañaque, Marikina had percentages Muntinlupa, Valenzuela, Parañaque, Quezon City and between 40 and 70 and were assigned a rating of Las Piñas have the lowest densities of less than 20,000 2. The rest of the LGUs were assigned a rating of 1. persons per square kilometer and were assigned a rating of 3. Caloocan, Pateros, Mandaluyong and Manila have the highest density exceeding 30,000 persons per square kilometer and were assigned a rating of 1. The rest of the LGUS have a density from 20,000 and 30,000 and were assigned a rating of 2. Chapter 5.Comparative Assessment of Metro Manila LGUs | 55 5.7 PROXIMITY TO WATERWAYS AND Tier 2 includes eight LGUs with ratings of 16 and 15: WATER BODIES Manila, Quezon City, Pasay City, Las Piñas, Makati, Malabon, Mandaluyong, and Marikina. Tier 3 includes This provides an indication of the potential for disposal five LGUs with a rating of 13 to 11: Navotas, Pateros, of plastics and uncollected waste. The higher ratings Valenzuela, Caloocan and Taguig. Tier 4 includes San were assigned to LGUs that have the highest potential Juan with the lowest rating of 8. to pollute a waterway or water body due to proximity or being traversed by a major river channel. The following Tier 1 corresponds to LGUs with high ratings in the ratings were used: implementation of plastic waste management projects, passage of necessary plastic waste ordinances and Rating Hydrological Feature diversion facilities and a moderate rating in MRS. These 3 LGUs traversed by the main channel of ratings collectively show good SWM management Pasig-Marikina River compared to the rest of the Metro Manila LGUs. All 2 LGUs bounded by either the Manila Bay three LGUs are located near major waterways and large or Laguna de Bay water bodies, indicating the importance to address 1 LGUs drained by tributaries of the plastic waste issue with urgency. Pasig-Marikina River and other river systems Tier 2 LGUs rank a close second in overall SWM management, but individually exhibited a wide range Makati, Mandaluyong, Manila, Marikina, Pasig and in ratings per evaluation criteria. Manila, Mandaluyong, Pateros were assigned a rating of 3. Las Piñas, Makati and Las Piñas have limited MRFs. Manila and Muntinlupa, Parañaque, Pasay City and Taguig were Quezon City have large generation rates compared given a rating of 2. Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas, to the rest of the Tier 2 LGUs. Marikina does not have Quezon City, San Juan and Valenzuela were assigned an MRS and was given a rating of 1 for this criteria. a rating of 1. Mandaluyong and Manila have large population The level of implementation of the SWM plans was densities exceeding 20,000 persons per square considered as a criterion but not used. This would kilometer. All Tier 2 LGUs passed their respective require an impartial assessment that can only be plastic ordinances. Pasay City and Quezon City do obtained through comprehensive visual surveys, a not have existing plastic waste management projects. review of SWM records and person-to-person interviews. Quezon City and Malabon are not traversed by major This would include, among others, segregation at river systems nor proximate to large bodies of water. source, segregated waste collection, operation of Tier 3 LGUs rank significantly lower compared to Tier the MRFs, operation of the MRS, collection coverage 2 in terms of overall SWM management, mainly on and compliance to ordinances on littering and use account of the absence of plastic waste management of plastics. programs in Caloocan and Pateros, a non-passage The institutional set-up was also considered but not of ordinances regarding plastic waste management used in the assessment due to the absence of clear-cut in Taguig and Valenzuela, and the low number of differences among the LGUs. The set-up, as presented MRFs in all LGUs except Taguig. The overall ranking in the SWM plans, vary but the basic functions of was also affected by the low waste generation rates collection, disposal, monitoring and enforcement of these LGUs (except for Caloocan) and the wide are present in differing degrees notwithstanding range in population densities. All Tier 3 LGUs have the absence of officially designated units within the moderate to high ratings with respect to the number organization. In some LGUs like Caloocan, Makati, of existing MRS. Marikina and Parañaque, disposal and collection are The lone LGU under Tier 4 ranked lowest in overall lumped together under one unit. The rest of the LGUs SWM management as it has not passed any ordinance have separate units for collection and disposal. on plastic waste management and currently does not Table 18 presents the summary of the ratings of the have any plastic-related projects. It has only three 17 LGUs based on the cited criteria. The rankings MRFs and one MRS for its 21 barangays. Notably, it can be grouped under four tiers. Tier 1 includes the had a low waste generation of just 49 tpd in 2020. top three LGUs obtaining the highest rating of 17: Muntinlupa, Parañaque and Pasig. 56 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Table 18. SUMMARIZED ASSESSMENT RATINGS OF THE METRO MANILA LGUS LGU Waste Plastic Passed Diversion Recovery Population Proximity Total Tier Generation Waste Plastic Facilities System Density to Rating Programs Ordinances (MRF) (MRS) Waterways Muntinlupa 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 17 1 Parañaque 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 17 Pasig 2 3 3 3 1 2 3 17 Manila 3 3 3 1 2 1 3 16 2 Quezon City 3 1 3 2 3 3 1 16 Las Piñas 1 2 3 1 3 3 2 15 Makati 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 15 Malabon 1 3 3 2 3 2 1 15 Mandaluyong 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 15 Marikina 1 3 3 2 1 2 3 15 Pasay City 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 15 Navotas 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 13 3 Pateros 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 13 Valenzuela 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 13 Caloocan 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 12 Taguig 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 12 San Juan 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 8 4 Chapter 5.Comparative Assessment of Metro Manila LGUs | 57 CHAPTER 6. INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES A ll LGUs of Metro Manila implement their respective SWM systems