COMMUNITY-BASED-RECYCLING - final - SRnv119.92.161.2/portal/Portals/38/adb/Report 5a...

��

��

�

��

�

��

��

�

!"#�$�!��%&��$&%'�(��#"�

!��)"!"�#�*�$+"�#��

,#�� -.-/*�%0�

Republic of the Philippines Department of Environment and Natural Resources Asian Development Bank

AEA Technology In Association With GlobalWorks • CalRecovery • ENR Consultants

METRO MANILA SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT PROJECT (TA 3848)

FINAL REPORT

REPORT No: 5a

ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED RECYCLING��

�

�Project Team

Neil Varey, AEA Technology, Project Director Luis F. Diaz, CalRecovery, Inc., Technical Team Leader

Nick Allen, GlobalWorks, Disposal

Levi Buenafe, GlobalWorks, Institutional Horace Crowe, AEA Technology, Institutional Luis Diaz, CalRecovery, Inc., Medical Waste

Linda Eggerth, CalRecovery, Inc., Community Awareness Grace Favila, ENR Consultants, Community Awareness

Manjit Kahlon, AEA Technology, Solid Waste Roger Lopez, ENR Consultants, Social Agnes Palacio, GlobalWorks, Financial

Richard Pook, AEA Technology, Financial Reynor Rollan, ENR Consultants, Disposal Joey Sta. Ana, GlobalWorks, Solid Waste

September 2003

ADB TA 3848-PHI: Metro Manila Solid Waste Management Project Final Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 Background............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Scope and coverage............................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Methodology and approach .................................................................................................................... 3

2. Survey Findings........................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Historical perspective.............................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Initiating CBSWM activities..................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Types of CBSWM activities .................................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Recycling ................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.5 Composting............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.6 Financial aspects of Community Based SWM Programs ...................................................................... 7 2.7 Social Impacts......................................................................................................................................... 7 2.8 Operational problems ............................................................................................................................. 8

3. Lessons and Experiences .......................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Facilitating factors................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Constraining factors................................................................................................................................ 9

4. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................10

Annex 1. Guide Questionnaire ...................................................................................................................12 Annex 2. CBSWM Survey Tables...............................................................................................................17 Annex 3. Case Reports...............................................................................................................................32 Annex 4. Interviews with NGO Leaders......................................................................................................45 Annex 5 Photographs .................................................................................................................................55


Assessment of Community Based Recycling Report No: 5a AEA Technology 1

Executive Summary

This study attempts to assess some of the existing community-based recycling, or CBSWM, schemes, in order to look into the factors that facilitate or have constrained their adoption in the community, assess the effectiveness and social impacts of CBSWM initiatives undertaken in the surveyed sites, identify practices that could be replicated in other communities of Metro Manila, and recommend steps that could facilitate CBSWM promotion pursuant to RA 9003. The assessment covers a selection of 16 barangays known to be practicing CBSWM, based on information that was first obtained from the Solid Waste Management Offices (SWMOs) of the 17 LGU’s in Metro Manila. These barangays are located in the cities of Caloocan, Makati, Manila, Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Navotas, Parañaque, Pasig, and Quezon City. Fieldwork was conducted using a guide questionnaire to elicit information from key personnel. Secondary data are used, and results of the other studies in this project are also cited in the text of this report.

Although RA 9003 was approved into law only in January 2001, waste segregation and collection at source has been promoted in Metro Manila for three decades by the zero-waste management movement in the Philippines, but adoption has been at a very slow pace and limited to small areas due to the lack of government support. The situation is now expected to change.

Based on the assessments findings, CBSWM is initiated regardless of the prevailing socio-economic status of the community, be it upper class, middle class, lower class, or a mixture of these social classes. Leadership appears to be the key factor for successfully initiating CBSWM. In most cases, the initiative is led by the Barangay Captain who is either an exponent of zero-waste or a member of an NGO pursuing the zero-waste movement. With the exception of activities at the household level, there are two types of regular CBSWM activities carried out at a community-established Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), namely: a) recycling, which involves handling of non-biodegradable but recyclable waste materials; and b) composting, which involves biodegradable or compostable waste materials. In some sites, livelihood projects are undertaken as complementary activities, such as vegetable gardening where the MRF-produced compost is applied. Recycling takes place at all sites and involves collection of segregated recyclable materials from individual households, and selling these to junkshops. Collection of recyclables is generally done by MRF workers, called eco-aides or bio-men. Some MRF’s have selling arrangements with recycling NGOs, such as Linis-Ganda and Zero Kalat para sa Kaunlaran (ZKK) although data on the actual income from recyclables is limited but what there is indicates that there are economic potentials in CBSWM.

Eleven of the 16 surveyed sites practice composting. Two general types of composting are used, namely:

• The mechanical type, using either manual or electrically-operated rotating drum and inoculants to hasten composting, practiced in 7 sites; and

• The natural type, that relies mainly on the natural process of decomposition.

Performance of MRF’s with the mechanical composting equipment, which is deemed more suited to the densely populated barangays in Metro Manila, showed that based on the rated capacity of the equipment the ability to process the biodegradable wastes generated daily in the barangay is limited. The combined capability of the 7 sites can only process about 7% of the total biodegradable waste generated daily in these sites and this overall percentage includes the exceptionally high performance displayed by the Philam scheme. Design and process improvement is desperately needed in the composting technology currently adopted in the surveyed sites.



Given its limitations and depending on how it is managed, CBSWM initiatives could create either positive or negative impacts in the community. The positive impacts include: • Positive change in the attitudes and habits among residents • Barangay revenue generation and income opportunities for the poor • Promotion of livelihood like handicraft-making, vegetable ornamental gardening, and vermiculture • Prompt and improved waste collection efficiency • Reduced quantity of solid waste to be disposed • Improved community awareness and social relationships.

Negative impacts of CBSWM practices include:

• Environmental pollution, such as emission of bad odor and presence of disease-carrying insects • Conflict in time management between job and domestic chores • The MRF creates an “eyesore” in the community.

Operational problems can also affecting MRF performance:

• Expensive materials added to the compost • Difficulties in marketing the compost • Ineffectiveness of the installed mechanical composting equipment to process the daily generated

biodegradable waste • Lack of space for establishing adequate MRF facilities.

Adoption of CBSWM practices and sustained operation of the MRF are facilitated by a number of interrelated factors, namely:

• Firm and environmentally-committed leadership in the barangay • Personalized information drive in the barangay • Technical assistance from experienced trainers and organizer • Consistent system of giving incentives to adopters and punishment of violator • Support from influential institutions in the community • Availability of land on which to establish the MRF.

CBSWM can be constrained by a number of factors

• Political rivalry that divides the support of residents • Opposition of influential community members to CBSWM initiatives • Persistent waste collection by city contractors regardless of whether it is segregated or not.

Matching potentials and problems, the following steps are recommended to facilitate the adoption of CBSWM pursuant to RA 9003:

• Promotional campaign at the barangay level that utilizes experienced community members and

respected residents at the purok (district) or street level to persuade household members, including domestic helpers, to participate in CBSWM.



• Review and evaluate existing composting facilities and identify how its processing capability can be

improved. The tested performance of the DOST-designed composting equipment [as described in the Study of Markets for Recyclable Waste Report No: 5c] should also be evaluated and, if found more advantageous, pave the way for its massive diffusion throughout Metro Manila. Evaluation of comparative advantages between the different brands of inoculants/enzymes is likewise recommended.

• Organization of a Community Management Group (CMG) to manage the MRF could be considered

[this is also recommended in the Study of Markets for Recyclable Waste] to insure sustainability of MRF operation.

• Support of the Barangay to CBSWM/MRF operation should be sustained in terms of funding [this is

also suggested in the Study of Markets for Recyclable Waste].

• Garbage collection by City-contracted services should strictly abide by the ordinances and the SWM program implemented by the Barangay, and coordinate closely with the MRF operation in the barangay.



1. Introduction 1.1 Background RA 9003, otherwise known as the “Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000,” mandates that segregation and collection of solid waste at source shall be conducted at the barangay level and that there shall be established a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in every barangay or cluster of barangays designed to receive, sort, process, and store the collected compostable and recyclable materials. These are identified as Community-Based Solid Waste Management (CBSWM) activities towards which initiatives have to be promoted by the cities and municipalities in respective communities pursuant to RA 9003. Promoting CBSWM initiatives, however, has been an on-going effort in Metro Manila for some considerable time. Originally undertaken largely by civil societies or NGOs, with minimal government support, little was achieved in developing this practice throughout Metro Manila. In fact, a few of the communities that initiated CBSWM before RA 9003 have already ceased the practice for one reason or another. Inasmuch as CBSWM is a primary strategy to alleviate the waste disposal problem in Metro Manila and, at the same time, protect public health and conserve resources, it is important to find out what factors have encouraged the communities to initiate and sustain CBSWM, and what facilitated or constrained the adoption of CBSWM practices. The present assessment is thus, conducted to look into these factors among barangays known to be practicing CBSWM and, from their experiences, identify the lessons that could be adopted to promote CBSWM in all other barangays in Metro Manila as envisioned in RA 9003. 1.2 Objectives The objectives of this assessment, therefore, are as follows:

• To look into the factors that facilitated or constrained the adoption of CBSWM practices in the community;

• To identify the social impacts that influence acceptability and sustainability of these initiatives;

• To assess the effectiveness of these initiatives and identify practices that could be replicated in other

parts of Metro Manila; and

• To recommend steps that could facilitate CBSWM promotion pursuant to RA 9003. 1.3 Scope and coverage The assessment covers a selection of barangays known to be practicing CBSWM, based on information that was first obtained from the Solid Waste Management Offices (SWMOs) of the 17 LGU’s in Metro Manila. These barangays are listed in Table 1, together with the respective LGU’s and the organization/NGOs involved in the undertaking.



Table 1.CBSWM Survey Sites/Barangay (Bgy) by LGU and Involved Organizations/NGOs City/Municipality CBSWM Pilot Site/Bgy Involved Organization/NGO1 Caloocan 1. Bgy 52 & Bgy 56 Barangay, MMDA, Makati

2. Bel Air 3. Forbes Park

Barangay, ZWRMPFI Barangay, ZWRMPFI, ZKK

Manila 4. Bgy 833 & Bgy 834 Barangay, Philippines Shell, ZWRMPFI Mandaluyong 5.Barangka Itaas Barangay, City Muntinlupa 6. Tunasan: Sto. Nino Village & Park Homes

Subdivision Homeowners, Barangay, City

Navotas 7. Tanza Kaunlaran sa Kalikasan, Elem. School Paranaque 8. Sun Valley

9. San Antonio Barangay, Mother Earth Barangay, Mother Earth, Paranaque City

Pasig 10.Ugong Barangay, Kilus Kaunlaran Quezon City

11 Bagumbuhay 12. Blue Ridge 13. Escopa 14. Holy Spirit 15. Philam 16. Talayan

Barangay, Mother Earth Mother Earth, Barangay Barangay, Mother Earth, ADB Staff Barangay, ZWRMPFI PHAI, Barangay, Parish Church Barangay, Mother Earth

1MMDA=Metro Manila Development Authority. ZWRMPFI=Zero Waste Recycling Movement of the Philippines Foundation, Inc. ZKK=Zero Kalat sa Kapaligiran Foundation. PHAI= Philam Homeowners Association, Inc. 1.4 Methodology and approach Field investigations were conducted using a guide questionnaire. The latter was designed for key informant interviews (KII), and a copy of the questionnaire is shown in Annex 1 of this report. The data are tabulated and presented as CBSWM Survey Tables 1-12 in Annex 2. Case Reports are prepared and presented in Annex 3 to provide narrative descriptions about the sites. Likewise, highlights of the interviews with NGO leaders are prepared to provide some details on the role played by the NGOs and the views of its leaders in promoting CBSWM and are presented in Annex 4.

2. Survey Findings 2.1 Historical perspective Although RA 9003 only came into being in January 2001, the practice of waste segregation and collection at source as a means to alleviate the garbage problem has been promoted in Metro Manila for three decades but has been adopted at a very slow pace and limited areas in various communities of the metropolis. Civic-minded professionals, with strong sense of environmental conservation, started the zero-waste recycling movement in the Philippines in the 70’s. Their dedication has inspired others not only to join the movement but also to initiate CBSWM practices in their respective communities. Zero-waste recycling does not mean there is no more waste to be collected or disposed. Rather, it is a holistic approach of handling solid waste wherein materials that can be still made useful are not allowed to go to a disposal site, which is something that can be achieved by applying simple waste segregation, recycling and composting technologies appropriate for urban communities in Metro Manila.



2.2 Initiating CBSWM activities CBSWM is initiated regardless of the general socio-economic status of the members of the community, be it upper class, middle class, lower class, or a mixture of these social classes. The surveyed 16 sites represent different socio-economic status, namely: one (1) site belongs to the upper class category; two (2), to upper-middle class; three (3), to middle class; another three (3), to middle-lower middle class; seven (7), lower middle-lower class; and one (1), to lower class category. Leadership appears to be the key factor in successfully initiating CBSWM. In most cases, the initiative is led by the Barangay Captain who is either an exponent of zero-waste or a member of an NGO pursuing the zero-waste movement. In two cases, the City government took the initiative; while in one, an NGO took the lead with financial assistance extended by a civic group. 2.3 Types of CBSWM activities Except for waste segregation at source, which is mostly done in individual households, there are two types of regular CBSWM activities carried out at a community-established MRF in the surveyed sites. These are:

• Recycling, which involves handling of non-biodegradable but recyclable waste materials; and • Composting, which involves biodegradable or compostable waste materials.

In some sites, livelihood projects are undertaken as complementary activities, such as vegetable gardening where the compost is applied and demonstrated as a pure organic fertilizer [based on FPA definition]; and handicraft-manufacturing, which utilizes recyclable materials. Between recycling and composting, the latter appears to be the most challenging. The aim is to divert from the waste stream all biodegradable materials that constitute the largest bulk (over 50%) of the total municipal solid waste generated daily in Metro Manila. This also entails considerable capital investment costs and stringent technical requirements to make it effective. Among others, biodegradable waste needs immediate treatment or processing unlike the recyclable waste; otherwise, the decaying organic matter emits obnoxious odor that is irritating and unhealthy to people. 2.4 Recycling Recycling takes place in all sites although the specific practices vary from one barangay to another [see Case Reports and Photographs in Annex 3 & 5]. The practice generally includes collection of recyclable materials at source, mostly individual households, where these are segregated as non-biodegradable from the biodegradable ones. Recyclable materials include: paper, plastics, metal, and glass [see: Study of Markets for Recycled Waste report No: 5c]. Collection of the materials is generally done by workers, called eco-aides or bio-men, of the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) of the community. In some sites, the arrangement is for the eco-aides just to sell materials to the junkshop and then share the proceeds amongst themselves. This gives them a direct source of income to augment the salary they are receiving. In sites where the scale of MRF operation is relatively larger, the materials are brought to the MRF where these are first sorted according to type and then allowed to accumulate into a desired quantity before selling onto the junk dealers or buyers. Here, the proceeds are treated as income to the MRF and used for its maintenance and operating expenses. For detailed discussion of junkshops, see Study of junkshops report No: 5b. Some of the MRF’s surveyed have arrangements with NGOs actively involved in the recycling business. In Blue Ridge, for instance, the recyclables are sold to junkshops affiliated with Linis-Ganda. In Forbes Park, the recyclables are bought by the Zero Kalat para sa Kaunlaran (ZKK).