in accordance with the approved 10-Year SWM plans. The systems include the required collection and disposal together with diversion of recyclables. The systems work in varying degrees, but are hampered by gaps that limit their effectiveness and contribute to plastic pollution in waterways and water bodies within and adjacent to Metro Manila. Investment opportunities are aimed to address the major gaps in the recovery of recyclables and inadequate collection systems. A comparative assessment of the 17 LGUs was performed to determine their level of readiness, need to receive investments to address the identified gaps and the level of implementation of the SWM systems. The parameters used include (1) waste generation, (2) existing plastic waste management programs, (3) passage of relevant plastic ordinances, (4) currently available infrastructure for diversion, (5) currently available system for the recovery of recyclables, (6) potential space for infrastructure and (7) proximity to waterways that can potentially receive uncollected waste. Following the assessment, LGUs were ranked into four tiers, with the highest ranking in Tier 1 and the lowest ranking in Tier 4. Tier 1 included three LGUs: Muntinlupa, Parañaque and Pasig. Tier 2 included eight LGUs: Manila, Quezon City, Pasay City, Las Piñas, Makati, Malabon, Mandaluyong, and Marikina. Tier 3 included five LGUs: Navotas, Pateros, Valenzuela, Caloocan and Taguig. Tier 4 included one LGU: San Juan. Table 19 presents the recommended investments and the corresponding members of the Tiers that require the intervention. The investments per gap were arranged in the order of decreasing impact to the SWM systems. The main consideration for the selection of primary and secondary targets for investments is the Tier classification of the LGUs. The selection was then based on the number of existing facilities or systems that could be enhanced and the inferred large gaps in collection and recycling. The comparatively higher level of SWM management of LGUs under Tier 1 and Tier 2 will ensure a higher probability in the success of the proposed investments. LGUs on the upper tiers can be easily encouraged to support and implement the proposed investments. In the case of the centralized facilities for a cluster of barangays, the assessment of the LGUs has shown that the Tier 1 LGUs are best fitted to receive the investment. The proposed centralized facilities can then serve as models for best practice in recycling which can then be replicated in the other LGUs. All LGUs, notwithstanding the Tier levels, will benefit from comprehensive support for the respective investments they receive. 58 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Table 19. MATRIX OF PROPOSED INVESTMENTS AND TARGETED LGU TIERS SWM System Proposed Investment Primary Targets Secondary Targets Gap Recycling Gap Centralized Recovery Facility Tier 1 LGUs None Enhancement of MRFs Pasay City and Quezon City of Caloocan of Tier 3 Tier 2 Enhancement of MRS Pasay City and Manila of Tier 2 Caloocan of Tier 3 Additional plastic trading Tier 2 LGUs except Manila and Tier 3 LGUs, except centers Mandaluyong Valenzuela Segregation bins LGUs with major CBDs: None Quezon City, Manila, Makati, Mandaluyong of Tier 2; Taguig of Tier 3; Muntinlupa of Tier 1 Collection Gap Pushcarts All LGUs Not applicable Skip bins All LGUs Not applicable Small collection vehicles Quezon City, Manila of Tier 2; Rest of Tier 2 Caloocan of Tier 3 In the case of the proposed enhancement of the MRFs, 6.1 INVESTMENTS FOR RECYCLING Pasay City and Quezon City have the largest number Based on Figure 2, recyclables are recovered at of facilities among Tier 2 LGUs that could provide four levels before they are sold to junkshops and/or options for enhanced operation or consolidation into consolidators. The regular progression from Level 1 to fewer but bigger processing infrastructures. Caloocan, Level 4 in all the SWM systems indicates incomplete which also has a significant number of MRFs but falls recovery of the recyclables. Recovery at Level 1 takes under Tier 3, was considered for enhancement, but place at source and is performed at households, schools as a secondary target. and establishments. The recyclables that were not Manila and Pasay City have the largest number of picked out at Level 1 are targeted by the ambulant MRS in Tier 2. The same condition was determined waste pickers at drop off points, by barangay personnel for Caloocan in Tier 3. MRFs and through the MRS arrangement with the Plastic trading centers are already present in Manila junkshops. In terms of infrastructure, Metro Manila and Mandaluyong, which both belong to Tier 2. A only has 335 barangay MRFs and 12 centralized MRFs trading center is also located at Valenzuela, which of unknown capacities to serve the requirements of belongs to Tier 3. 1,710 barangays. The MRFs are complemented by 1,026 MRS arrangements with junkshops, which are Segregation bins for plastic waste with multiple present in varying numbers in all of the 17 LGUs. The compartments will be restricted to Tier 2 LGUs with absence of monitoring prevents an assessment of major commercial and business districts. the quantity of recovered recyclables with respect Pushcarts will be provided to all LGUs subject to the to the generation rates of the LGUs. Notwithstand- results of the assessment of actual collection conditions. ing the absence of data, the limited number of the Small collection vehicles could be invested in the three combined MRF and MRS, and the continuing practice large LGUs of Quezon City, Manila and Caloocan as of sorting at collection vehicles in all LGUs and at the their large waste generation is subject to the results three disposal sites, indicate a significant gap in the of the assessment of actual collection conditions. recovery of recyclables. The rest of the Tier 2 LGUs could also be provided Investments were not proposed for Level 1 since with small collection vehicles. the recyclables are sold directly to junkshops or to mobile pickers. Installation of common bins outside Chapter 6. INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES | 59 of residences or establishments for the placement of ö Mandaluyong: Trading plastics for goods the recovered recyclables would not be practical for supported by Nestle Philippines and Colgate the following reasons: (1) the bins would be used by Palmolive Philippines