Assuming 100% coverage of all households comprising the community or barangay, the potential income on recyclables could be considerable and can be roughly estimated based on the size of the household population and by the findings that weighted average household waste generation is 0.419kg/person and that recyclable waste constitute 45% of the total household waste generated daily [JICA Study, 1997]. Given an average population size of 5,819 persons per barangay in Metro Manila [NSO Census 2000], the average daily generation of recyclable waste in a barangay is thus estimated at approximately 1,097 kilograms. This quantity is worth Php1, 390 based on the average buying price of Linis-Ganda, as shown in its 2002 purchase report data [see: Report on Market for Recycled Waste Report No 5c.x]. 2.5 Composting Out of the 16 sites surveyed, 11 practice composting. There are two general types of composting techniques being used, namely:

a) The mechanical type, either manual or electrically-operated practiced in 7 sites; and b) The natural type, practiced in 4 sites that rely on the natural process of decomposition.

In the latter type, the technology used is the compost pit, windrow, or bottomless vertical container (drums or car tyres). Two of the sites (Holy Spirit and Talayan), which have large MRF compounds, have a shredder to reduce the materials into smaller sizes to hasten the composting process and to maximize space. The other two (Blue Ridge and Tanza) rely wholly on natural processes. Surveyed sites that use the mechanical type of composting operation include three in Quezon City, two in Parañaque City, one in Mandaluyong, and one in Pasig City. Except for Escopa II (Quezon City), all use the same kind of equipment, an electrically operated rotating drum, called a composter, with a 2-ton capacity. Escopa II, which is a depressed barangay, uses several units of manually operated rotating drums, each with a capacity of 12-kg. All 7 sites use cultured microorganism, called inoculants or enzymes, which is mixed with the waste materials to allegedly hasten the composting process. Between the two types of composting, the mechanical type is obviously more suited to barangays in Metro Manila that are densely populated and where land area is generally limited. With this consideration in mind, comparative analysis is made on the performance of the composting operation in the 7 surveyed sites in order to asses the capability of the existing facilities to handle the biodegradable waste generated daily in the barangay that the MRF is to serve. As shown in Table 2, the 7 sites have a combined household population of 111,688 persons. Based on the weighted average household waste generation of 0.419 kg/person per day and an estimated 52% composition of biodegradable waste out of the total solid waste, the biodegradable waste generated in each and for all of the 7 sites is estimated and shown in Table 2. Likewise, Table 2 shows the percentage of households claimed to be served by the respective MRF’s, wherein the coverage varies considerably from one site to another and ranges from 10% in Ugong, Pasig City, to 100% claimed in Barangka Itaas, Mandaluyong City. Assuming that the data given by the respondents were accurate, the actual quantity of compost production would confirm how much of the MRF rated capacity is utilized and how much of the estimated biodegradable waste generated in the barangays is actually handled by the MRF to validate the reported percentage of households served by the MRF. As shown in Table 3, Philam has the largest production capacity among the 7 sites, but Sun Valley reported a higher actual average production. Escopa has the lowest capacity, followed by Bagumbuhay. The figures in the table, however, merely show the nominal production capacity of the composting facility and the reported actual average production. These do not reflect how much of the estimated waste is actually composted in the MRF.



Table 2.Population, Estimated Generation of Biodegradable, and % of Households Served

Barangay Population Est. Biodegradable Generation (kg/day)

Reported % of HH Served

1.Bagumbuhay 7,597 1,655 35% 2.Barangka Itaas 10,748 2,342 100% 3.Escopa 2,060 449 50% 4.Philam 3,197 697 80% 5.San Antonio 38,179 8,318 75% 6.Sun Valley 30,873 6,727 99% 7.Ugong 19,034 4,147 10% TOTAL 111,688 24,335 64.1

Table 3.Compost Production Capacity & Reported Actual Average Volume of Production Barangay

No. & Capacity (cap) of Composting Drum

Est. Production (Kg/Day)1

Reported Actual Average Production2

1.Bagumbuhay 1 Unit 2-Ton Cap 200 24 sacks/month 2.Barangka Itaas 3 Units 2-Ton Cap 600 700-1,000 kg/week 3.Escopa 20 Units 12-kg Cap 24 12 sacks/month 4.Philam 4 Units 2-Ton Cap 800 2,000 kg/week 5.San Antonio 2 Unit 2-Ton Cap 400 100 kg/day 6.Sun Valley 2 Units 2-Ton Cap 400 2,500 kg/week 7.Ugong 1 Unit 2-Ton Cap 200 60 sacks/month TOTAL 13 units 2-ton cap +

12 Units 12-kg cap 2,600

14 898

5 1Estimate is based on assumption that the composter is utilized at full capacity; that, as per composter design, the composting period inside the composting drum before the compost is harvested is 5 days; and that 50% is the biodegradable material to compost conversion rate. 2Per sack equivalent is 12 kgs. Table 4 shows the percentage of the composted waste materials and total of biodegradable waste estimated to be generated daily in the respective barangays. Only 7.4% of the estimated total is being processed. The lowest percentage of 1.2% each is registered in Bgys Ugong and Bagumbuhay, while the highest is in Bgy Philam. Relating the respective percentages to the reported percentage of households served in each barangay, it appears that only the MRF in Bgy Philam appears to be processing 100% of the biodegradable waste generated daily by the households served by the MRF [shown in Table 2 above]. Table 4.Equivalent Compost Production, Biodegradable Waste being processed, and % of Processed Biodegradable to Total Estimated Biodegradable Waste Generated Daily Barangay

Compost Production in Kg/Day1

% of Production Capacity2

Biodegradable Waste Processed (Kg/Day)

% of Processed Biodegradable to Total Generated3

1.Bagumbuhay 10 20.0 20 1.2 2.Barangka Itaas 121 20.2 242 10.34 3.Escopa 5 20.8 10 2.2 4.Philam 286 35.8 572 82.1 5.San Antonio 100 25.0 200 2.4 6.Sun Valley 357 89.2 714 10.6 7.Ugong 24 50.0 48 1.2 TOTAL 903 34.5 1,806 7.4

1This refers to equivalent in Table 2 Column 4 reported data. 2 This refers to Table 2 Column 2 estimated data. 3 This refers to Table 1 Column 3 estimated data. 4Barangka Itaas does not include food leftovers (kanin baboy) among the compostable materials.



Except for Bgy Philam, the contrasting percentage, that is between actually processed biodegradable waste and reported extent of household served, reflect the comparative effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the MRF in providing its composting services. On the other hand, the figures showing the percentage of the quantity of compost actually produced to the estimated production capacity of the MRF indicate at a glance the comparative efficiency of its composting facilities. However, this could be misleading in the sense that high production figures could be due to shorter composting periods given to each batch of materials inside the composter. 2.6 Financial aspects of Community Based SWM Programs Community-based material recovery facilities (MRF’s) at the barangay level are operated by barangay staff, cooperative members, homeowner’s associations and/or NGO groups. Data on actual income from sale of recyclables is limited and only available for a few sites. Holy Spirit, for instance, revealed that its average income from sale of recyclable materials is Php80, 000 per month. In Tanza, Navotas, where the MRF is housed inside the school premises, the collection of recyclables is limited to waste paper and used or broken bottles and done at home by the pupils. These are stored at the center and sold at the end of the school year. The proceeds of the sale last year were reported to be more than enough to fund the needed school repairs and purchase of equipment for the incoming school year but a precise figure was not forthcoming. Although every effort was made to determine capital costs, operating costs and revenues from recycled materials little information was forthcoming from the operators either because it was not known or the income from sales of recyclables was being retained by the Eco-Aides as a supplement to their meager wages and are therefore not willingly declared. Many of those responsible were not really aware of the economics or commercial viability of their projects Only one or two MRF’s tried to produce some form of accounts, even then many of the important expenses were missing and presumably included elsewhere in the Barangay General Fund. Based on the surveys and interviews conducted, it is very difficult to analyze in any meaningful manner the financial performance of these MRF’s, as there are few reliable data available. Hence, it is possible to talk only in general terms regarding sources and applications of fund. The financial data that was obtained is shown in Annex 2, Tables 13 and 14. Generally, the operations of most of these MRF’s are subsidized since a large part of their costs are charged to the barangay fund such as the cost for the payroll function and other operating and maintenance costs. This is possible since barangays are required by law to automatically allocate at least 5% of their annual Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for solid waste management activities. On the other hand, income from sales of recyclables are retained in most cases by the Eco-Aides as a supplement to their meager wages, as well as used to purchase small tools and some supplies. 2.7 Social Impacts Depending on how it is managed, CBSWM initiatives are likely to create impacts that may be either positive or negative in the community. Subject to further validation, these impacts are identified as follows:

Positive

• A change in the attitudes and habits among residents, particularly in the handling of solid waste, which is quite evident in Philam and Talayan;

• Generating barangay revenues and income opportunities for the poor, as reported in Holy

Spirit and in Bagumbuhay; • Promotion of recycling-based livelihood project like the successful handicraft making in Ugong;

and compost-based activities such as the urban vegetable gardening in Barangka Itaas and in other sites, and the vermiculture project in Sun Valley;



• Prompt and improved waste collection efficiency, servicing even the less accessible households in the community (which large waste collection vehicles cannot reach), as reported in Barangka Itaas and Bagumbuhay;

• Reduced quantities of solid waste to be disposed to dumpsites by city/municipal waste

collectors, being experienced in all sites; and • Strengthened community awareness and social relationships, as illustrated in Philam.

Negative

• Environmental pollution, such as bad odor, presence of worms, flies, and other disease-

carrying insects, that caused complaints of residents in most sites and forced the closure of the MRF’s in Tunasan;

• Conflict of time management between work and domestic chores, which is a common

complaint among residents and causes their resentment when obliged by the Barangay Council to segregate waste as experienced in Barangka Itaas; and

• Creates an “eyesore” to some people, which led to the stoppage of MRF operation such as in

Tunasan. 2.8 Operational problems There are some operational problems affecting CBSWM/MRF performance. These include:

1. Expensive compost additives, such as sawdust or coco-dust and certain types of inoculants, resulting in the use of lower quantities than are suggested, in turn, resulting to improper processing and consequent negative environmental effects such as bad odor and attraction to flies and other disease-carrying insects;

2. Marketing difficulties resulting in accumulation of unsold compost and problem of storage space as

reported in Bagumbuhay and Escopa II [detailed description of marketing difficulties are given in the Study of Markets for Recycled Waste Report No: 5c];

3. Inability of the presently installed mechanized composting equipment to process the daily generated

biodegradable waste not just because of insufficiency in the number of units installed but more so of the operating design of the equipment [see detailed discussion on the performance of this equipment as compared with the one designed, developed, and tested by DOST in the Study of Markets for Recycled Waste report No: 5c];

4. Lack of space for installing CBSWM facilities, as urgently felt in Barangay 52 & Barangay 56 in

Caloocan, and in Barangay 833 & Barangay 834 in Manila, and a reason why some of the surveyed Barangays cannot establish additional MRF’s to be able to serve more residential areas in the barangay.



3. Lessons and Experiences 3.1 Facilitating factors CBSWM initiatives and the establishment of a MRF are facilitated by a number of interrelated factors. These are, namely:

• Firm and environmentally-committed leadership in the barangay, as exemplified in Holy Spirit, Barangka Itaas, and Bagumbuhay;

• Personalized information drive that utilizes experienced community members and respected purok

(district) or street leaders in the barangay, as done in Holy Sprit and in Bagumbuhay; • Technical assistance from experienced trainers and organizers, in situations where CBSWM is still a

novel concept and/or practice to introduce in the community, as was the case in the affluent villages of Forbes Park and Bel Air, or in the depressed barangay of Escopa II;

• Consistent system of providing incentives and the punishment of violators, as illustrated in Barangka

Itaas, Holy Spirit, Talayan and Bagumbuhay;

• Support from influential institutions in the community, like the Catholic Church, as enjoyed in Philam and Bagumbuhay; and

• Availability of land on which to establish the MRF and other requirements, an advantage in Holy Spirit,

Talayan, Philam, and Bagumbuhay. 3.2 Constraining factors CBSWM initiatives could be hampered by any or a combination of the following problems and constraints as encountered in the surveyed sites. These are as follows:

• Political rivalry, which divides the support of residents to the introduced CBSWM initiative, such as reported in Ugong;

• Opposition of some influential members of the community to the initiative, as in the case of Tunasan; • Persistent collection of solid waste by city/municipal garbage contractors regardless of whether it is

segregated or not, which competes with CBSWM initiatives to reduce the quantity of waste to be disposed and weakens the discipline that is being developed through this initiative among the residents of the barangay.



4. Recommendations In order to facilitate promotion of CBSWM throughout the 17 LGU’s in Metro Manila, the following steps are recommended:

• IEC strategies

IEC strategies at the barangay level may adopt an interpersonal approach that utilizes community members with experience, expertise, and conviction on CBSWM in the conduct of community information drive; or persuade influential residents or civic leaders at the purok (district) or street level to assume active role in talking personally to the residents in his/her area to get involved in CBSWM and help the Barangay in the enforcement of SWM-related ordinances.

• Technical measures

Review and evaluate the efficiency of the existing composting facilities, particularly the performance of the mechanical composting units (composters), and look into ways of improving their processing capability. The tested performance of the DOST-designed composting equipment [as described in the Study of Markets for Recyclable Waste] should also be evaluated and, if found advantageous, pave the way for its commercialization. Furthermore, the comparative advantages of the different brands of inoculants that are now used in the MRF’s should also be evaluated, in terms of cost and production of quality compost.

• Organizational imperatives Organization of a Community Management Group (CMG) to manage the MRF could be considered [this is also recommended in the Study of Markets for Recyclable Waste] to insure continuity of CBSWM, minimize the potential adverse effects of unavoidable leadership changes in the barangay, and professionalism MRF management to achieve greater economic as well as social benefits that can be derived from CBSWM. Effective management, such as in Philam, is needed to address the technical and marketing problems in the other surveyed sites.

• Sustained LGU support

Support of the Barangay to CBSWM should be sustained in terms of funding. If a portion of the Internal Revenue Allotment for the Barangay could be mandatory appropriation for CBSWM, as now practiced in the surveyed sites of Quezon City that proves advantageous to MRF operation, then it could be sustained and replicated in other LGU’s in Metro Manila that are not practicing it. The City or Municipality could also use part of its revenues to provide incentives to Barangays that achieve waste reduction through recycling, as now also practiced in Quezon City with Philam as its first recipient Barangay.

• Consistent SWM program implementation

In barangays where CBSWM programs are in effect, waste collection by City-contracted services should strictly abide by the ordinances and the SWM program implemented by the barangay. City-contracted collection of waste should be limited to residual waste in the streets that are adequately covered by MRF operation, and coordinated closely with the latter. Unscrupulous mixing of segregated and non-segregated waste by City collectors, which is a subject of complaints in most sites, should be stopped.



___________________________________________________________________________________ List of References: Camacho, Leonarda N. “Urban Community Solid Waste Management: The Case of Linis-Ganda Project in S.Juan,” Participatory Environmental Conservation and Management. PCARR. 1995. DENR. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 9003. Department Administrative Order No. 2001-34. “Ecological Waste Management for Community Wide Implementation.” Zero-Waste Management Systems Vol.1No. 3. Quezon City: A supplement to the Handbook on Zero-Waste Technology produced by the Recycling Movement of the Philippines, Inc. EMB-DENR. Philippine Industry’s Response to Waste Minimization: Pollution Prevention Success Stories. PRC Environmental Management Inc., 1996. Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority. FPA Memorandum Circular N0. 96-08. Series of 1996. Dated August 9, 1996. Kaunlaran sa Kalikasan (KSK). K.S.K. Project: Solid Waste Management. A document on the pilot CBSWM project in Tanza, Navotas, jointly implemented by the MMDA, LGU, and the KSK with funding assistance from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. Mercado, Monina Allarey (editor). Doon Po Sa Amin. Earth Day Network Philippines. 2002. MMDA. Improvements in the Recovery of Dry Recyclables in Metro Manila. October 2002. A documentary presentation prepared by MMDA on the accomplishments of the pilot project on community-based recycling project implemented by MMDA with funding support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. NEPC. Studies on Solid Waste Management in Metro Manila: Laguna Lake and Pasig River. July 1977. Moss, Cynthia. Zero-Waste Management Program: Barangay Philam. Quezon City: Philam Homes, 2001. Republic Act 9003, otherwise known as The Ecological Solid Waste management Act of 2000, approved January 26,2001. Sabas, Luz Escalante. Four Fs Total Recycling of Domestic Wastes: Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous. Zero Waste Management Publication Series. Vol 1. Sabas, Luz Escalante. Training Module on Ecological Solid Waste Management for the Local Government Units. Zero Waste Recycling Movement of the Philippines Foundation, Inc. 2001. Tagle, Ester Perez de. “Ecological Waste Management – The Way to Go in the New Millennium (Time for a Change in Mindset),” a draft position paper prepared for the Concerned Citizens Against Pollution (COCAP). October 2002.



Annex 1. Guide Questionnaire

ADB TA3848 – PHI Metro Manila SWM Project

Pilot CBSWM Project: Barangay-level MRF Operation Social Investigation

In-depth Interview and Primary Field Observation Guide INTRODUCTION: This investigation is conducted on behalf of the national government through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) supported by an Asian Development Bank (ADB) technical assistance. It aims to look into the social aspects of existing barangay-level MRF operation in Metro Manila, particularly in terms of its acceptability to the people in the community and the involvement that they have shown to sustain the operation. The information will be gathered through in-depth interviews and primary observations based on this guide.

1.0. Barangay Profile: 1. Name of Barangay: _______________________City/Municipality: __________________District: ____ 2. Barangay Hall Address (Street): __________________________________________Tel #: __________ 3. Name of Brgy Captain: ________________________________________________________________

3a) Check if Brgy Captain is: ____Newly-Elected? ______ Re-elected? 4. Number of Households (HH): _____________ No. of HH Population: _______________________ 5. Brgy Classification (check): ___1st Class ___2nd Class ___3rdClass ___4th Class ___5thClass 2.0. Project Profile 2.1. Location of MRF (or Eco-Center): 2.1.1 Name of street if it is along the street: __________________________________________________ If the MRF is not located along a street, indicate the distance (in meters) and name of the access street; also indicate identifying landmark, if any: _____________________________________________________________________________________ 2.1.2 Number of residential houses within 10-meter distance to the MRF lot: ____ 1c) Check if any of the following institution or public-use facility is within 10-meter distance to the MRF lot:

School _____ Hospital/Clinic ______ Church ______ Restaurant/Eatery _____ Others (Specify): ________________________________________________________________

2.2 Size of the MRF lot area (in square meter): _______ 2.3 MRF Lot ownership: Is the lot owned by the Barangay? Check: ____ Yes ____ No.

2.3.1 If the lot is not owned by the Barangay, who is the owner and what is the arrangement so that it can be used by the project? Briefly describe: ______________________________________________________________________________

2.4 MRF management and source funds: 2.4.1 When did the MRF start its operation? Indicate month/year: __________________



2.4.2 Persons employed in the MRF: Position, Number, and Place of residence

Name of Position/Function No. of Employees Place of Employee’s Residence*

*Indicate name of barangay and city or municipality. 2.4.3 Who provides overall supervision and control over the entire MRF operation and employees? ______ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 2.4.4 Source of funds for the following:

a) to establish the MRF: ___________________________________________________________ b) to sustain MRF operation? _______________________________________________________

2.5 Waste collection 2.5.1 How are the wastes brought into the MRF? Check applicable answer:

____Collected at source by MRF ____ Packed and disposed in plastic bags ____ Brought in by residents ____ Placed in container that is brought back home ____ Others (Specify) ___________________________________________________________

2.5.2 Are all the wastes brought in to the MRF coming from residential houses only? ___ Yes ___ No If not, from where else are the other wastes coming from? Specify: _______________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2.5.3 In case waste collection is done by MRF, is there a service fee? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, how much is the service charge? __________ 2.5.4 How many houses are served by MRF waste collection system? ______ 2.5.5 Is there an advantage(s) of the MRF collection system over the existing one? ___Yes ___ No If yes, what is this advantage(s)? Briefly state: ________________________________________ 2.5.5 In case not all houses are served by MRF, what is the reason for it? Briefly state: ________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 2.6 Waste segregation 2.6.1 Are the wastes brought into the MRF already segregated into biodegradable and non-biodegradable?

Check: ___ Yes ___ No



If the answer is yes, what facilitated or encourage the households (and the other sources of wastes, if any) to adopt the practice? Briefly describe: ____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________ 2.7 Waste recycling 2.7.1 Which of the recyclable materials are intended for sale and which are for reuse in livelihood or demonstration projects of the MRF or eco-center? Name the materials under the corresponding column below.

Recyclable Materials for Sale Recyclable Materials for Reuse in Projects

2.7.2 How much (in terms of pesos) is the average monthly sale of recyclable materials? ______________ 2.7.3 If the MRF has waste-reusing livelihood project(s): a) what is this project(s)? __________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ b) How many people are benefited by this project(s)? ____________________________________ 2.7.4 If the MRF has demonstration project(s): a) what is this project(s)? __________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ b) What is the objective of the project(s)? ___________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2.8 Composting 2.8.1 What waste materials are composted at the MRF? Specify these materials (e.g. leaves, fruit peelings, food leftover, etc.): _______________________________________________________________________________ 2.8.2 What is the average volume (in kilogram) of compost produced monthly by the MRF? _________kg 2.8.3 How is the compost product disposed of? Check below whichever is applicable: ___Sold ____Given to residents’ ___Used in MRF livelihood/demonstration project



___Others (Specify): ____________________________________________________________ 2.8.4 If compost is used in MRF livelihood project:

a) What project(s) is this? ________________________________________________________ b) How many people are benefited? ________________________________________________ 2.8.5 If compost is used in MRF demonstration project: a) What project(s) is this? ________________________________________________________ b) What is the objective of this project(s) _____________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 3.0 Problems and issues 3.1 Complaints from residents Are there complaints from residents against the MRF? Check: ___ Yes ___ No If yes: a) What is the complaint(s)? ___________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ b) Which resident(s) is complaining? __________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ c) How is the complaint(s) addressed/attended to or resolved? ________________ __________________________________________________________________ 3.2 Other problems/issues Are the following potential problems/issues encountered arising from the establishment and operation of the MRF? If there are, indicate in the corresponding below what action is being done to address it and whether these are resolved or still existing.

Potential problem/issue If encountered, what action is being done? Status Marketing problem for recyclable materials

Marketing problem for compost

Inadequate knowledge or training in recycling and composting

Inadequate land area

Inadequate equipment

Expensive compost enhancing materials (e.g. soil, coco dust, enzyme)

Inadequate shelter facilities



Potential problem/issue If encountered, what action is being done? Status Inadequate water supply

Others (specify):

Informants: Date:



Annex 2. CBSWM Survey Tables Table 1. Barangay Profile

City/Municipality Name of Barangay SE Status1 No. of HH HH Populat’n Bgy

Capt2 NGO Inv.3

1. Caloocan Barangay 52 Barangay 56

LM/L LML/L

701 753

2,878 3,824

RE RE

2. Makati Bel Air Forbes Park

UM U

2,394 527

9,287 3,420

RE RE

ZW ZW/ZK

3. Manila Bgy 833-Pandacan LM/L 289 1,578 NE Shell 4. Mandaluyong Barangka Itaas LM/L 2,459 10,748 RE None 5. Muntinlupa Tunasan:

-StoNino -Park Homes

LM/L LM/L

10,014 160 120

63,722 800 600

RE

6. Navotas Tanza M/L 4,200 19,245 RE KSK 7. Paranaque Sun Valley

San Antonio M

LM/L 6,755 8,112

30,873 38,179

RE NE

8. Pasig Ugong M/L 3,888 19,034 NE KF 9. Quezon City Bagumbuhay

Escopa II Blue Ridge A Holy Spirit Philam Talayan

LM/L L M

M/L M

UM

1,570 443 300

19,182 595

1,126

6,911 2,060 1,674 89,799 3,152 4,683

RE RE RE RE RE NE

MEU MEU None PHAI MEU

1 Socio-economic status: U=upper class; UM=upper-middle class; M=middle class; LM=lower-middle class; L=lower class; Mixed: e.g. M/L=middle to lower class residents, UM/M=upper middle to middle class residents, and so forth. 2 Status of Barangay Captain: NE=Newly-Elected; RE=re-elected 3 NGO Involved: KSK=Kaunlaran sa Kalikasan; KF=Kilus Foundation; MEU=Mother Earth Unlimited; PHAI=Philam Homeowners Association, Inc.; ZK= Zero Kalat sa Kaunlaran; ZW=Zero Waste Recycling Movement of the Philippines, Inc.



Table 2. Site Profile1

City/Municipality/ Barangay

MRF Location

Houses w/n 10-m radius

Public institution/ Facilities w/n 10-meter

radius

MRF area [sqm]

Owner of MRF land

1. Caloocan: Bgy 52&56

Priv.Residence

Several

None

4sqm

Brgy. Capt.


Composting in

residences

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

3. Manila Bgy 833-Pandacan

Via access road

None

None

10 sqm.

Manila City

4. Mandaluyong Barangka Itaas

Along riverbank

None

Basketball court

20 sqm.

Gov’t

5. Muntinlupa -Sto.Nino -Park Homes

Subdivision Subdivision

Across 2

None

Basketball court B.court/Chapel

300sqm. 100sqm.


6. Navotas Tanza

Bgy road

None

Elem. School

300+

Government

7. Paranaque Sun Valley San Antonio

Bgy compound Beside creek

None

1

Brgy. Hall

B.court/Chapel

200sqm.

350sqm.


8. Pasig Ugong

Riverbank

3

B.court/Day care ctr.

32 sqm.

Brgy.

9. Quezon City Bagumbuhay Escopa II Blue Ridge Holy Spirit Philam Talayan

Bgy road Brgy road Bgy road Access road Near brgy road Bgy compound

4 8 1

Squatters None None

None

Bgy.Hall/B.Court None None None

B.Hall/B.court/Chapel

300+ 100+

60sqm. 0.5 hec. 1,000+ 60sqm.

Private

Barangay Brgy/Prvt

Government PHAI

Disputed 1 NA means not applicable.



Table 3. MRF Management and Source of Fund1

City/Municipality/

Barangay Start of

Operation No. of

Workers Worker’s Residenc

e2

Estab. Fund

Maint. Fund

1. Caloocan: Barangay 52

Oct. 2002

6

Inside

Bgy.Capt.

Bgy.


Sept. 1994 2000

23 10

Outside Outside

Bgy Bgy.

Bgy. &assn dues.

3. Manila Bgy 833-

2000

3

Inside

Shell

Bgy.


1998

15

Inside

Bgy Capt/ City Hall

Bgy.

5. Muntinlupa -StoNino -Park Homes

2000 2001

6 3

Outside Outside

City Hall City Hall

City Hall City Hall

6. Navotas Tanza

Aug. 2001

(Pupils)

na

Donations

KSK/School


2000 1999

10 4

Inside Inside

Bgy.

City Hall

Bgy. Bgy.

8. Pasig Ugong

1998

7

Inside

Bgy. /award

Brgy.

9. Quezon City Bagumbuhay Escopa II Blue Ridge A Holy Spirit Philam Talayan

Aug. 2001++ March 2002 1994 1997 1999

6 5 2

37 3 7

Inside Inside Inside Inside

Outside Inside

Bgy/CLASP ADB Ladies Assn.Dues

Bgy Capt/Bgy Bgy. /PHAI Bgy/donations

Bgy Bgy Bgy. Bgy.

Bgy/PHAI Bgy.

1Source of funds to establish MRF (Estab. Fund) and sustain MRF operation (Maint. Fund). 2Location of worker’s residence: Inside Brgy, Outside Brgy, Both (some inside, others outside the barangay).



Table 4. MRF Waste Collection


Collectio

n at

Source (Yes/No)

Brought in by Residents (Yes/No)

HH Waste Only

(Yes/No)

Charge

Fee (Yes/N

o)

Remarks

1.Caloocan: Barangay 52/56

Yes

No

No

No

Also from sari-sari stores, school, factories


Yes Yes

No No

Yes Yes

No No

Composting done by individual homeowners

3. Manila Pandacan

Yes

No

No

No

Recyclables also collected from Pilipinas Shell


No

Yes

Yes

No

5. Muntinlupa Tunasan (StoNino) (Park Homes)

Yes Yes

No No

Yes Yes

No No

6. Navotas Tanza

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

School children just bring it


Yes Yes

No No

No Yes

No No

Also from sari-sari stores and offices

8. Pasig Ugong

Yes

No

No

No

Cartons from San Miguel, plastics from Isuzue, other factories


Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes Yes Yes

Yes No

Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes

Yes No No No

No No

HHs pay direct to bio-mans Some bring waste to center HHs also sell recyclables to ctr.; brgy has various factories Eco-aides collect

AD

B T

A 3

848-

PH

I: M

etro

Man

ila S

olid

Was

te M

anag

emen

t Pro

ject

Fi

nal R

epor

t

Ass

essm

ent o

f Com

mun

ity B

ased

Rec

yclin

g R

epor

t No:

5a

AE

A T

echn

olog

y 21

Tabl

e 5.

Hou

ses

Ser

ved

by M

RF

C

ity/M

unic

ipal

ity/

Bar

anga

y N

o.

HH

S

erve

d

Adv

anta

ge o

f the

Eco

Cen

ter/

MR

F se

rvic

e1 R

easo

n w

hy s

ome

HH

are

not

ser

ved

by th

e ec

o-ce

nter

/MR

F2

1.C

aloo

can:

B

aran

gay

52 /5

6

20%

Cle

aner

sur

roun

ding

s; a

dd’l

inco

me

for

eco-

boys

La

zine

ss

2. M

akat

i

Bel

Air

F

orbe

s P

ark

90%

97

%

E

nsur

es w

aste

dis

posa

l

Lazi

ness

; con

dom

iniu

m d

wel

lers

hav

e no

land

for

com

post

ing;

com

m’l

area

s se

rved

by

City

Hal

l Fo

reig

ners

don

’t be

lieve

in c

ompo

stin

g 3

. Man

ila

B

gy 8

33-P

anda

can

10

0%

A

dd’l

inco

me

for b

io-m

an

N

A

4 M

anda

luyo

ng

B

aran

gka

Itaas

10

0%

C

lean

er s

urro

undi

ngs

N

A

5 M

untin

lupa

Tun

asan

(Sto

Nin

o)

(P

ark

Hom

es)

100%

10

0%

C

lean

er s

urro

undi

ngs

Cle

aner

sur

roun

ding

s

NA

4

NA

4 6

Nav

otas

Tan

za

N

D3

Des

irabl

e ha

bits

for e

nviro

nmen

t

No

scho

olch

ildre

n 7.

Par

anaq

ue

S

un V

alle

y

San

Ant

onio

99%

75

%

C

lean

er s

urro

undi

ngs

and

mor

e re

gula

r tra

sh c

olle

ctio

n fo

r bot

h bg

ys.

La

zine

ss

La

zine

ss

8.P

asig

Ugo

ng

10

%

C

lean

er: a

dd’l

inco

me

La

zine

ss; L

ack

disc

iplin

e 9.