through Plastic Credit passersby and nearby residences for the placement Exchange of mixed waste and (2) the bins will likely be stolen. • Cleaning, drying, weighing and baling of Nonetheless, there are investments that could increase recyclables including all types of plastics the recovery of recyclables, including plastics under Level 2, which will be highlighted in the next section. For plastics, segregation will be in accordance with the plastic recycling code. The output 6.1.1 Centralized Recyclable Recovery Facility will correspond to clean, properly segregated This could be established for a cluster of adjacent recyclables that are free from impurities and barangays of an LGU. This investment is intended to biodegradable component. cover the recycling gap that results from the limited • Sorting and recovery of low value, poor quality number and low capacity of the existing MRFs and and SUP waste from the collected waste MRS arrangements. Based on a desktop analysis of the operation of the SWM systems of Metro Manila, These plastics can be utilized through one or a the three Tier 1 LGUs of Parañaque, Muntinlupa and combination of the following options: Pasig are deemed suited and capable of successfully ö Distribution to barangays engaged in brick establishing and operating such facilities. and/or chair making. Features and Functions of the Facility ö Storage for the eventual sale to cement • Sanitary, systematic sorting and segregation factories that can use these materials as part of source-segregated dry waste collected by of their fuel requirements. the barangay eco-aides or equivalent under the • Temporary storage of recyclables prior to their MRS system and recyclables coming directly sale to the junkshops or consolidators from MRFs. • Temporary storage of residuals for subsequent The output of this facility will satisfy requirements collection and disposal under the LGU system of clean plastics, which are separated according • Pick-up point of the residuals by the collection to types using the resin number and color, and trucks of the LGU and/or the waste hauler for without any biodegradables. delivery to designated sanitary landfills The facility will also remove or significantly reduce the unsanitary practice of sorting at collection This will help improve waste collection and reduce vehicles and at the disposal sites, at least for the the leaks of plastics into the waterways waste delivered from the concerned LGU where • Potential contractual engagement of informal the centralized facility will be located. waste pickers and personnel deployed under • Redemption center of SUPs recovered from the MRS the barangays served by the facility The number of personnel will be guided by the Partnerships with major manufacturing companies target input of the facility and the anticipated that use plastics in their products and NGOs will revenues to be generated by the facility. be established by adapting the current successful Siting and Design of the Facility arrangements made in the following LGUs. The proposed facility will be identified on the basis of ö Manila: Trading for goods for SUPs from Unilever suitable foundation, proximity to waste generators, and Tetra Pak Philippines in cooperation with accessibility to road networks and consistency with the association of junkshops known as Linis the land-use of the LGU. A minimum buffer zone of Ganda 100 meters is used for sensitive receptors such as ö Valenzuela: Trading of goods for SUPs in schools, hospitals, parks and residential areas. partnership with Nestle Philippines Currently, there are no standards for the design of a waste recovery facility in the Philippines. Conceptually, 60 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Photo: Shutterstock / Nordroden. the facility will correspond to a warehouse-type building 6.1.2. Enhancement of Existing MRFs and MRS with a paved floor, a waste receiving area, sorting and Arrangements segregation area, weighing and baling area, storage The existing MRFs and MRS arrangements with area for recyclables (metals, paper/carton, glass), high junkshops are functional, although their capacities value plastics, low value/SUPs and residuals, equipment are limited to meet the needs of Metro Manila. storage area, wash/toilet area and drying area. It will These can be enhanced to optimize the recovery of have enough space for the parking of pushcarts, loading/ recyclables within the bounds of their current design. unloading area for dry waste, recyclables, residuals Enhancements could be done through one of or a and processed recyclables. combination of the following: The facility will have basic water and power utilities. 1. Expansion of existing MRFs. Water will be used for regular cleaning of the facility, 2. Closure of small MRFs and consolidation of washing of the dirty recyclables and washing/cleaning waste processing into fewer yet bigger facilities. for MRF personnel after work. Electricity can be used to light up the facility and to power equipment such 3. Provision of necessary equipment like sorting as computers, printers and balers. The facility will be tables, scales and balers. provided with sorting tables, scales, wheeled storage 4. Provision of washing facilities. bins and balers. 5. Provision of additional pushcarts with scales The capacity of the facility should be based on the waste for barangays with MRS arrangements. generation of the barangay or cluster of barangays The primary targets for MRF enhancements are Pasay and the results of WACS. City and Quezon City. The MRFs of Pasay are very small Facility Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring and serve mainly as storage areas for recyclables. The The facility will be manned by trained personnel who secondary target is Caloocan, which has 20 MRFs for will perform the sorting, weighing, baling and storage its 188 barangays. The MRFs of these LGUs should of the recyclables. Regular monitoring of incoming be subjected to a thorough inspection to assess the waste and outgoing recyclables and residuals will form possibility of consolidation into bigger facilities that part of the Operation and Maintenance procedures. could serve a larger cluster of barangays. This will contribute to the proper determination of the The primary targets for MRS enhancements are Pasay diversion rate, at least within the barangays included in City, Quezon City and Manila, which have 45, 84 and the cluster. The residuals left out of the sorting process 642 MRS arrangements, respectively. The secondary in the facility will be properly collected and disposed, target is Caloocan City, which has 120 MRS. thereby minimizing leaks into the environment. Chapter 6. INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES | 61 Additional pushcarts will increase the amount of waste The primary targets of this investment are the Tier 2 that can be processed for the recovery of recyclables LGUs, except Manila and Mandaluyong, which have and could facilitate the increase in MRS arrangements existing trading centers through Linis Ganda. with junkshops. This is illustrated in the case of Pasay The secondary targets are the Tier 3 LGUs, except City, which had only 45 MRS in 2020. The LGU generated Valenzuela, which has its own trading center for plastics. 