Que

zon

City

B

agum

buha

y

Esc

opa

II

Blu

e R

idge

A

H

oly

Spi

rit

P

hila

m

T

alay

an

75%

50

%

98%

77

%

100%

59

%

C

olle

ctio

n in

are

as n

ot a

cces

sibl

e by

ga

rbag

e tru

cks

W

aste

redu

ctio

n; d

esira

ble

habi

ts; c

lean

env

ironm

ent

Less

was

te

Cle

aner

env

ironm

ent

Pro

mpt

col

lect

ion/

disp

osal

of w

aste

; cl

eane

r env

ironm

ent

Less

was

te; f

ree

ferti

lizer

C

ity tr

uck

colle

cts

garb

age

U

ncoo

pera

tive

U

ncoo

pera

tive

Ven

dors

are

ver

y bu

sy, n

o tim

e N

A

Urb

an p

oor h

as li

ttle

was

te; c

omm

’l ar

eas

serv

ed

by C

ity H

all

1 This

mea

ns a

dvan

tage

of t

he e

co-c

ente

r/M

RF

was

te c

olle

ctio

n sy

stem

ove

r tha

t of t

he c

ity/m

unic

ipal

was

te c

olle

ctio

n se

rvic

e. 2 H

ouse

hold

is n

ot s

erve

d if

it do

es n

ot p

artic

ipat

e (n

ot w

illin

g to

se

greg

ate

was

te a

nd h

ave

it co

llect

ed b

y ec

o-ai

de).

3 Onl

y H

H w

/ sch

oolc

hild

ren

and

the

scho

ol a

re s

erve

d. 4 O

pera

tion

has

been

sto

pped

.



Table 6.Waste Segregation City/Municipality/

Barangay Segregat

ed Waste 1 (Yes/No)

Reasons why HHs (and other sources of waste) are practicing waste segregation at source

1.Caloocan: Barangay 52/56

Yes

Cleaner surroundings; To avoid floods 2. Makati: Bel Air Forbes Park

Yes Yes

Garbage patrol; collectors instructed to get only segregated ones Barangay ordinance disallows mixed waste

3. Manila: Bgy 833-Pandacan

Yes

Strict surveillance by barangay patrols; cooperative residents 4. Mandaluyong: Barangka Itaas

Yes

Brgy. Ordinance disallows mixed waste; violators penalized with 3 days community

service 5. Muntinlupa: Tunasan (StoNino) (Park Homes)

Yes Yes

Collectors get only segregated wastes Collectors get only segregated wastes

6. Navotas Tanza

Yes

Children are asked to bring the recyclables to school

7. Paranaque: Sun Valley San Antonio

Yes Yes/No

Brgy. Instructs collectors not to pick up mixed wastes Cooperative residents

8. Pasig Ugong

Yes

Additonal income from recyclables; free fertilizer

9. Quezon City: Bagumbuhay Escopa II Blue Ridge A Holy Spirit Philam Talayan

Some Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Personalized info. Drive; eco-aides’ services are appreciated Personalized info. Drive; eco-aides’ services are appreciated

Garbage patrol Garbage collection has a schedule for different types of trash; Litterers are fined Appreciation of the advantage of segregation; personalized info. Drive among

helpers Brgy. Always follow up residents

1Whether the waste materials that are brought to the eco-center/MRF are segregated as biodegradable and non-biodegradable or not.



Table 7. Waste Recycling Materials

City/Municipality/

Barangay Recyclable materials

for Sale1 Recyclable materials of re-use in livelihood projects

1. Caloocan: Barangay 52/56

All except broken glass

(NA)


All All

(NA) (NA)


All

(NA)


All except plastic bags

Plastic containers used as vegetable pots


All All

(NA) (NA)

6. Navotas Tanza

Paper/bottles

(NA)


All All

(NA) (NA)

8. Pasig Ugong

All

Doy packs, old magazines, phone direc.


All All All All All All

Tin cans/plastic bottles

(NA) (NA)

Paper bags, tetrapacks, Styrofoam, banana peeling, softdrink straws None

Old clothes 1Type of recyclable materials for sale include: paper, carton, glass, bottle, plastic containers, plastic bags, tin cans, and so forth.



Table 8. Waste Recycling Projects

Livelihood Project Demonstration project City/Municipality/

Barangay Name/Type of Project

No. persons Benefited

Name/Type of Project

No. persons Benefited


None

(NA)

None

2. Makati Bel Air Forrbes Park

None None

(NA) (NA)

None None


None

(NA)

None


Gardening in pots

15

Gardening in pots

Residents


None None

(NA) (NA)

None None

6. Navotas Tanza

None

(NA)

None


None None

(NA) (NA)

None None

8. Pasig Ugong

Doy packs

At least 150

None


Nursery None None Gardening, etc. None Rug making

2

(NA) (NA)

85% of brgy NA 7

Pot gardening Pot gardening

Gardening

None None

Residents Residents

Residents



Table 9. Compost Production & Disposal

Mode of disposing compost product (check) City/Municipality/

Barangay Produce/

Month (kg)1

Sold

Given to Residents

Used in Projects

Others (Specify)


ND

Still accumulating


ND ND

Home use Home use


None


700-1000 kgs/wk

x

x

x


Minimal Minimal

x x

6. Navotas Tanza

Minimal

Used in school garden


500-800 kgs/daily 100/day

x

x

x

Used in vermi-culture

8. Pasig Ugong

60 sks/m

x

x


24 sks/m 12 sks/m None 5 sks/m 2,000/wk 100 kgs.

x -

x x

x -

- x

x - x -

x

Stocked, pending marketing

Used in subdivision plants

1Per sack equivalent is 12kgs; sks/m=sacks per month.



Table 10. Compost Projects

Used in Livelihood Project Used in Demonstration Project City/Municipality/

Barangay Produce/

Month (Kg)

Name/Type of

Project

Persons Benefited

Name/Type of Project

Persons Benefited


ND

(NA)

(NA)


ND ND

(NA) (NA)

(NA) (NA)


None

(NA)

(NA)


700-1000 kgs/wkly

Urban farming

15

Urban farming

15


Minimal Minimal

6. Navotas Tanza

Minimal


500-800 kgs/daily 100/day

Compost prodn;

vermi-culture (not clear)

workers

None

8. Pasig Ugong

60 sks/m

Vegetable plots

10

Barangay garden

residents


24 sks/m 12 sks/m None 5 sks/m 2 tons/wk 100kg/day

None None NA

Vegetable farm Vegetable

garden Vegetable farm

Brgy. Residents

Brgy.

None None

Vegetable farm

Vegetable Garden Vegetable farm

Residents Residents Residents



Table 11: Complaints from Residents

City/Municipality/

Barangay Description of

Complaint Description of Complainants

Action Taken


(NA)


Stench odor; worms Compost is toxic

Residents

Foreign residents

Stop composting

Were not forced to compost 5. Manila Bgy 833-Pandacan

None


Bad smell

Riverbank squatters

2 Households

Explain cause of smell; apply enzyme

(EM)2 to minimize odor (Brgy. Capt. Sued in court)


Eyesore Eyesore

Homeowners1 Homeowners

Closure of MRF Closure of composting site

9. Navotas Tanza

None


Bad smell None

Sun Valley residents

Apply enzyme (EM)

12. Pasig Ugong

Stench odor

Adjacent brgy. And residents

Apply enzyme (EM)


Bad smell Anticipated stench None None None None

Nearby residents

Nearby residents

Apply enzyme/improved sanitation practice

Proper explanation

1These are residents across the street. 2EM stands for “Effective Micro-organism.”



Table 12. Other Problems


Problems Encountered

Action Taken

Current Status


Unavailability of space

Negotiating the use of vacant lot owned by PNR Unresolved


Heavy rains No space for storing recyclables

Stop composting Sell the materials as soon as possible

Seasonal Not urgent


No site for MRF

Negotiating for a space in another barangay

Unresolved


Limited space; costly Happy soil

Eyeing a gov’t lot; use coconut husk instead


Complaint of homeowners Uncooperative garbage collectors

MRF permanently closed Composting site closed

Resolved

Unresolved

9. Navotas Tanza

None

(NA)

(NA)


Composter very costly to operate

Use cement mixer

Resolved

12. Pasig Ugong

No permanent MRF site; no buyer for compost

Composting site will be transferred; compost to be sent for analysis

Unresolved


Inadequate shelter; expensive enzyme; Inadequate equipment Cannot find a perfect shredder Needs more truck; storage facilities None Ownership of brgy. Cmpd. Under litigation

Looking for funds and cheaper composting medium Looking for financial support Manual chopping Construction underway (NA) None

Unresolved

Unresolved

Unresolved

Unresolved

Unresolved



Table13 Comparative basic data on selected MRF’s

Sources of Funding Barangay Start of Operation Barangay

Population 1 Coverage Area

(%)

Est. Waste Generated per

Wk. (K) 2 Capital

Investment Operations & Maintenance

Personnel/ Labor Cost

Holy Spirit January-98 89,456 70% 219,167 Barangay Funds Barangay Funds/ Cooperative

Barangay Funds/ Cooperative

Sun Valley 1998 35,000 (Est.) 99% 121,275 Barangay Funds Barangay Funds Barangay Funds

Bagumbuhay March-02 6,911 35% 8,466 Barangay Funds/ DENR Grant Barangay Funds Barangay Funds/

Private Individuals

Philam Jun-00 3,197 80% 8,952 Barangay Funds/ Congressional Fund

Barangay Funds/ Homeowners' Association

Barangay Funds

Escopa 2 March-02 2,060 50% 3,605 ADB Community Staff Fund/Mother Earth Foundation

ADB Community Staff Fund/Mother Earth Foundation

ADB Community Staff Fund/Mother Earth Foundation

New Era January-97 5,540 100% 19,390 DENR/RMPFI Barangay Funds Barangay Funds Ugong 1999 20,220 10% 7,077 Barangay Funds Barangay Funds Barangay Funds

Talayan 1999 3,500 (Est.) 60% #VALUE! ADB Community Staff Fund/Mother Earth Foundation

Barangay Funds Barangay Funds

Brgy.169, Caloocan 2002 5,000 (Est.) 70% #VALUE! Barangay Funds

Barangay Funds/Garbage Fees

Barangay Funds/Garbage Fees

Valenzuela 1999 Not Available. Not Available. Not Available. City Funds City Funds City Funds Notes: <1> Source: National Statistics Office, 2000 Census of Population and Housing.

<2> Estimated waste generation assumed to be 0.5 kilos/capita/day.



Table 14 Comparative data on financial operation of selected MRF’s

Household Garbage Fee Estimated Income from Sales (Php) Estimated Total Expenses (Php)

Name Personnel

Production of

Compost Materials

Recyclable Materials Collection of

Garbage Fee

Accounting of Garbage

Fee

Sale of Compost Materials

Sale of Recyclables

Initial Capital

Investment 2

Annual Operations

& Maintenance

Annual Personnel/ Labor Cost

Holy Spirit

4 Brgy Staff 52

Cooperative Members

2,000 kilos/week

8,000 kilos/week None N.A.

Not for sale. Used in

Cooperative's garden project.

Php 80,000/ month

Not Available

24,000 (Utilities only)

132,000.00

Sun Valley 1

Supervisor 7 Biomen

5,000-6,000

kilos/week None None N.A. Php

90,000/month None 200,000.00

140,000.00

105,000.00

Bagumbuhay 2 Collectors 4 Eco-Aides

800-1,000 kilos/week None P50.00/HH/Mo.

Goes to collectors

as personal income.

Php 200.00/week None

195,000.00 144,000.00

Philam 3 Ecoboys 2,000 kilos/week

No data. Sale of

recyclables goes to Eco-

Aides

None N.A. Php 2,000/month

Php 1,000 /month goes to Ecoboys

as addl income

2,100,000.00 Not Available

108,000.00

Escopa 2 5 Eco-Aides 250 kilos/week

No data. Sale of


Aides

None N.A.

Problem of marketing.

Inventory as of interview is about 50 sacks.

None 400,000.00

249,600.00

New Era 10 Eco-Aides/

Sweepers

Not Available

No data. Sale of


Aides

None N.A. Not Available Goes to eco-aides

1,000,000.00

137,323.50 Not Available

Name of MRF

No. of Personnel

Production of

Compost Materials

Recyclable Materials Household Garbage Fee Estimated Income from

Sales (Php)

Estimated Total Expenses (Php)



Collection of Garbage Fee

Accounting of Garbage

Fee

Sale of Compost Materials

Sale of Recyclables

Initial Capital

Investment 2

Annual Operations & Maintenance

Annual Personnel/ Labor

Cost

Ugong 3 Barangay

Staff 15 Buyers

600 kilos/week

2,000 kilos/week None N.A.

Not for sale. Used in public

parks.

Php 35,000/month goes to NGO

Not Available

Talayan 4 Eco-Aides 500 kilos/week

No data. Sale of


Aides

None N.A. Not Available Income goes to eco-aides

Not Available 46,800.00

Brgy.169, Caloocan

City

1 Driver 4 Helpers

250 kilos/week

300 kilos/week P40/HH/Mo. Used in

operation. Php

18,000/month Php

3,000/month

465,000.00 60,000.00 180,000.00

Valenzuela 6 Personnel 4 Guards

400 kilos/week

900 kilos/week None N.A. Not Available Php

4,000/month Not

Available 20,000.00

Note: 1. Most of the information are estimates only based on very limited available records

2. Initial capital investment costs were spent in different years for each LGU.


Assessment of Community Based Recycling AEA Technology 32

Annex 3. Case Reports Case 1. Caloocan City: Barangays 52 & 56

Barangay 52 and Barangay 56 in Lower Caloocan were selected and combined as one of MMDA’s pilot CBSWM project sites. In October 2002, MMDA conducted its first workshop on garbage management with residents of both barangays. Capt. Manuel Rayos of Barangay 52 said the two barangays have to combine their efforts in order to qualify for MMDA’s project site selection criteria, which calls for a minimum of 1,500 households. His barangay only has around 800 households. Every week, an MMDA staff meets the residents to demonstrate how to segregate and compost waste. Because of the narrow streets, the city garbage collection trucks cannot reach many households in the barangay. Consequently, they have learned to depend on street kids or pushcart-driving waste pickers to pick up their trash for a fee (a minimum of P5.00). The latter would dump the garbage in Mabini St. where it is loaded onto a waste collection vehicle. The majority of litter comes from children playing in the streets who throw away their trash, which comprises mostly of plastics waste. Both barangays have attempted recycling in the past and this is one of the reasons they were selected as a pilot site of MMDA. They used a 50-kg rotating drum for composting located in one of the Barangay Hall’s rooms. This proved too small for the quantity of kitchen waste materials that were brought in and the residents often complained of the odors. Using personal funds, Mr. Rayos ordered a drum of a greater capacity that is still being assembled inside his residential compound at the time of this survey. Recyclables collected by street sweepers are also stored there. Finding space for the new composter has been difficult as the authorities of the public school nearby refused to have it installed in the school premises. A more permanent site, a vacant lot owned by the Philippine National Railway, along the barangay’s territorial boundary is being considered but is not currently available. Some households are reported to have already started segregating their solid waste, but many are still “matigas ang ulo” (stubborn). Case 2. Manila: Barangays 833 and 834 (Pandacan) Barangay 833 and Barangay 834 have started to segregate and recycle their waste following the seminars conducted by Shell Co. on solid waste management with barangay officials and selected residents within the company premises. A Bgy Councilman reported that a parade was held to launch the program in 2000, with Shell donating a used container van that was painted white and served as the barangay’s recycling center. The van was parked at a spacious vacant lot outside the barangay, owned by the City Engineers Office of Pandacan Manila, in the absence of an available space within the vicinity. When the lot was utilized for a condominium project, the barangay officials have been unable to find a place to relocate it. Ms. Jessie Cruz, Barangay secretary, formerly in charge of the recycling center, said residents segregated their waste for a month after the formal launching of the center. The residents, however, lost interest when told by the waste collectors that the segregated wastes would get mixed up anyway with the non-segregated ones



The city waste collection vehicle collects waste everyday. Similarly, three collectors of recyclables called bio-men collect non-biodegradable waste. Shell Co. was the recycling center’s biggest client and it would sell to them at a low price used plastic containers, cartons, papers and cellophanes. The bio-men and management of the center received a percentage share from the sale of collected recyclables. The proceeds are then given to the barangay project called Bawas Basura sa Barangay or BBB. The daily collection of recyclables continued after the practice of waste segregation ceased, and until construction commenced at the site. The van is no longer accessible as the construction project fenced off the area. The two barangay officials said the container van has sustained severe damage from the construction work. Case 3. Makati City: Bel-Air Following six years of intensive campaigning Bel-Air residents’ commenced waste segregation in 2000. The Barangay started by enforcing the requirement for households to separate their trash into biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste but since then the practice has not been pursued. Bel-Air consists of 950 residential houses from Bel-Air Village I,II,III,and IV, 139 buildings from Salcedo Village and 33 buildings along Sen. Gil Puyat. Gil Puyat is a busy commercial strip dotted by government and private offices while Salcedo Village is a haven of condominiums. Both areas are not part of the segregation scheme and are dependent on the private garbage contractor, SM Coronado. Waste collections are conducted twice weekly. The 23 maintenance crew and street sweepers employed by the Barangay are hired only to keep the streets clean of litter. They can assist residents in plant trimming and conduct demonstrations on waste management upon individual request. Each household takes care of its own waste. Composting is done in household backyards using green bottomless compost bins distributed by the Barangay. The recyclables are collected door-to-door. Emelita Rufin, a maintenance crew member, said continuous rains have discouraged householders from composting their residues. At present, only a few households continue to use the bottomless green bins. The Barangay itself has not composted any materials since August 2002. Residents complained of stench odor and worms emanating from the bins even with the application of “happy soil” inoculants that can be purchased at the barangay for P110 per bag. Barangay officials said they couldn’t force uncooperative residents to segregate. Linis-Ganda purchase recyclables from houses that erect a flag marker sign, which means the house, has recyclables available for sale. [Details on Linis-Ganda operation are also given in the separate studies of junkshops and markets for recycled waste of this project.] Case 4. Makati City: Forbes Park The book “Doon Po Sa Amin” published by Earth Day Network, attributes to Forbes Park Bgy Capt Jose Concepcion Jr. the continuing success of the solid waste management program in the barangay. Amidst resistance from residents, the book details how Mr. Concepcion encouraged residents to participate in the segregation scheme by implementing a massive publicity and information drive and with the critical help of influential ladies in the village who served as core advocates.



As early as 1998, the Barangay were providing information to residents on zero waste management. The main program actually started in late 2000. Last year, the Barangay crafted an ordinance disallowing the collection of non-segregated waste from households. All households are now “compelled” to segregate. The Zero Kalat sa Kaunlaran, an NGO, collects the recyclables from residents once a week and takes them to its MRF in Taytay. The residents give the recyclables for free. A private contractor collects the kitchen and garden wastes twice weekly, of which 70% are garden trimmings. Unlike other barangays, Forbes Park has no public area for waste management. Ten eco-boys are hired by the Barangay to assist residents specially when “harvesting” their compost. Each household does its own composting and use the compost in its own vegetable and/or ornamental gardens. In 2001, the Barangay distributed two bottomless composting bins to each household. Ninety-seven (97%) percent of the households in the barangay use these bins. No chemicals or inoculants are utilized. The biodegradable waste is simply covered with shredded leaves and garden soil. Case 5. Mandaluyong: Barangka Itaas Barangka Itaas Bgy Capt Danilo Ocampo boasts of 100% compliance with waste segregation. In 1998, before barangay ordinances and resolutions were passed, residents were persuaded by the captain to comply by keeping the busy and narrow streets of the barangay clean and green, and following two court cases (now settled) against two non-complying households. Up to 1999, Mr. Ocampo said, residents were against the idea of involving households in waste management. It was branded as “kalokohan” (foolishness). Those who didn’t comply were subjected to days of community service, guarding the garbage sites for 3 days after a day of seminar. The eco-center is located along Pasig River parallel a squatter colony that has become accustomed to the odor emitted by the three composters. (Composting is done after about three to four days of garbage collection) Mr. Ocampo said he was able to convince the residents after two years of much explanation on the source of the smell. He pointed out that the new scheme is better as it undergoes treatment unlike the old practice of dumping untreated and non-segregated trash. “EM” inoculants are applied onto the mixture of kitchen waste and coconut dust to minimize the smell, rather than the expensive “happy soil.” Mr. Ocampo said that “happy soil” would cost them Php86 per bag (at 2kg/bag), and they need 10 -12 bags for every two tons of biodegradable waste that they process in 4 – 5 days. Drop-off zones are designated in every street where householders can bring their segregated waste for daily collection. Both bio-degradable and non-biodegradable wastes are collected by the eco-boys and brought to the eco-center, with the residual waste removed by the city. All types of recyclables are sold to junk shops except plastic bags. Mandaluyong City Mayor Benhur Abalos donated to the barangay 2 units of composters, each with a capacity of two tons, and 1 heavy-duty shredder. The Sagip Pasig Movement donated another composter in October 2002. Two cement mixers are now used for mixing the compost and some 1,004 kilos/week of compost are produced and graded. First class for pure compost, second class for those mixed with garden soil and manure and third class or “pinagsalaan.” The latter is used for urban farming or for planting vegetables on recycled coke and mineral water plastic containers. Proceeds from recyclables range from P3,000 to P5,000 weekly.



Aside from urban or weekend farming, the barangay captain also has had several grottos made from construction leftovers, now numbering 15 in various places which were habitual dumpsites of households. Old tyres are filled with soil as pots for fruit bearing trees such as sinegwelas, mabolo, alatiris lining the sidewalks. Mr. Ocampo said they have had no help from any non-government organization (NGO). He said many NGOs came in later when they proved successful. Availability of land is a problem. The barangay captain wants to increase his composters to 5 units but the MRF has only an area of 20 sqm located in a government-owned land. Case 6. Muntinlupa City: Tunasan Sto. Niño Village Tunasan consists of 24 subdivisions of which only two have a complete MRF system, namely: Sto. Niño Village and Park Homes Subdivision. Lack of space has prevented the Barangay from implementing a complete solid waste management program in the other areas of the barangay. Unfortunately, the composting facilities and storage structures that had kept the two villages distinct from the others are facing difficulties that are preventing full operation. Unless resolved, they may revert back to the old practice of dumping their trash collectively. Sto. Niño was the first to practice waste segregation in the year 2000, following an intensive information campaign waged by Muntinlupa City. After which, they were required to segregate or face the consequence of non-collection of their trash by the eco-boys. All waste collected is brought to the eco-waste center with a land area of about 300-sqm owned by the Village; the building has floor area of some 150-sqm. Kitchen waste was mixed with sawdust and “happy soil” inoculants and filled into the composter. The recyclables were sold to junkshops with the proceeds going to the eco-boys. Since June 2002, this center had stopped operating. The new officers of the homeowners association padlocked the eco-waste center on the petition of homeowners who described the place as an “eyesore.” The center is bounded on its right by a basketball court, a river on its left and an open space behind it. Residential houses are located 10 meters away from the site. Waste collection vehicles hired by the city government now collect the trash. While many still segregate, the homeowners association had to remind householders regularly to continue what they had started. Each waste type has a different schedule for collection. The collector trucks pick up only segregated wastes. Park Homes Several factors here are dampening the initiative of residents. First, some homeowners are complaining about the presence of the composting facility in the plaza located at the heart of the subdivision. Second, Nini Disini, Park Homes Community Association treasurer, said they have to stop the waste segregation and composting done by the eco-boys in favor of the garbage truck collecting it and the garbage collector would not collect waste once combed for recyclables by the eco-boys. The subdivision had not composted since February 2002. The rest of Bgy Tunasan began waste segregation in 2001, following the example of Sto. Niño Village. Their information campaign is continuous via circulars, flyers and a public system going around the barangay weekly. In the absence of a composting facility, barangay residents simply segregate their waste and “drain” kitchen waste to keep it from smelling. The trucks collect biodegradables once a week.



Case 7. Parañaque City: San Antonio San Antonio has a pilot waste management project organized by its former barangay captain, Jose Delima, and Parañaque City Mayor Joey Marquez. Its MRF is located in one of its 33 subdivisions, in Barangay Village. San Antonio has 32 depressed areas, 8,748 households and 32,000 people. Barangay leaders influence both subdivisions and the urban poor via association officers and presidents who are assembled on matters affecting the locality including waste management. The barangay captain and the kagawad in charge of the MRF are newly elected and gave the impression, during the survey, of not being fully familiar with the program. Critical issues are payment of the eco-boys and inconsistent handling of segregated wastes. Without strict garbage control, the MRF had also become the unwilling dumpsite of mixed waste for the entire barangay. Juan Powys Mayoralgo, barangay secretary said, association presidents were invited by the Barangay to a talk on solid waste management. Leaflets were also distributed. “Ang problema it stops at the lecture room. . .We don’ require them to segregate. We leave it to the association presidents.” Residents were taught how to compost. Some use garden pots while others simply burn their trash. Mr. Mayoralgo said city waste collectors do not handle segregated wastes properly and just dump all wastes together. The eco-center, some 350-sqm area along the creek, was established in late-1999 with the goal of servicing four or five villages. To date, it serves Barangay Village and Camella Homes. It consists of a storage structure, one hammer mill and 2 composters run by 4 eco-boys. Daily, the eco-boys collect the waste from the residents of the two subdivisions whether segregated or not and bring this to the eco-center. About 75% of the residents segregate their wastes; eco-boys do the final sorting before the city government truck picks up the residual waste. The kitchen waste is combined with coconut husk (kusot) and “happy soil” inoculants and mixed in the hammer mill. The center does not have a buyer yet for its compost product and it is currently stockpiled. Case 8. Parañaque City: Sun Valley In Sun Valley, city-paid waste collection vehicles play a critical role in solid waste management, according to barangay office administrator Aquilino Bacungan. It ensures cleanliness in the barangay before and at the present time when a waste management program is enforced. Moreover, since households became more conscious of their waste accumulation as a result of the program, Mr. Bacungan said, the barangay is cleaner now than before, as residents complain when trucks fail to show up on schedule. Mr. Bacungan explained that before there was a segregation scheme, waste collection vehicles would only collect waste between 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. every night. The barangay collects the trash of residents between 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. in order to haul them in before the truck’s arrival. Sun Valley is composed of 15 subdivisions and some depressed areas. It has four solid waste management centers, namely: Annex 41, Parkview, Montevilla de Monsod and Barangay Hall. Barangay Hall is located in Sun Valley Village, receives all the food leftovers and biodegradable wastes from the other centers that are brought in for processing by its two composters.



Annex 41 has a storage area for recyclables and a cement mixer. Parkview and Montevilla de Monsod are merely collection centers for kitchen wastes. In both, the kitchen waste is mixed with coconut dust, ground leaves and EM manually or by “ pala.” In all three, the pre-composting mixture is kept in sacks and aged for 15 days before they are brought to Barangay Hall for treatment. In the case of depressed areas, biodegradable waste is thrown into a communal container. The book “Doon Po Sa Amin” called this compostainer, a huge bin on wheels with air holes, and applied with enzyme to control the odor. The waste is also mixed with coconut dust, ground leaves and “EM” inoculants and placed in sacks for processing at the composting facility at Sun Valley Village. Barangay Hall has four bio-men who collect kitchen waste in Sun Valley Village everyday. The other centers also have their own bio-men. Recyclables are collected and sold to junkshops or given away to the waste collectors. The compost produced is “highly saleable,” and passed the Germany ISO 9000 standards. The Barangay entered into a joint venture with Maragondon, Cavite for the cultivation of vegetables in a 2,000 square meter plot in 2001. Another user/buyer of compost from the barangay is an Angeles-based restaurateur who produces his own vegetables. Vermi-culture is a livelihood project run and managed by the Barangay utilizing the compost. Imported worms are used to produce high value fertilizers. During the experimental period, Sun Valley residents complained about the odor from the compost. To arrest the smell, they replaced “happy soil” with “EM” inoculants. Case 9. Pasig City: Ugong Ugong commenced its community-based waste management program five years ago but its compliance rate is still “very poor,” as rated by the incumbent Brgy. Capt. Arnaldo Legaspi. The program was held up by local political bickering until Alejandro Santiago, perceived as a more democratic leader, was elected as barangay captain in 1997. During Santiago’s term, the Barangay expanded its livelihood program to include handmade crafts from recycled waste materials, especially used doy packs, run by the Kilus Foundation. In 1998, the ecology center was constructed and the Kilus Foundation started the deployment of pushcart-driving volunteers to collect recyclable wastes. There is a twice daily waste collection service for all types of waste. A mini-truck owned by the Barangay serves the residents at the barangay. A private contractor, IPM, services the Valle Verde subdivisions. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, carts go house-to-house to buy recyclables. The collectors paid by the Barangay are often joined by private individuals. Residual waste is dumped by IPM in a landfill in Pinagbuhatan, while kitchen waste is collected by hog raisers or, if not, the Barangay truck collects it for composting. Odor regularly emanates from the composting site that is located along the bank of the Pasig River. To eliminate the smell, the environmental police in the barangay said, they are experimenting with “EM” (Effective Microorganism) to replace the “happy soil” inoculants introduced by Bert Guevara.