112,420 tons of waste in 2020 or an average of 1.53 tons of waste per day per barangay. Using a density 6.1.4 Segregation Bins for Plastic Waste of 174 kg/m3, this amount translates to about 8 m3 of waste per barangay. Assuming a capacity of 2 m3 Multi-compartment HDPE or stainless steels bins with for a pushcart, the foregoing calculations show that images of the plastic types they can hold can be each barangay needs a minimum of four pushcarts to installed in large malls and airport terminals. These collect the waste that will be processed for recyclables. establishments have high passage rates of transient customers who generate lightweight, plastic-based This analysis, combined with an assessment of the packaging waste for food items and clothing. With actual waste generation per barangay, can be used proper signage, strategic placement and attractive to determine the number of required pushcarts per designs, these bins can encourage temporal visitors MRS to enhance the recovery of recyclables. and passersby to place their waste into the proper compartments. This investment can also be implemented 6.1.3 Additional Barangay Trading Centers for Plastics in large malls or establishments of LGUs with major CBDs, including the highly urbanized LGUs of Quezon Currently, centers for the purchase of SUPs and trading City, Manila, Makati and Mandaluyong of Tier 2, Taguig for equivalent goods is performed in Manila, Valenzuela of Tier 3 and Muntinlupa of Tier 1. and Mandaluyong in cooperation with NGOs and manufacturing companies. In Parañaque, Pasig and The manufacturing of chairs from single use plastics is Muntinlupa, low-value plastics are collected by LGU currently underway in a barangay in Las Piñas through waste generators without equivalent cash or goods. the Villar Foundation. SUPs are used as components in the production of bricks in selected barangays Given these conditions, purchasing or trading centers located in Makati, Mandaluyong, Marikina, Muntinlupa, could still be established in barangays of 14 of the Parañaque and Taguig. See Box 2 for a list of the 17 LGUs of Metro Manila. Initially, these centers can equipment needed for a chair factory. replicate the arrangements made in the Tier 2 LGUs of Manila, Valenzuela and Mandaluyong with the These isolated barangay activities have been given a manufacturing companies. Trading and purchase can boost by (EMB-NCR, which donated a set of equipment be performed in roaming vehicles of manufacturing to each of the 14 LGUs for the manufacturing of plastic companies, malls, small barangay stores, existing central chairs for schools and to perform composting using a MRFs and participating junkshops. Each center will 1-ton capacity rotating bin. Makati, Pateros and Pasay monitor the quantity of plastics recovered. The roaming City did not receive the equipment package due to lack vehicles will be similar to the Mobile MRF envisioned of space. EMB-NCR requires the availability of a site under the Metro Manila Flood Management Project. with an area of at least 500 m2. At this point, it is best BOX 2. EQUIPMENT SET FOR CHAIR FACTORY One unit plastic shredder Two units hydraulic press One unit biodegradable waste shredder Two units cooling tubs with detachable mold slide One unit rotating bin composter (1 ton capacity) One set of plastic chair mold One unit plastic washer Air and water pollution control system One unit plastic dryer Accessories Two units plastic extruder 62 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila to observe if the factories that will be established at 6.2 INVESTMENTS FOR COLLECTION the 14 LGUs can be operated sustainably before similar The gap in waste collection affects all the LGUs and investments are made. Accordingly, the establishment their component barangays. Based on data provided of a chair factory that uses plastic waste at selected by MMDA, collection in 2020 indicatively corresponds barangays was not included in the current list of to only 60 percent of the generation estimated by proposed investments. NSWMC. This is below the 70 percent collection MMDA recently completed the construction of a reported in similar Asian cities such as Jakarta and granulator and brick making facility worth 41 million Bangkok. pesos at its Vitas Pumping Station in Tondo, Manila. It The low collection rate is manifested by the presence is a semi-mechanized facility, which includes a conveyor of litter in vacant lots and plastics in waterways. The belt to facilitate the manual sorting of waste recovered materials detected by the Top 10 Plastic Survey from the pumping station. The sorted waste will be in the channel of Pasig River are presented in Table reduced in size by the granulator and used in the 20. Plastics amounting to 2 m3 per day need to be production of bricks, eco-hollow blocks, eco-concrete removed from the 50 pumping stations of MMDA barriers and bio-waste compost materials. MMDA along the channel of Pasig River. Sweeping operations plans to install a similar facility in its pumping stations. of MMDA collect 14 m3 of litter per day. The granulator and the brick making facility have a combined floor area of 800 m2. As discussed in section 4.3.1, potential leaks in collection systems take place at the barangay MRFs, MRS routes The facility established at Vitas will be operated by and junkshops where collection of the residuals are MMDA, which justified its construction to protect the not monitored. pumping stations from clogging. The inputs to the facility will come regularly from the waste