During the survey, a smelly mixture of kitchen waste and soil was left in the open air to dry. The site has 1 composter, 2 shredders, 1 hammer mill and a small storage for the produced compost. The barangay does not need any more composting units as it still lacks a buyer for its compost product. The people working at the MRF suggested that laziness and lack of time are the main reasons why many residents do not segregate. MRF employees gave a favorable rating to the effort of Mr. Legaspi in terms of solid waste management, who wants to copy the strategy of Taiwan. However, distributing colored plastics is not financially feasible and segregation at source cannot be fully implemented, Mr. Legaspi said, because of “lack of discipline.” The NGO Kilus Foundation has been instrumental in implementing the new system of waste management. It is the partner of the barangay. In the long run, Mr. Legaspi is seeking a Barangay counterpart of the DENR CENRO (City Environment Natural Resources Office) that currently maintains, oversees and guards the nation’s environmental policies at the city level. The counterpart will be called BENRO. Presently the Barangay employs an environmental police, more than 20 street sweepers and gardeners and 4 squatters’ control police along the riverbank. One more environmental police will be added to the Barangay’s labor force (plantilla). Ugong takes pride in its bag production out of recycled doy packs. The bags are exported abroad to such countries as Denmark, Belgium, Japan, U.S.A., Netherlands and Holland. The bags were showcased in the World Trade Center exhibition in 1999. Kilus Foundation was persuaded by the barangay to organize the livelihood project as required by DTI. The project has been very successful since 2001. It has 150 employees including 44 cleaners and 7 staff either working at the backyard of Councilor Santiago’s house or outside their own houses. Case 10. Navotas: Tanza The waste segregation and recycling project in Tanza, Navotas was started in 1997 by the Kalikasan Sa Kaunlaran (KSK), a community-based organization (CBO) that was organized in 1995 under the Coastal Resource Management Program (CRMP) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) with technical assistance provided by the Haribon Foundation. The group initiated a SWM undertaking in the barangay after realizing that the CRMP project they were supposed to implement would not be completed as planned. They then selected the Ilang-Ilang district of the barangay as the pilot area. The project consisted mainly of an information campaign about proper handling of household waste through segregation and recycling. Then, shortly after RA 2001 was enacted, KSK initiated the implementation of a pilot CBSWM project jointly with the principal and school teachers of the Tanza Elementary School. The scheme was to promote waste segregation at source and required the school children to collect waste papers and unused bottles as well as broken glass at home to bring to the MRF that was established in an unused room of one of the school buildings. These were accumulated and then sold to junk shop dealers at the end of the school year or when the accumulated recyclable materials reached the storage limit. The KSK officers claimed that the sale of the recyclables last April was more than enough to make repairs and improvements in the school building and premises. It also enabled the school to purchase school supplies and equipment. While recycling is limited to waste papers, bottles and broken glass that are brought in by the school children, composting is practiced inside the school as an integral part of the whole project. Materials used are the leaves and branches of plants inside the school and biodegradable waste from the school canteen. The compost is then used as a soil conditioner for the school’s vegetable garden from which the products are sold to the school canteen and other buyers. According to the KSK officers and school teachers, the project has contributed much to the development of the correct attitude of children about proper handling of waste materials at home and at school, as well as changing attitudes of children and parents. Case 11. Quezon City: Blue Ridge A



A vigilant environmental group, cooperative households and garbage patrol are three factors that underlie the success of Blue Ridge A in its waste segregation campaign. Since 1994, the barangay has been practicing waste segregation in each household. Thus, there was no resistance in the barangay when Quezon City Mayor Sonny Belmonte prohibited the collection of un-segregated wastes. Two barangay waste patrols accompany the city waste collection trucks to make sure that the directive is followed. The active recycling and segregation movement in this barangay can be largely attributed to the presence of Odette Alcantara, a member of the NGO called Mother Earth, who every so often conducts a waste management workshop in her residence. Her backyard garden is a showcase of plants grown in compost . Prohibition of open burning is strictly enforced by the homeowners’ association. In the absence of a composter or similar facilities, residents are encouraged to bury food leftovers and other biodegradables in their backyards or vacant lots designated by the barangay. No complaint has been received by the local government so far with regard to this practice. Last year, the barangay earmarked funds for the purchase of a mobile shredder that can be pushed around the village to shred large volumes of fallen branches especially in the aftermath of strong rains. The terrain of the barangay resembles a natural reservoir with many trees and rolling roads. However, the manufacturers who responded failed to impress the residents. They are averse to composter, an officer of the homeowners’ association said, which explains why there are no mechanized equipments in the barangay despite its long CBSWM experience. Its eco-center consists only of a 4x5-sqm shed for storing recyclables brought by the residents or picked up by the eco-boys from the houses. Case 12. Quezon City: Holy Spirit Market forces are at the heart of the solid waste management system in Holy Spirit. Biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes here are recycled for a profit. Recyclables, paper, plastics, glass, and metal that are brought in by the waste collectors (known as paleros) are bought by the center and then sold in bulk to factories. Even the livelihood recycling program has to buy waste raw materials from the center at a certain fee. All collected solid wastes are brought to the eco-center. It employs 31 paleros and 6 drivers. Both are paid every 15th and 30th of the month at P3,800 and P4,800 each, respectively. Every day of the week is assigned different types of waste: Mondays and Thursday for non-biodegradable, Tuesdays and Fridays for biodegradable and Wednesdays and Saturdays for both types of waste. On Sundays, a composite team of 6 paleros, 1 driver and the truck, an eco-leader and a purok leader clean up a particular sector on the request of residents. Their fleet of 6 trucks covers the whole barangay daily. Special trips for a fee ranging from P500 to P1,000 are regularly requested by factories (soap makers, biscuit, paper, sardines, corned beef, pancit, flour, etc.). Residents don’t pay for the waste collection service but better-off subdivisions such as Don Antonio Heights and BF Homes give donations to the paleros. All houses are covered by the MRF system but only 77% participate in the segregation scheme. Non-participants include market vendors who don’t have time to segregate their waste or bury their food leftovers in their backyards. Litterers are issued violation tickets, summoned to the barangay and fined P300 for first time offenders and P1,000 to P3,000 for large establishments. Most of the work involved in the MRF includes manual segregation. In September 2002, for example, the sorted recyclables amounted to:



Bottles………. 16,483 pieces Plastics, etc. …… 7,798.2 kilos Bakal etc....……… 7,097.9 kilos Cardboard, etc… ………15,298 kilos

A single shredder is the only mechanical equipment at the site. Composting is done by filling the materials into sacks, consisting of 1/3 biodegradable, 1/3 soil, and 1/3 saw dust. The center does not process food leftovers to avoid foul odor problems. The eco-center site is surrounded by low income households. Private hog raisers buy food waste from the paleros at a fee ranging P50 to P100. A Barangay vegetable farm nearby is the immediate user of the compost produced by the MRF. Compost production averages 60 kg/month. The farm is planted to high value crops such as broccoli, cabbage, pechay, etc. managed by a Barangay-hired agriculturist. Rogelio Amar, trainer on zero waste management, has been supervising the livelihood program adjacent to the MRF office since 1998. From the MRF, this program has produced bags made from tetrapaks, vulcaseal from Styrofoam, vinegar from banana peelings, ropes from grocery paper bags and charcoal from waste paper. Softdrink straws are converted into decorative masterpieces. The barangay also had 70 pushcarts made for private individuals who want to earn extra money by selling their goods to the MRF. The barangay started with only 2 trucks in 1997, now there are six. The half-hectare eco-center is already getting too small for the improvements they have in mind. Space, however, is not a problem as the back of the lot is government-owned. In November 2002, some of the improvements have commenced such as the construction of a shelter facility that holds segregated yeros, paper and plastics previously dumped in the open space. The Barangay earns about P80,000 from the recyclables, and has plans to acquire one composter, 2 shredders and a hammer mill. Case 13. Quezon City: Escopa II Escopa II is one of the four barangays that were developed out of the former large squatter area in Project 4, Quezon City. The CBSWM project was initiated in the barangay in March 2002 by Mother Earth Unlimited (a leading environment-oriented NGO) with financial assistance provided by the ADB Staff Community Fund. An eco-center was built at a cost of PhP55,000 within the Barangay Hall premises and adjacent to the basketball court. The project also purchased 20 units of a manually-operated composting drums at PhP4,800 each , half of which were installed outside the eco-center building, and another half along the street at the other side of the barangay across the wide C-5 circumferential road. At the time of the survey, the barangay had accumulated some 50 sacks (12kg/sack) of compost to be sold at PhP120 per sack. But there is no immediate market yet for the compost, and the Captain said they are waiting for Mother Earth to promote their product and establish its link with the market. The initial problem encountered by the project was the opposition of the residents near the site of the eco-center. This was resolved by convincing them about the importance of the project and, at the same time, assuring them that the eco-center would not emit bad odor from the composted materials. The assurance was fulfilled by the project by means of maintaining the center properly and using the composting technology that was adopted for the project. Case 14. Quezon City: Philam



Philam is the Philam Homes Subdivision in Quezon City, and a full-pledge catholic parish with a church inside the subdivision and a full-time priest assigned to serve the parishioners. It was the Payatas dumpsite tragedy in 2000 that persuaded the Philam homeowners of the need to manage their waste properly, and finally convinced them to pursue the CBSWM plan proposed by the committee. The committee was composed of representatives of the homeowners association, the parish, and the barangay council, all of whom are, of course, subdivision residents. It was the eco-desk of the parish that initiated the CBSWM idea and suggested it to the Barangay Council, which then created the committee to prepare the plan. The Barangay Council contributed PhP700,000 for the initial funding requirements of the Eco Center that would be managed by the Philam Homeowners Association (PHAI) and which would follow strict guidelines enforced by the association and supported by the barangay ordinances passed by the Council. The barangay/subdivision has no depressed area, unlike other CBSWM sites, from which to get potential workers for the MRF. The Barangay has to get its workers from outside the barangay. Waste segregation is required in every home, wherein the biodegradable waste such as kitchen refuse may be buried in the ground, fed to animals or brought to the center (usually by the domestic helpers) in covered, reusable pails for composting. The center is open daily except on Sundays, and the waste is first weighed and recorded in the center’s logbook before the waste is mixed with the others for pre-composting preparation and treatment. The recyclables are also collected at source by the MRF workers free of charge, although the homeowners are free to sell it to buyers of their own choice. Providing direct supervision and control over the Eco Center operation is the incumbent General Manager of the PHAI who is herself an active civic leader, one of the leading exponents of the zero-waste recycling movement and president of the Federation of Metro Manila Residents Associations with headquarters at Bel Air, Makati City. Philam is producing its own information campaign materials and newsletter to keep the homeowners informed of the activities and accomplishments of the MRF. She conducts weekly seminars for domestic helpers not just to sharpen their skills and remind them of their SWM responsibilities, but also to give them time for socializing and developing their sense of belonging to the Philam community. Case 15. Quezon City: Talayan Talayan had its CBSWM initiated in 1999. Bgy Captain Jerry Ongtauco said, “Una mahirap. Pero nawala ito nang maayos ang sistema.” (At first it was difficult. But this disappeared when we had the system already in place.) The Bgy Captain said it did not take too much time and effort to convince residents to adopt the scheme. The people were open-minded enough to accept a new and innovative way to solve the garbage problem. “Nagkaroon ang tao ng pag-iisip na kailangan meron kaming ganitong sistema.” (The people realized that we need to have this kind of a system.) Only residents of Talayan Village, a subdivision that serves as the main residential district of the barangay, numbering 800 houses are covered by the MRF. Bgy Councilman Manuel Tadirao explained that the establishments along Del Monte and Araneta Avenues (major city streets that traverse along the barangay) are commercial ones and are directly served by the city waste collection vehicles. The urban poor in the barangay make up only a small portion of the barangay located at the fringe near the Talayan River. These residents produce an insignificant amount of waste and would collectively dispose of their trash in one place.



The residents are regularly informed of the waste collection schedule and activities, through circulars, house-to-house visits, and phone calls. A recent campaign addressed the collection of old clothes from residents that are converted into rugs as part of the livelihood program of the entire CBSWM scheme. Four eco-aides working in the MRF collect the kitchen waste daily from 8 – 10 AM. Part of this waste is fed to hogs, which is also part of the livelihood program of the barangay. The city garbage collection stopped collecting biodegradable waste since 1999. These are collected by the eco-aides from individual homes and brought to the composting area inside the Barangay Hall compound. The biodegradable wastes are first sorted by the 7 eco-aides and then ground before putting them into piles for composting. No additives such as enzymes are used in the process although the barangay officials admitted that the smell of the compost could be strong during rainy days. The composting site is located some 20 meters from the barangay hall. Every last Sunday of the month, the eco-aides do the rounds in the village to gather bulky and heavy garbage such as branches of trees, old tyres and discarded appliances. The barangay compound sits in a 2.2-hectare area that contains the barangay hall, basketball and tennis courts and a chapel. The compound has a lot of space for composting and vegetable gardening. Mature okra plants and seedlings were visible during the survey. Old tyres were filled with soil and compost and planted with vegetables. The barangay pays for the salaries of the eco-aides and the purchase of the shredder. The residents give donations in the form of snacks for the eco-aides during clean up operations. Case16. Quezon City: Bagumbuhay Waste collection/disposal was, until recently, a big problem in Bagumbuhay, aggravated by the inability of the large waste collection vehicles to come close to most of the residences due to the narrow streets and alleys in the barangay. The Barangay Council had to employ eco-aides using manually driven pushcarts (kariton) to facilitate waste collection. Enactment of RA 9003 boosted the plan of the Council to implement an integrated solid waste management program and consequently establish the Bagumbuhay Ecology Center (BEC) that started operation last August 2001. The BEC is located in a vacant residential lot at #18 Datu Sumakwel St., Bgy Bagumbuhay, Quezon City where the surrounding households used to dump their waste. The owner allows the Council to use the lot temporarily, giving it a five-year timetable to prepare its permanent site adjacent to the barangay hall. The operation of the BEC consists of: a) collection of segregated waste from households in accordance with prior arrangements and the policies enforced by the Council; b) composting of the biodegradable waste, using inoculants and locally-manufactured equipment to hasten the process; c) sorting and recycling of the non-biodegradable waste, some of which are subsequently sold to the junk shops; and d) propagating various kinds of ornamental plants for sale and distribution to interested households while, at the same time, demonstrating the use of compost products and recyclable materials inside the center. Lately, the Council has piloted the utilization of food waste as animal feed with volunteer cooperator households from the depressed section of the barangay. The Council also plans to promote the cultivation of household “vertical” gardens, consisting of potted plants on the ground or on raised platforms, or hanging on the wall, using compost materials. The BEC is manned by 6 regularly hired eco-aides and 2 volunteer tanods (barangay policemen). Required to work for only 5 hours a day, four of the eco-aides collect the household wastes first every morning and then sweep the street of litter in their assigned areas, while the other two work full-time at the center one of whom acts as the manager, assisted by the tanods. All the proceeds from the sale of BEC products (compost, recyclable, and planting materials) are given to the eco-aides and the tanods. This is a form of incentive as their salaries and allowances are much too low due to limited budget.



The BEC started with an initial fund of PhP45,000.00 to put up the basic facilities (office, warehouse, rotary drums and other equipment), and an operating budget to cover the monthly salaries of center employees and the cost of supplies. The DENR extended financial assistance to the Barangay, through the Community Livelihood Assistance Project (CLASP), in the amount of PhP150,000.00. This enabled the Barangay to acquire an electric shredder and a rotary mixer that considerably increased its operating capacity. The Barangay Council has its own regular source of funds to provide the budgetary requirements of BEC. This is the 5% mandatory appropriation that the Barangay, like the other barangays in Quezon City, must allocate out of its total revenue for solid waste management undertakings. The revenue of the barangay comes mostly from the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and the Real Property Tax Share (RPTS). For the current fiscal year (2002), Bagumbuhay has a total revenue of more than PhP2.770 million. As such, it has readily available around PhP140,000.00 to subsidize the BEC operation this year. The impact of BEC operation on the community is described as follows:

• Efficient waste collection. This is in the form of daily regular home service collection of waste free of charge among households that participate in the program and are thus segregating their waste properly into biodegradable and non-biodegradable categories. The number of participating households is reported to have reached around 35% of the total number of households in the barangay, and many are requesting to participate in the program.

• Effective waste disposal. This is especially for the biodegradable waste that promptly undergoes the

composting process. Non-biodegradable wastes are recycled and converted into potential sources of income. The retrievable factory returnable materials are of a high percentage at the BEC as compared to those at the dumpsite (where much of the materials are already damaged or have accumulated unacceptable dirt upon reaching the site).

• Waste reduction. The waste that needs to be transported to the dumpsite by the usual garbage trucks

is now reduced to more than half the original quantity, that is, from the original 12 truckloads to only 3 per week, thereby reducing the expenses of the city government and the space required at the dumpsite.

• Livelihood opportunities. The BEC demonstrated the alternative livelihood opportunities that household

waste can generate if properly managed, from waste segregation at the household level to waste processing at the BEC material recovery facilities (MRF). Presently, BEC compost production is placed at 24 sacks per month valued at PhP12/sack. While market promotion is being worked out, BEC is distributing the products to the participating households free of charge to promote it locally. It is also sold in front of the parish church every Sunday at PhP25 per pack, with an average of sale of PhP400.00.

• Increased income. The BEC has provided increased income opportunities to those involved in actual

BEC operation, namely, the eco-aides and the two tanods who all come from the depressed section of the barangay.

• Improved health condition. Prompt treatment of the biodegradable waste prevents bad smells that

attract flies and other pests. This is expected to reduce insect and vermin densities due to elimination of breeding places and harborages; and reduce the incidence of infectious and communicable diseases like tuberculosis, typhoid and hepatitis.



Amidst the impacts that the operation has created, however, Bagumbuhay is encountering problems and constraints that could endanger the long-term sustainability of the MRF. These are:

a) Lack of market for its compost products and lack of marketing assistance, resulting in increasing stockpile of compost. Marketing assistance is supposed to come from such concerned agencies as the DTI.

b) Lack of technical assistance, for cutting the high cost of inoculants, the material that is used to hasten

decomposition of biodegradable waste and prevent the emission of bad odors. This assistance could have been extended by the National or the Regional Ecology Center as envisioned by RA 9003;

c) Inadequate Barangay funds to upgrade the MRF facilities and the daily wage of the eco-aides. This

could be addressed probably by either increasing the IRA/RPTS, increasing the level of mandatory appropriation for SWM, or by charging SWM service fees to the waste generators (households, industries, commercial establishments).



Annex 4. Interviews with NGO Leaders

1. Dr. Angelina P. Galang Executive Director, Miriam-PEACE [The interview was conducted at the office of the Executive director of Miriam-PEACE, which is also the office of the Executive Director of Environmental Studies Institute, Miriam College, Katipunan Road, Quezon City. PEACE stands for Public Education and Awareness Campaign for the Environment.] Highlights of the interview:

• SWM Multi-Sectoral Task Force (MTF). A yet informally-organized but already functioning MTF was formed in June 2002 and is composed of NGO leaders representing respective sectors as follows:

Dr. Angelina P. Galang, Miriam-PEACE - Academe Ms. Sonia Mendoza, Mother Earth - Barangays Cynthia Moss, Philam Homes - Subdivisions/Villages Adelia Licos, Ayala Foundation - Commercial Centers Bebet Gozun, COCAP - Public Market Tony Chiong, Business/Industry Sector - Business/Industries Mendoza and Chiong are currently members of the National Solid Waste Commission (NSWC). [Ms. Gozun is now the incumbent Honorable Secretary of the DENR.]

• MTF activities. The task force conduct SWM training program, monitor waste reduction in respective areas of concern, and initiate SWM project pursuant to the objectives of RA 9003.

• Coordination center for the academe. Miriam-Peace, through the office of the Miriam College

Environmental Studies Institute, serves as communication and coordination center for the academe sector.

• Accomplishments. Miriam-Peace had already conducted seminar training for member-schools of the

Catholic Education Association of the Philippines (CEAP). This was held last August 5, attended by 180 participants from 59 catholic universities/colleges in Metro Manila. These include such leading academic institutions as the Ateneo and La Salle. Plans are afoot to expand the training coverage to Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU) and other schools.

After the training, the participants were tasked to initiate and facilitate the planning and implementation of SWM action plan in their respective schools. Miriam-PEACE will take charge of monitoring the progress of the activities and facilitating the extension of technical assistance as may be needed.

• Source of technical assistance. The Zero-Waste Recycling Movement of the Philippines, Inc or

ZWRMPI (also known only as Recycling Movement of the Philippines Inc or RMPI), provides the resource persons/experts for the training. This NGO has been at the forefront in espousing waste recycling and segregation in the country since the early 70’s (see ZWRMPI Contact Notes).



2. Ms. Sonia Mendoza President, Mother Earth Unlimited [The interview was conducted August 2002, at the auditorium of the Philippine Budha Care Academy, a three-level (preparatory, elementary, and secondary) school located in the vicinity of Talayan Village, Quezon City. The academy is a community school catering to the children of Chinese families residing in the area. Mother Earth was conducting a one-day “Seminar on Ecological Solid Waste Management” here attended by the students as a way of promoting the ecological concept of SWM in the community through the young school children and students.] Highlights of the gathered information

• Samples CBSWM project. Samples of CBSWM project were shown in a slide presentation by Mother Earth training staff during the seminar. These include those located in the following: -Talayan Village, Bgy. Talayan, QC -Bgy. Bagumbuhay, Project 4, QC -Bgy. Barangka Itaas, Mandaluyong City -Bgy. Libis, QC -Blue Ridge Subdivision, Bgy. Blue Ridge, QC -Agustinian Recoletos (Catholic School), Antipolo, Rizal -Bgy.Yapak, Boracay Island (Aklan) -Villa Jirah, Bgy. Puyong, Labrador, Pangasinan -Malacanang Palace Compound, Manila The ecological SWM practices initiated in Candon City (Ilocos Sur) were also presented, where each barangay was required to establish its own composting area. The waste collection trucks were color-coded: yellow for biodegradable waste, and blue for non-biodegradable. The city converted its once unsightly and unsanitary dumpsite into an eco-park. During the same seminar, samples of various products from recyclable waste materials and compost soil taken from the different CBSWM projects were also displayed.

• Training services and hands-on assistance. Mother Earth conducts seminar-training and workshops upon request by interested parties. Its services are for free while the other direct costs (meals, snacks, materials, transportation) are the responsibility of the requesting party. Mother Earth coordinates with ZWRMPI and requests the assistance of the latter in terms of resource persons for training (e.g. 3-day training course) that requires augmentation of technical manpower and expertise. Mother Earth also facilitates an extension of hands-on assistance, such as demonstrated by the CBSWM projects in Phil-Am Subdivision (see Phil-Am Contact Notes) and in Bgy. Bagumbuhay (see Bagumbuhay Field Notes).

• Pilot projects in Metro Manila. Mother Earth has been directly involved in the implementation of two

pilot CBSWM projects in Metro Manila. These are in, namely: a) Bgy Escopa II, Project 4, a depressed and former slum area of Quezon City, where Mother Earth got funding assistance from the ADB Staff Community Fund; and b) Talayan Village of Bgy Talayan, a middle to upper middle-income subdivision in Quezon City. Mother Earth implemented these projects jointly with the Barangay LGU, with the understanding that the latter will fully take charge of maintaining the project upon its completion. Both projects are now in the transition stage. The Barangay leadership has changed in the aftermath of last July (2002) barangay election. Talayan has a new Barangay Captain and council members while Escopa has a new set of the latter, whose full support for the project have yet to be secured.

• Joint training project with city and provincial LGUs. Mother Earth has a joint-project agreement

with the Quezon City LGU for a 1-day seminar-workshop to be given to the elected barangay officials of all the 142 barangays in the 4 districts of the city. The overall timetable is divided into four batches of training, which is one batch per district, scheduled respectively on September 16, 18, and 30, and on October 3. Mother Earth has also a similar project in Olongapo and Sorsogon.



• Suggestions. Ms. Mendoza suggested that, based on the NGO’s experience in Escopa and Talayan, ADB should consider assisting the implementation of a pilot CBSWM project with an expanded and integrated scope, with such a geographic coverage as comprehensive as the entire Project 4 area to come up with a model undertaking that has “economies of scale” and appreciable sustainability levels.

Ms. Mendoza also suggested of a multi-sectoral approach of pursuing SWM goals and objectives in accordance with RA 9003, to be adopted on by individual city or municipality and not MMDA-wide basis. She felt that MMDA has a strong bias in favor of landfill, which she claimed has a negative effect on current CBSWM initiatives.

3. Ms. Cynthia J. Moss General Manager Philam Homeowners Association Inc. President, Federation of Metro Manila Residents' Association [The interview was conducted at the office of Ms. Moss inside the PHAI Clubhouse on August 23, 2002. Ms. Moss is a member of the yet informally-organized Multi-Sectoral Task Force on Solid Waste Management (see Miriam-Peace Contact Notes), and is assigned to take charge of SWM concerns in subdivisions and condominiums. Phil-Am subdivision is the site of what may be considered a model of successful CBSWM and Eco-Center (cum MRF) operation in Metro Manila.]* Highlights of the interview

• Institutional convergence. Phil-Am is not just a subdivision with a strong homeowners association. It is also a self-contained Barangay with active barangay officials, and a self-contained catholic parish with a concretely-built well-furnished church and a resident priest. The barangay, which is secured by a concrete perimeter fence and full-time PHAI security guards and barangay tanods, does not have a depressed sector (or families) within its area.

• Historical background. The present CBSWM undertaking was initiated by the parish eco-desk and

suggested to the Barangay Council. A group was then formed to develop and implement proposals, the Zero Waste Management Committee of Philam Homes, all composed of PHAI members. However, it took the Payatas tragedy to convince the group of the importance of contributing its share to the solution of the gargantuan garbage problem in Metro Manila. The project was thus launched in October 1999. The Barangay provided the funds to build the Eco Center and purchased two compost machines as initial equipment. These were then augmented by donations from residents and government officials to complete the present set-up that includes a hammer mill, a shredder and other equipment, and a concrete building.

• Facilitating factors. The factors that facilitated the success of Phil-Am CBSWM are enumerated as

follows: - Group effort of both the PHAI officers, parish priest and lay leaders and Barangay

officials - Community involvement, which was achieved through a combination of patience,

motivation, and a little of discipline (the residents—be it the homeowners or their domestic helpers—bring the segregated waste to the center themselves)

- Awareness campaign through community dialogues and consultations and house-to-house visits.

- Waste collection vehicle (of the city government) is only allowed to collect the residual waste.

- Keeping the Eco-Center clean, free from obnoxious odor, presentable and compatible with the aesthetic taste of the residents.



• Funding support. The Eco Center at Philam enjoys sustained funding support from the Barangay, through its mandatory budget appropriation, and donations from PHAI members.

• SWM practices. Segregation at source is practiced in most households at Philam. The biodegradable

(compostable) waste is brought every morning to the center by the residents—either the homeowners themselves or the domestic helpers. The recyclables are collected by the eco-boys, then sorted and kept in separate storage bins at the center, to be sold to buyers. Proceeds of the sale are used for giving incentives to the eco-boys and to augment the funds for the overhead and operating requirements of the center. The city’s waste collection truck gathers the residual in every street every other week.

• IEC approach. A Weekly seminar/workshop is held for the domestic helpers, with free merienda

(snack). This is a way of continuously educating them about zero waste management concepts and practices, while at the same time use it as a fellowship hour for them to make them feel the importance of their role in the whole scheme of things.

• CBSWM Incentives. A cash reward is given yearly to the domestic helper that has delivered the

largest quantity of food waste to the center. A yearly Christmas Party is also held at the clubhouse for the domestic helpers (maids, gardeners, drivers, etc.).

• Rules and regulations. CBSWM rules and regulations are enforced, such as:

- Only reusable containers are allowed for storing and bringing the segregated

biodegradable waste to the center. Use of plastic bags is prohibited. - Segregated recyclables should be clean (free from dust or dirt) to make it attractive to

buyer and command a higher price. - City waste collection vehicle is now allowed to collect non-residual waste.

4. Ms. Ester Perez de Tagle Founder, Concerned Citizens Against Pollution (COCAP) [The interview was undertaken on August 23, 2002 at the residence of Ms. Tagle at Xavierville III, Loyola Heights, Quezon City. Ms. Tagle was already expecting the visiting member and knew beforehand the purpose of the visit. She is one of the most active NGO leaders who have been lobbying hard for the passage of a number of environmental laws, such as RA 9003 and the Clean Air Act.] Highlights of the interview

• NGO Focus. COCAP is primarily concerned with air pollution and is the leading NGO in the lobbying for unleaded gasoline and the phasing out of the leaded gasoline. Ms. Tagle then led the coalition of NGOs fighting for the cause when she was COCAP president for 4 consecutive years. COCAP members were responsible for disseminating information. They were already campaigning for the phasing out of diesel fuel when their attention was called on the slow pace of RA 9003 implementation. They felt the need for the NGOs, especially for those who fought hard for the passage of the law, to join forces once again and exert a new pressure on government particularly those mandated to implement the law.

• CBSWM Activity. For its initial activity, COCAP is raising funds for a publicity and Information

Campaign. The first project is called “COCAP’s Recycling Magic,” an inter-school competition on recycling techniques, held at the Alabang Town Center Promenade area on August 26-29, 2002. The activities included a series of workshops on recycling.



• Guiding principle. COCAP agrees with the other leading NGOs concerned with solid waste management that the heart and soul of RA 9003 are, namely: a) waste segregation at source, and b) recycling in every barangay or cluster of barangays. “If we push for this, we are already implementing 9003,” she said.

“RA 9003 was enacted through the active lobbying of NGOs involved in waste recycling. So these NGOs should be consulted.”

• Views on MMDA. According to Ms. Tagle “MMDA ties up all functions of governance under its hands,

while 9003 tries to devolve it down to the smallest barangay. MMDA cannot see that solid waste management has to be community-based, and that the mandate falls on the barangay. The President made a mistake in mandating MMDA to solve the garbage problem, because we in the Philippines have a problem with governance. But the NGOs can do it. In Forbes Park 97% of the households are already composting waste. They are even proud to have it in the front yard. If one segregates at source, he already eliminates garbage, and all become a resource.”

• CBSWM model. In its information campaign, “COCAP will add a component in composting, that is,

food security. Its model will be the successful NGO-assisted project in Marilao (Bulacan),” Ms. Tagle further said. “The barangays organized a Savings and Loan Association. One-peso saving per day and for this they get a black plastic bag with potting mixture of compost, garden soil and seeds. So they plant vegetables; those who do not have space on the ground place the potted vegetables on roof-tops. We will hold symposia like the one in Alabang.”

“For every manufactured product, at least 10 resources from mother earth are extracted. If so, we just cannot throw away whatever is extracted from Mother Earth. There has got to be replenished. What we have now is a very extractive generation.

“Incineration ends up with everything being destroying whatever resource there is. One may be able to escape pollution, but not so with depletion. Let us, therefore, return to mother earth everything that we extract from her.”

• ZKK model. During discussions another successful NGO-assisted and community-based project was discussed, this was implemented in a depressed community in Kaunlaran Village, Dagat-Dagatan, Navotas. This is the project of Dr. Judea Millora of the Zero Kalat sa Kapaligirian or ZKK (literally, “zero littering around) under the leadership of Dr. Judea Millora. The project organized the waste pickers (or scavengers) who volunteered to participate in the project into a cooperative and made business out of the recycling activities undertaken by the project. The project is linked to the ZKK intensive-intensive manufacturing plant in Antipolo that processes recyclable materials, especially tin cans. (ZKK approach appears to be patterned after that of Linis Ganda. RML)

• COCAP’s pilot CBSWM project. Through the leadership of Ms. Tagle, COCAP plans to establish an eco-center in Xavierville III as its first community-based pilot project. She had already successfully convinced the Barangay Captain of Loyola Heights (where Xavierville III is located) to organize the Barangay SWM committee. COCAP will tie-up with Miriam-Peace and Ateneo de Manila, which are located nearby, to facilitate coordination of environmentally-oriented activities and achieve what Ms. Tagle called a “greater multiplier effect.”

The project will be designed to help the families from the four depressed areas of the barangay that cannot be easily detected from outside. They will be provided the intensive to do the collection of segregated waste from individual households and bring this to the center for processing (recycling and composting). For recyclables that are sold and have to be bought at source, waste pickers from these depressed areas will be given the option to use pushcarts for rent and capital to be provided by the project instead of working regularly at the center.



• Views and suggestions. Commenting on foreign-assisted projects, Ms. Tagle has the following to

say: “Foreign countries just cannot do recycling the way we do it because their mentality is just to throw away—unlike the Filipinos who, because of their being poor, want to reuse everything that can be reused. Tell them that RA 9003 is an embodiment of things developed by Filipinos, that is, the conversion of refuse (solid waste) to resource.”

If foreign-assistance were to be extended to help solve the gargantuan problem of solid waste management, it should focus on the proper implementation of the program pursuant to the objectives and spirit of the law. Ms. Tagle is not amenable to the idea that there should only be one central MRF in the municipality or city as espoused by what she called the PRO Environment group, which would hire scavengers to sort out garbage before bringing this to the landfill. “The PRO’s idea of scavengers is very inhuman,” she said. To Ms. Tagle, it is not necessary to bring garbage to a central MRF because waste segregation and recycling could be done more effectively at the barangay level, and that “setting up one barangay MRF is just half the cost of one dump truck.”