that clogs Limited or non-collection also takes place in areas under the pumping station and hampers its operation. the barangay-managed collection and LGU sections that are not reached by the large collection vehicles. Each of the chair and brick factories donated by EMB-NCR to the 14 LGUs will occupy an area of 500 m2, but will essentially perform the functions of the granulator and brick facility although on a smaller Table 20. scale. As stated in the report, the sustainability of the TOP 10 MOST COMMON WASTE IN PASIG RIVER operation must be established before investments Waste % Weight in similar facilities are made. PCP plastics 3.48 In the case of the MMDA, operational aspects like Candy wrappers 5.21 manpower, cost, revenue or economic benefits must be PET bottles 5.56 observed for at least a year to determine viability and whether a similar, expensive facility can be sustainably Drink wrappers 9.27 operated by the LGUs. Non-plastic waste 12.05 It has also been shown in this report that LGUs are Snack wrappers 12.26 unable to monitor the operation of their small, manually Plastic labo bags 13.9 operated MRFs and have difficulty in identifying and Sando bags 14.62 acquiring sites that can accommodate granulator and Polystyrene pieces 20.24 brick making facilities. Noodle wrappers 3.43 Assuming that the contracted waste haulers will be required to operate such a facility, this will entail cost on the part of the LGU as additional charges will be imposed by the private contractors to perform the additional tasks. Accordingly, the establishment of granulator and brick making facilities at the LGUs was not included in the current list of proposed investments. Chapter 6. INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES | 63 Altogether, the above-cited conditions are brought about by the limited or absent interface between the LGU-managed and barangay-managed collection. The investments to improve waste collection, are as follows: Pushcarts: Depending on the actual collection conditions in the selected LGU, pushcarts to support the RA 9003 mandated collection by the barangay could be acquired and distributed to selected barangays. These carts were observed to be used by the mobile waste pickers in Quezon City. The use of standard size pushcarts is recommended to facilitate monitoring of waste collection at the barangay level. Each pushcart will be equipped with digital scales to determine the weight of the collected waste and the recovered recyclables. Pushcarts for waste collection in LGU Malabon Skip bins: Large skip bins are proposed to be installed near MRFs, junkshops and along the route of the pushcarts of the MRS, where non-collection takes place. These skips will serve as the temporary storage of the residuals and unprocessed waste and will prevent the scattering and indiscriminate placement of waste. Unlike the smaller HDPE bins, the skips are bigger and heavier, preventing them from being stolen or moved. The location of the skip bins will be included in the designated collection routes of the private haulers. Skip bins Small capacity collection vehicles: Most of the collection vehicles of the LGU-contracted haulers have capacities of 12 m3 or greater, making it difficult for them to pass through the narrow and usually occupied roadways of slum areas inhabited by low-income families and the informal sector. The use of smaller capacity trucks (≤ 5 m3) will allow the extension of regular waste collection in these areas. This investment will have to be made by the LGU-designated waste haulers. Small dump truck 6.3 PROPOSED STUDIES FOR THE RECOMMENDED INVESTMENTS Table 21 shows the preliminary studies and surveys that need to be conducted for the recommended investments. 64 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Table 21. REQUIRED SURVEYS AND STUDIES FOR THE RECOMMENDED INVESTMENTS Recommended Required Studies/Surveys Investments Improvement of waste • Survey of actual coverage of LGU-managed and barangay-managed collection collection through: to determine the extent and condition of the road networks reached by the collection vehicles. The location of the MRFs, MRS routes and junkshops will be 1. Deployment of determined with respect to the existing collection routes. pushcarts • Determination of actual collection rates of the barangays and the LGUs in relation 2. Deployment of skip bins to waste generation to provide a realistic estimate of the collection gap and 3. Additional small waste serve as the basis for the acquisition of small trucks—in the case of the private collection vehicles haulers—and pushcarts in the case of barangay-managed collection. • Determination of available barangay logistics for waste collection in terms of manpower, vehicles and funds to be used to identify which barangays will receive assistance and the number of pushcarts that will be deployed. Increase in the recovery of • Identification of barangay clusters that will be served by the facility. Cluster recyclables through: selection will give priority to contiguous barangays without MRFs or those whose MRFs and MRS have limited capacities. 1. Centralized recyclable • Waste characterization at selected barangay clusters to determine potential recovery facility amount and type of recyclables. 2. Enhancement of • Audit of MRFs and MRS in target LGUs to determine location, physical condition, existing MRFs and MRS current capacity, available equipment and deployed operations personnel. arrangements 3. Additional barangay • Search for NGOs and manufacturing companies that will support the program. trading centers for plastics The Philippine Alliance for Recycling and Materials Sustainability (PARMS) could be considered to start this program. • Identification of barangays where the trading centers will be established. • Search for potential market or usage. 