5. Ms. Luz Escalante Sabas Founder, Zero Waste Recycling Movement of the Philippines Foundation, Inc. [The interview was conducted at the present residence of Ms. Sabas in Bicutan, Paranaque where she transferred few years ago from Diliman, Quezon City. Ms. Sabas is considered by her colleagues as the guru who developed the ideological basis of the zero-waste recycling movement in the country founded in her so-called “4 Fs” and “STEMS” philosophical framework.] Highlights of the interview

• Historical roots. The zero waste recycling movement has a long history of more than four decades, which dates back to the late 60’s when Manila under the administration of Mayor Villegas experienced a solid waste crisis owing to the difficulty of the city to purchase immediately the needed 100 waste collection vehicles. All heads of the City offices were then called to a crisis meeting and it was here that Ms. Sabas, who was the Health Supervisor of the schools in Manila, broached up the idea of waste segregation and recycling to reduce the volume of waste and thus convert “useless” materials to “useful” ones. The idea was favourably received that triggered a city-wide information drive in the schools and down to the barangay and community levels. Her contemporaries include Ms. Isabel de Kiatco and Josefina Navarro.

Dr. Leon B. Sabas, co-founder of ZWRMPFI and husband of Ms. Sabas, was the first to develop a model eco-house at the UP Diliman Campus, which used the biogas design of Dr. Balderias. The latter was a recipient of a presidential award on alternative energy. She claimed that the concept of Ecology Brigade that was adopted by the then Ministry of Human Settlements, through the now retired Gen. Prospero Olivas, had its roots in the practices that she promoted in her erstwhile community in Culiat near U.P. Diliman.

• Human element in waste recycling. Ms. Sabas narrated her personal experiences as school health

supervisor with residents in depressed communities, including those in what is now known as Smokey Mountain, and learned from them the rudiments of recycling food waste that they segregated and reused as hog feed. Hog-raising was then still allowed in Manila at a maximum of two heads per family. She took pictures of pupils (from the schools she was supervising) picking waste materials at the dumpsite and had these cleansed for sale to buyers. But she was deeply moved to find out later on that the boys were so embarrassed—instead of getting elated—to see themselves in the picture, pleading her not to tell their classmates or anybody else about what they are doing at the dumpsite. As a nurse by profession and instructor in behavioral science, that particular experience made her think about how to make waste picking a kind of income-earning activity that need not be an embarrassing one and that, for this matter, the recyclable waste materials need not be brought to the dumpsite.



• Ideological foundation. To Ms. Sabas, “zero-waste” does not really mean zero-basura or no more garbage, because that is impossible. The term is just an adaptation of “zero-population growth” that was then in vogue in the 70’s, which does not mean no more population. Furthermore, the term is meant to be applied not just to waste materials but to all resources that could be discarded in the course of human activity or endeavor. Ms. Sabas has an acronym for these to facilitate recall, namely: STEMS. This stands for Space, Time, Energy, Materials, and Spiritual (or non-material resources such as knowledge, techniques, talents, skills). Ms. Sabas referred to several biblical passages invoking conservation of these resources and avoidance of waste.

The so-called “solid waste” or “garbage” falls under the materials category of resources. Under the STEMS concept, zero-waste recycling is a holistic approach that would not just deal with solid waste. It should also deal with the other resources associated with it or are needed in recycling that should not be allowed to go to waste but instead put to beneficial use. As a resource, the recyclable solid waste materials can be put to beneficial use in the form of any of the 4 Fs, namely: Factory raw materials, Food items, Feeds for livestock, and Fertilizer or soil conditioner.

• Implementation of RA 9003. According to Ms. Sabas, “the law is now our springboard. We never had

like this before. RA 9003 is an embodiment of what we fought for, the weapon that we sorely needed in our previous battle.” The problem is, to Ms. Sabas, it is not properly implemented. She recalled of government failure in solving the waste problem, which, to her, reflects of the “inner” or spiritual garbage (referring to one of the components of her STEMS framework). “Hindi maganda na yung plano pa lang, media na. Mauunahan ka ng criticism. Mabasura lang ang plano,” she said. (“It is not good that while the plan is yet in the planning stage, it is right away brought out by the media. It will only attract a swarm of criticisms. As a result, the plan becomes garbage.”)

Ms. Sabas brought up the issue regarding the present MMDA leadership, particularly the negative impression of the NGOs towards the incumbent chairman, with respect to waste segregation at source and recycling. She also thinks that “there is something wrong (with the chairman), but there’s also something good in him.” For instance, she pointed out, the chairman wants that uncollected household garbage should be brought back to the house where it came from. To Ms. Sabas, the MRF infrastructure, waste processing equipments, and foreign financial assistance are not enough to solve the garbage problem in Metro Manila and the whole country for that matter. “However, things can be done even without these, if only the zero-waste concept is fully understood.”

• ZMRMPFI accomplishments. The major accomplishments of the foundation may be divided into two categories, namely: a) production of information and training materials that are also used by government agencies like the DENR and the DECS (now DepEd), and other NGOs (such as Mother Earth, COCAP, Miriam-PEACE, PHAI) in their respective information, educational, and advocacy campaign; b) providing technical assistance and resource persons in the conduct of training and implementation of community-based waste segregation and recycling projects; and c) conduct of seminars, workshops and training.

Through the influenced of ZMRMPFI, a number of NGOs have been organized or are now at the frontline advocating and implementing waste segregation at source and recycling-cum-composting projects. These include Mother Earth Unlimited, COCAP, Miriam-PEACE, ZKK, and so forth. ZMRMPFI had also already trained some 500 teachers across all DECS Regional areas, including Metro Manila, through a SWM awareness campaign project sponsored by DENR in 1997. Aside from the teacher-participants, 2 facilitators/ coordinators were deployed by DECS to assist in the training and, in the process, also benefited from the said training. Ms. Sabas believes that the graduates of this training are a potent manpower resource that could be utilized to pursue the goals and objectives of RA 9003.



6. Ms. Narda Camacho Founder, Linis-Ganda Foundation [The interview was conducted at the residence of Ms. Narda Camacho last April 4, 2003.] Highlights of the gathered information

• NGO Focus: business-oriented system of recycling. Linis-Ganda focuses its attention on the recycling of solid wastes. It has organized the junkshop operators to achieve a more effective privately-managed system collecting and marketing of recyclable solid waste materials and incorporate into it the activities of the waste pickers to thus alleviate their socio-economic status in the community. Basically, the Linis-Ganda scheme provides the waste pickers with pushcarts and “seed capital” to buy recyclable materials from the individual households in the community. The materials are then sold to the junkshop operators who, in turn, sell it to the user factories that have marketing arrangements with the operators facilitated by Linis-Ganda.

The seed capital is directly provided by the junkshop operator in the form of a cash advance in small amounts but adequate enough to make a round of buying recyclables in one day, and is liquidated daily when the waste picker turns in the purchased materials. The junkshop operators use the standard price list issued by the cooperative for buying the collected materials from the waste pickers while the latter are free to offer their own set of prices to the households, thus engaging in a purely business type of operation.

• Environmental cooperatives. Linis-Ganda started its organizing activities in San Juan. To date, it

has organized 17 multi-purpose environmental cooperatives, one for each of the 17 cities and municipalities of Metro Manila. These cooperatives have a total membership of 572 junkshop operators, an average of 34 members per cooperative or per city/municipality. To enhance greater organizational strength and effectiveness, Linis-Ganda assisted the organization of the 17 cooperatives into a Metro Manila Federation of Multi-Purpose Environmental Cooperatives with headquarter located in the same office of Linis-Ganda.

• Financial assistance. Linis-Ganda had obtained financial assistance from DENR through the

Rehabilitation of River System (RRS) Project, which helped Linis-Ganda take off. It also obtained financial assistance from the Community Development Fund (CDF) of the Hon. Senator Gregorio Honasan in the amount of PhP900,000.00, which Linis-Ganda utilizes for its credit assistance program to the cooperative.

• Credit assistance. The on-going credit assistance program of Linis-Ganda, with funds sourced from

the CDF of Sen. Honasan, is coursed through the Land Bank. It is loaned to the individual cooperative with an interest of 1% annually. The money is in turn loaned by the cooperative to member-junkshop owners at a 1.5% interest annually. The member-junkshop owners use the money to provide the eco-aides with “seed money” in the form of cash advance, which is given, extended and liquidated within a one-day period.

• Pushcarts and uniform assistance to cooperatives. Linis Ganda has provided each cooperative

with at least 10 pushcarts plus uniforms for the eco-aides that operate within the sphere of business operation of the cooperative.

• Accomplishments. Linis-Ganda has achieved the following:

1. In 1997, collection from an estimated 200,000 households 69,406 tons of paper, plastics,

bottles and cans at a cost of PhP95,231,700.00 2. In 1998, collection of 78,601 tons of the same materials at a cost of PhP105,811.00

3. In 1999, collection of 95,569 tons at a cost of oPhP124,631.00



4. In 2000, 101,850 tons costing PhP132,530,500.00

5. In 2001, 120,162.37 tons costing PhP157,188,155.00

6. In 2002, 182,051 tons costing Php231,600,000.00

7. Ms. Primitiva M. Sy President, Kaunlaran sa Kalikasan (KSK) [The interview was conducted with Ms. Sy together with the other officers of KSK at it’s headquarter located at the ground floor extension of the president’s house.] Highlights of the interview:

• Historical background. KSK was organized way back in 1995 under the auspices of the Coastal Resources Management Program (CRMP) of the DENR with technical assistance provided by the Haribon Foundation. Through the CRMP, the KSK members underwent trainers-training on environment that included solid waste management, livelihood, community organizing, and so forth. KSK was already prepared to undertake projects as envisioned under the program, but this did not materialize. The program was terminated before it could take off in the area. However, the organization has remained intact.

• Contemporary NGO: the ZKK. The KSK has a contemporary environment-oriented NGO in the same

municipality of Navotas. This is the ZKK or Zero Kalat para sa Kaunlaran (literally, “Zero Littering for Progress”), which was organized under the same auspices of the CRMP of DENR. The ZKK also experienced the same fate as the KSK in so far as the CRMP is concerned. The ZKK of Dagat-Dagatan is now into buying recyclable materials and sells the items to the manufacturing plant in Antipolo that recycles tin cans and allied with ZKK. (The ZKK is also mentioned in the book Doon po sa Amin edited by Monina Allarey and published by Earth Day Network Philippines 2002, page 86. R.M.L.)

• CBSWM initiative. By its own initiative, KSK started to undertake a waste segregation project in 1997

and chose the Ilang-Ilang area as its pilot site. They did it through a orientation workshops attended by housewives together with the children. Through consistent personalized approach, the effort succeeded and group was convinced that waste segregation at source is practicable. When RA 9003 was enacted, KSK was already prepared to take the lead. It submitted a project proposal for CLASP funding assistance to establish an ecology center (similar to that of Brgy Bagumbuhay in Quezon City). The problem was that the identified project site was informally settled (or squatted) by a Barangay Councilman who would not leave the place unless paid out of the proposed project funds. The project did not prosper.

• Pilot CBSWM project. Through the initiative of KSK, a pilot CBSWM project is jointly implemented by

the group and the Elementary School in Tanza. It was launched in August 2001.The project consists of waste segregation at source, recycling and composting. Waste segregation is done at home by the schoolchildren and respective family members. Only waste paper, bottles, and broken glass are collected as recyclables and brought to the eco-center with a MRF that is located in an unused building inside the school compound. These are piled up according to type until they are sold in bulk to the junk dealers at the end of the school year. Composting is limited to the biodegradable waste, mostly plant leaves. The compost is used as soil conditioner for the school’s vegetable garden the products of which are sold to the school canteen and other buyers.

The proceeds of both the recyclables and the vegetables are used for the construction or repair of school building and facilities or to purchase school equipment. The first and latest bulk sale of the recyclables was consummated last May this year.



• Felt needs. To be able to address the present waste problem in the community, the KSK leaders felt the need of the following:

1. Financial assistance 2. Support from the government, e.g., the Barangay 3. Enforcement of laws on solid waste management

Although they believe they can implement projects at their own initiative without outside funding assistance, the extent of what they can do and achieve would be limited and at a slow pace.

• UNDP-assisted project. Tanza is one of the selected sites for the pilot CBSWM project that is jointly

implemented by the UNDP, the MMDA, and the barangay. The KSK is tasked to take charge of coordinating the implementation of the project at the barangay level.

• Views on MMDA. The KSK leaders expressed their reservations on what they perceived as bias of

MMDA towards landfill and of the rumored plan to establish this somewhere in Quezon province. “Hindi kami compormi kay BF. Sisirain lang niyan ang masaganang lugar. Ang kailangan ayi turuan ang mga tao.” [Literally, “We are not in conformity with BF (initials of the MMDA chairman). It (landfill) will only destroy a prosperous land. What is needed is to teach the people.”]

• Suggestions. The KSK leaders suggest that they (as KSK members) should be deputized as

enforcers of SWM laws and ordinances in the barangay, and that they are given a share in the amount of the fines collected as penalties to violators. Through this arrangement, the KSK leaders could foresee a more determined and strict enforcement, considering that the KSK is a legitimate stakeholder group that is concerned with the protection and conservation of the environment and its resources in the community.



Annex 5 Photographs

ADB TA 3848-PHI Metro Manila Solid Waste Management Project Final Report

Junkshop operated in Valenzuela City inside the dumpsite where piles of plastics are temporarily stored prior to disposition to dealers

Plastic recyclable materials in junkshop inside the Valenzuela dumpsite being readied for transport to recycling plant

Windrow composting operated at Brg Talayan, Quezon City

Recycling center located at Brgy Talyan QC. Storage area for the sorted recyclable materials

Compost aging area, Brgy Holy Spirit,

Handicraft products made from recyclable materials, Brgy Holy Spirit QC

Assessment of Community Based recycling AEA Technology Annex 5 1


Shredding equipment Sorting area, Brgy Holy Spirit

Demonstration Garden under a slotted canopy, Brgy Holy Spirit

Ecology Center, Brgy Holy Spirit

Composting equipment, Brgy Bagumbayan, QC Composting aging area, Brgy Philam, QC



Demonstration garden, Brgy Philam Equipment used in processing the compostable

garbage, Brgy Philam

Windrow composting and shredding equipment, Brgy Talayan QC

Vegetable garden, Brgy Escopa QC

Manual composting drums used in composting facility, Brgy Escopa QC

Pushcart used to collect recyclable wastes, San Antonio, Paranaque



Demonstration potted garden where compost is used for ornamental plants.

Ecology garden, Brgy Blueridge

Segregating empty plastic packs in preparation for bag making, Brgy Ugong Pasig

Brgy Ugong Recycling Center

Equipment mixer for use in composting, Sunvalley, Paranaque City

Ecology Center, Brgy Tunasan, Muntinlupa City



Ecology Center, Brgy Tunasan, Muntinlupa City Composting equipment, Brgy, Barangka Itaas, Mandaluyong City

Gardening project using compost soil Collection equipment used by Brgy, Bel Air,

Makati City

Bio-man or garbage collector, Manila City Brgy 52, Caloocan City, Barangay Hall, Recycling Center



Billboard depicting recycling activities at Brgy, 633, Manila

Bio-man and pushcart

A Barangay Where both Recycling and Composting are done in Every Home

Ugong, Pasig – Heap of fresh compost


COMMUNITY-BASED-RECYCLING - final - SRnv119.92.161.2/portal/Portals/38/adb/Report 5a...

Documents

Transcript of COMMUNITY-BASED-RECYCLING - final - SRnv119.92.161.2/portal/Portals/38/adb/Report 5a...