4. Segregation bins for • Identification of commercial establishments where the bins will be deployed. plastic waste These correspond to the large malls and supermarkets found in the commercial and business districts of Makati, Quezon City, Mandaluyong and Muntinlupa. LGU records of size, number of stalls, planned occupancy and sales could be used to screen the establishments where the bins will be deployed. Photo: Shutterstock / junpinzon. Chapter 6. INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES | 65 The investments will be accompanied by institutional and identification and quantification of the plastic strengthening of the concerned LGUs to ensure proper components. The same methodology will be used implementation as well as sustained operation and in the planned WACS for the remaining 12 LGUs. maintenance. The key areas to be addressed by capacity building include the following: • Waste component identification: • Operation and maintenance of MRFs and new The waste components presented in most of the recycling facilities SWM plans included the high-value PETs, HDPEs • Monitoring of new recycling facilities, as well as and PPs, while the remaining low value types were existing MRF and MRS operations lumped together with other residual wastes. In light of the growing awareness of plastic pollution, • Monitoring of collection systems all types should be identified and quantified so For the new recycling facilities, MRF and MRS, the weight they can be used for planning and management. of the input waste and of the outputs of recyclables These include PET, HDPE, PVC, LDPE, PP, PS, and and residuals should be monitored. For the collection polycarbonates. system, the capacity of the vehicles should be known, and the trips made per day should be recorded. • Section on Monitoring and Evaluation: Aside from the operational gaps, all LGUs have 10-Year SWM plans do not have a section on limitations in the following aspects of their approved monitoring and evaluation, which should contain SWM plans and should be addressed when these are performance standards on diversion, collection updated in 2024: and disposal. This is critical for monitoring waste • Methodology employed in the conduct of the management and the implementing the rules and Waste Assessment and Characterization Survey regulations of RA 9003. (WACS): • Analysis of socio-economic profile: The methodology and short four-day duration of the WACS used in the 2013-2014 version of the The plans include a description of the plans resulted in a wide range of per capita waste socio-economic profile, which is simply an generation and densities for a group of LGUs with enumeration of the features of the LGUs. This essentially similar socio-economic profiles. These was not analyzed and used in relation to the SWM translated into unrealistic waste generation rates conditions of the respective LGU. The relevant and volumes that affected planning for collection, features include population growth and density, diversion and disposal. income distribution amongst the population, distribution of residential areas, proximity to The WACS performed for five LGUs of Metro Manila major waterways and water bodies, vulnerability in 2021 utilized the methodology formulated by of low-lying areas to flooding, spatial location of the Department of Science and Technology, which major waste generators, existing road networks and required seven (7) consecutive days of testing the locations of MRFs, MRF routes and junkshops. 66 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila Photo: Shutterstock / Kosol Phunjui. Chapter 6. INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES | 67 CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A n analysis of the SWM systems of the 17 LGUs of Metro Manila showed gaps in collection, recycling and methodologies employed in waste planning, diversion and disposal, hindering the effective implementation of RA 9003—particularly for plastic waste management. Gaps in the available SWM data at the barangay, LGU and agency levels are also present. The gap in waste collection is attributed mainly to the limitations of both the barangay- and LGU-managed systems in reaching slum or depressed areas where the road networks are narrow and occupied by informal establishments. The extent of non-collection in these areas is not known due to the absence of monitoring by both the barangays and the LGUs. These conditions are aggravated by the absence of monitoring of the residuals generated at MRFs, MRS and junkshops, translating to collection leaks. Metro Manila, just like the rest of the Philippines, is vulnerable to the ongoing threat of climate change. As predicted by the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration  (PAGASA), the country will experience changes in the amount and frequency of rainfall, which will contribute to an overall increase in runoff—particularly in the built-up sections of Metro Manila LGUs. Accordingly, the magnitude and duration of flooding will be exacerbated by collection gaps and leaks that will fill-up and clog waterways and canals with plastic waste. The gap in recycling is reflected by the continuing presence of four levels of the recovery of recyclables from the source until the waste reaches the disposal sites. Level 1 refers to the recovery of recyclables at source by households and workers at establishments. Level 2 corresponds to the sorting of recyclables at MRFs and MRS by barangay-designated personnel and drop-off points just outside of the waste generators by ambulant pickers. Level 3 is performed at the collection vehicles by the truck crew. Level 4 is undertaken by the informal pickers at the disposal sites. The recycling gap is brought about by the inadequate number of efficient MRFs and MRS at Level 2 that can effectively process the waste generated in the 17 LGUs. The unprocessed waste then goes to the collection vehicles and disposal facilities. The recovery of recyclables at Level 3 and Level 4 could be reduced to a minimum if there were adequate MRFs and MRS. The gap in the diversion of the biodegradables is attributed to the limited number of MRFs used to process these materials into compost. Gaps in methodologies affect planning, waste diversion and disposal: 1. As currently formulated, the SWM plans do not include the analysis and correlation of the physical and socio-economic conditions with existing SWM conditions and programs of the LGUs. The per capita waste generation data of the individual LGUs and waste densities are essentially undervalued due to the procedures used to conduct the WACS. These translate to an underestimate of the waste generation of the LGUs and affect the proper accounting of disposed waste into sanitary landfills. Moreover, the current 68 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila WACS data does not identify and quantify and need to implement investments that will improve the presence of all potential plastic types in SWM systems. the waste stream. The assessment led to a classification of the LGUs The SWM plans do not include monitoring into four tiers indicating the prioritization of recipients and evaluation, which should contain the of proposed improvements of the SWM system. Tier agreed upon performance standards that 1, which includes Parañaque, Pasig and Muntinlupa, guide how the LGUs can effectively oversee will be considered for the construction of centralized implementation. facilities for the processing of dry, potentially recyclable 2. The current MMDA method of equating waste materials. The LGUs within each of the remaining Tiers diversion to the dividend of the estimated waste shall be considered for the implementation of the collection and waste generation produces other investments based on their respective needs. an overestimated value. Diversion should The gaps in methodologies for SWM planning could correspond to the amount of waste not be addressed through the combined efforts of the disposed into the landfills due to recycling LGUs and the NSWMC. The NSWMC could issue a and compositing. Currently, this cannot be memorandum order requiring the LGUs to include a estimated due to the absence of monitoring of section on monitoring and evaluation in their updated recycling and composting efforts in the LGUs. SWM plans. The memorandum order could contain 3. The use of the volumetric method and an guidelines on the parameters to be monitored and assumed waste density at sanitary landfills is the performance guidelines to be followed by the not accurate and affects proper accounting LGUs. It should also issue another memorandum that of disposed waste. defines waste diversion. The gaps in recycling and collection were used to For their part, the LGUs should improve their plans identify potential investments that could improve the through correlation of the physicochemical and solid waste management systems. socioeconomic conditions with existing SWM situation and use of the DOST-approved procedures in the Investments to improve recovery of recyclables conduct of their WACS. include: the establishment of centralized facilities for processing of dry and source-segregated dry waste, the Implementation of the investments will be based on enhancement of the operation of existing MRFs and actual SWM conditions at each of the selected LGUs MRS, the establishment of additional plastic redemption and subject to the results of the required studies and centers in all of the LGUs and deployment of plastic financing arrangements. segregation bins in commercial establishments at Resolution of the disposal gap should be the LGUs with major CBDs. responsibility of MMDA, which should require all Investments in collection include the combination of sanitary landfill operators to use weigh bridges. the following: acquisition and deployment of pushcarts The gap in the SWM database at the barangay, LGU to barangays, deployment of skip bins near MRFs, MRS and EMB levels prevent effective and systematic routes and junkshops, and small collection vehicles monitoring and management—particularly for diversion that can pass through narrow roadways of depressed and non-collection, which affect plastic waste. This areas. The pushcarts can simultaneously be used to can be improved through increased coordination support the MRS of the barangays. among these three key stakeholders. EMB should The 17 LGUs were assessed in terms of (1) waste establish a regional and national database based on generation, (2) existing plastic waste management the checklist it will issue to all barangays and LGUs. programs, (3) passage of relevant plastic ordinances, It should take an active role in the collection and (4) available infrastructure for diversion, (5) available management of solid waste data using appropriate system for the recovery of recyclables, (6) potential and free mobile applications. The NSWMC could issue space for infrastructure and (7) proximity to waterways a memorandum order requiring barangays and LGUs in order to determine their comparative readiness to regularly submit updated waste management data. Chapter 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS | 69 Based on interviews, Information, education and Aside from their IEC efforts and those planned under communication, campaigns on proper SWM are a MMFMP, the LGUs and the regulating agencies must continuing program among all the LGUs of Metro focus and exert extra efforts on strict enforcement of Manila. The LGUs use social media and conventional local ordinances and administrative orders to improve communication methods to reach out to various SWM. stakeholders. The proposed improvements of the SWM systems The following MMFMP additional IEC activities will of Metro Manila through appropriate investments in reinforce the current efforts of the LGUs: recycling and collection and the establishment of a 1. Deploy an Audio-Visual Truck to inform and SWM database can be replicated in other parts of the educate the public on SWM.  Philippines where similar gaps in the implementation of RA 9003 exist. The memorandum orders to be 2. Establish a Children’s SWM Eco-hub in two issued by the NSWMC on SWM planning, diversion locations to be centers for learning about and waste data collection will apply to all LGUs of SWM, intended for a large number of students.  the Philippines. 3. Produce videos showcasing famous TV artists and well-known personalities to educate the public on proper segregation, reduction, re-use and recycling of waste. 70 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila REFERENCES Audi, Pradjita. (2019). Evaluation for The Implementation of New Presidential-Regulation on Solid Waste Management in Jakarta, Indonesia City Government of Marikina. (2014). Marikina City Ten Year Solid Waste Management Plan (2014-2023). City of Makati. (2014). Ten-Year Solid Waste Management Plan (2014-2023), City of Makati. City of Malabon. (2015). 10-Year Ecological Solid Waste Management Plan 2015-2014. City of Mandalutong. (2015). 10 Year Ecological Solid Waste Management Plan (2015-2024). City of Manila, Department of Public Services. (2015). 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan (2015-2025). Environmental Management Bureau. (2018). National Solid Waste Management Status Report (2008-2018). Quezon City. Environmental Management Bureau. (2020). Annual Report fot CY 2019. Quezon City. Environmental Protection and Waste Management Department. (2018). Update of the 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan of Quezon City . Jambeck, J. R. R. Geyer, C. Wilcox, T. R. Siegler, M. Perryman, A. Andrady, R. Narayan, K. L. Law. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, Volume 347, Issue 6223, 768-771. Las Piñas City, 10-Year Ecological Solid Waste Manageement. (2014). Las Piñas City. Lebreton, Lebreton, L. , A, Andrady. (2019). Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Communications. Lungsod ng Muntinlupa. (2015). 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan (2015-2024). Metro Manila Development Authority. (2020). Data on Waste Collection and Disposal as of October 2020. Metro Manila Development Authority and Department of Public Works and Highways. (2016). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment - Metro Manila Flood Management, Phase 1. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Thailand. (2019). Booklet on Thailand State of Pollution, 2018. National Economic Development Authority, (2017), Philippine Development Plan, 2017-2022 National Solid Waste Management Commission. (2020, November 11). NSWMC Database as of June 2020. Retrieved from Solid Waste Management Division: https://nswmc.emb.gov.ph/?page_id=50 Navotas City. (2015). Navotas City 10--Year Solid Waste Management Plan (2015-2024). NEDA and National Solid Waste Management Commission. (2008). Cost Sharing Framework for Solid Waste Management. Parañaque City. (2015). Ten-Year Solid Waste Management Plan of the City of Parañaque (2015-2024). Pasay City. (2015). Pasay City 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan (2014-2015). Pasig City. (2015). Pasig City Ten-Year Solid Waste Management Plan (2015-2024). Philippine Statistics Authority. (2021, March 5). Gross Domestic Produxt. Retrieved from Philippine Statistics Authority National Capital Region: http://rssoncr.psa.gov.ph/GRDP San Juan City. (2015). Solid Waste Management Plan (2015-2024). Taguig City. (2015). The City Government of Taguig, 10 Year Solid Waste Management Plan (2015-2024). REFERENCES | 71 University of the Philippines National Engineering Center. (2021). Draft Report on the Microplastic and Plastic Field Surveys on Pasig, Philippines. Valenzuela City. (2015). Valenzuela City Proposed 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan (2015-2024). World Bank (2018). Population living in slums (% urban population) - Philippines: https://data.worldbank. org/indicator/EN.POP.SLUM.UR.ZS?locations=PH World Bank. (2018). Waht a Waste 2.0 - A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. The World Bank. World Bank Group. (2020). Market Study for the Philippines, Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers. Washington DC. 72 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila ANNEX Annex 1. TARGET RESPONDENTS OF DATA REQUEST AND ON-LINE INTERVIEWS Target Response Target Respondents for Date of Call Respondents for on-line Interview Data Request Caloocan Letter request received by LGU; CENRO Head /Designated November 23, 2020 requested data not yet provided Representative Las Piñas Letter request received by LGU; CENRO Head /Designated November 27, 2020 requested data provided on Representative December 7 Makati Letter request received by LGU; DES Head/ Designated November 20, 2027 requested data provided on Representative December 22 Malabon Letter request received by LGU; CENRO Head /Designated November 19, 2020 requested data provided on Representative November 18 Mandaluyong Letter request received by LGU; CEMD Head/ Designated November 23, 2020 requested data provided on Representative January 11 Manila Letter request received by LGU; DPS Head/ Designated December 4, 2020 requested data provided on Representative November 25 Marikina Letter request received by LGU; CEMO Head/ Designated Target call recipient not requested data not yet provided Representative yet available Muntinlupa Letter request received by LGU; ESC Head/Designated December 8, 2020 requested data provided on Representative December 7 Navotas Letter request received by LGU; CENRO Head /Designated December 7, 2020 requested data provided on Representative January 27 Parañaque Letter request received by LGU; CENRO Head /Designated December 3, 2020 requested data provided on Representative November 26 Pasay City Letter request received by LGU; CENRO Head /Designated December 7, 2020 requested data provided on Representative December 7 Pasig Letter request received by LGU; CENRO Head /Designated December 2, 2020 requested data not submitted Representative but was discussed during online interview Pateros Letter request received by LGU; MENRO Head/ Designated November 25, 2020 provided SWM plan only on Representative November 10 Quezon City Letter request received by LGU; Task Force Head/Designated November 19, 2020 requested data provided on Representative November 23 San Juan Letter request received by LGU; CENRO Head /Designated January 26, 2021 requested data not provided Representative Taguig Letter request received by LGU; OIC CENRO, Program December 15, 2020 requested data not submitted on recycling and plastic as the CENRO is undergoing management discussed during reorganization online interview ANNEX | 73 Valenzuela Letter request received by LGU; CESO Head/ Designated January 25, 2021 provided requested data during Representative the online interview MMDA Letter request received by MMDA; SWMO Head/ Designated November 24, 2020 requested data provided on Representative November 25 NCR EMB Letter request received by Head of SWM Section December 15, 2020 NCR-EMB; requested data not submitted but was obtained thru telephone interview NSWMC Letter request received by OIC of SWM Division December 15, 2020 NSWMC; requested data submitted Recycling Industry Letter request received by Mr. Mr. Crispian Lao Call was not made as Representative Crispian Lao, requested data not data requested as data available at his office, was referred requested not available to NSWMC Secretariat at his office SWAPP Letter request received by MMDA; Executive Director/ December 17, 2020 requested data not available at Designated Representative SWAPP 74 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila ANNEX | 75 APRIL 2022 76 | An Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Plans, Collection, Recycling and Disposal Management Systems of Metro Manila