Introduction

The Philippine State policy on incineration as embodied in the Clean Air Act of 1999 can be a source of inspiration for advocates of environmental justice and public health. The Philippine ban on incineration of waste which is heralded as the first in the world also represents a bold step for the country in terms of turning away dirty technology and failed solutions from the West.

But the real victory behind the incineration ban is the fact that it represents an important opportunity to put forward genuine and lasting solutions to the waste crisis, namely waste reduction, source separation and composting. This opportunity to do the right thing, however, is in danger of being squandered by current government proposals to construct more landfills to take in Metro Manila’s garbage , in the face of the impending closure of the San Mateo landfill. Entrenched interest groups have also relentless pushed for landfills as the solution, in the hope of cashing in on the opening provided by the incineration ban.

The Philippine Congress is presently considering nine (9) legislative measures on solid waste management. It is obvious that consolidated versions of these pending proposals call for an integrated approach to solid waste management. At the heart of this integrated waste management approach , however, is the primacy given to landfills which the current administration considers as the backbone of solid waste management.

These developments may prove crucial in undermining any headway gained from the ban on incineration. We took a bold step to keep the air clean, let us take another bold step keep the earth alive.

Landfills require a lot of valuable space that we cannot afford. Putting up landfills and open dumps that will compete with the demands for spaces for people to live and work in, is an unacceptable proposition. The location of dumpsites, near and around major urban areas, could create problems associated with this worst form of urban sprawl.

Garbage landfills may leach out toxic substances that will contaminate water supplies, both surface and groundwater. The effects of such contamination may not be immediately evident, but environmental and public health would be severely compromised.

For example samples of leachate collected from the Carmona and Payatas dumpsites in Manila, showed high levels of toxic heavy metals chromium and copper. Elevated levels of zinc and lead were also identifed. Dichlorobenzene also turned up but only at trace levels (just above limits of detection).

Leachate from the Carmona dumpsite showed high levels of chromium being discharged directly into the Menama River. Leachate tested from the Payatas dumpsite had very high levels of chromium, up to 35 times uncontaminated background levels and six times guidelines to protect ecosystems from toxic impacts. It should be noted that leachate from both waste dumps flow directly , without benefit of treatment, into critical water systems – the Laguna Lake in the case of Carmona and the San Mateo-Marikina rivers in the case of Payatas. The La Mesa dam, Metro Manila’s primary source of drinking water is also situated next to the Payatas open dump.

Landfills are designed to serve as sinkholes for the refuse of the present generation. Thus, they unjustly become veritable graves for the resources that are valuable for re-use, and use by the future generations.

Landfills are generally unwanted by communities and for good reason. The continuing refusal of the people of San Mateo to receive Metro Manila’s garbage highlight the immoral and unjust nature of dumping one’s garbage in other people’s backyards. Often, dumpsites and landfills are located in communities that are most vulnerable, economically and politically to resist them. In the local experience, these are rural areas that are often "traded-off " to gain political mileage in the politically active and vote-rich urban areas.

In line with the principles of environmental justice and in recognition of the basic human right of all individuals to live in a clean and safe environment, no province or community should be made as a toxics sacrifice zone for the disposal of garbage mainly generated in the country’s urban centers. Taken in this context, waste exportation is exploitation. Citizens have every right to oppose plans to convert their localities into dumps or landfill sites, especially since these are known to increase rates of cancers, birth defects and other health disorders in their immediate vicinities.

Magallanes, Cavite Eurasian Company for Waste & Environmental Service

Philippines Corporation (ECWES),

Manila Solid Waste Management Committee

Capas, Tarlac Clark Development Corporation and BN Consultants

Paete Laguna Waste and Management Corporation (WARM),

Mariveles, Bataan Office of the Provincial Governor, MMDA, GMMSWMC

Dizon Mines, Zambales Office of the Provincial Governor, MMDA, GMMSWMC

Dona Remedios Trinidad, Bulacan MMDA, GMMSWMC, opposed by the Governor

Quezon AXIS Corporation, Local Government

Bgy. Cararayan, Naga City Local Government

Bgy. Calajunan, Iloilo City World Bank Project

Villa Esperanza, Bacolod City Local Government

Bgy. Mansilingan, Bacolod City Local Government

Pagadian City Local Government

Upper Tuminobo, Iligan City Local Government

Source: Presidential Task Force on Waste Management

Note: The Magallanes Landfill project has been recently denied an Environmental Clearance Certificate, thus the delay in its operation.

These existing landfills have been found to violate the health and safety provisions of their Environmental Compliance Certificates.

An example is the experience in Inayawan, Cebu City wherein local government officials admitted that garbage is "inadvertently" bulldozed into the open sea, to level the dumpsite (Sun Star ) . Another, is the reported flooding of the leachate ponds in San Mateo, thus contaminating the soil and water around those areas. Operators are also wont on reneging on their promises for social services and infrastructure. Proper monitoring of the impact of these landfills is also quite doubtful.

Community leaders and organizations have expressed concern over the reported increase in various health ailments among residents. Residents around these place have likewise complained about the increased incidence of vehicular accidents involving garbage dump trucks.

Therefore, it is not surprising to hear the comment of one barangay leader on these landfills this way:

" If you will ask us, we’d rather not have the landfill. Perhaps, there are good landfills, however, our experience with the landfill is very far fetched from what we read from the materials promoting these technologies." (Bgy. Chairman Efren Pareno of Bgy. San Juan , Antipolo City commenting on the impact of the San Mateo landfill)

Lastly, it is positive to note that a broad movement for a radical re-orientation of the country’s solid waste management program is emerging.

Solutions must be kept (1) SIMPLE on the (2) LOCAL LEVEL, and using an (3) INTEGRATED APPROACH to harness local talents and energies. Further, we shall ensure that the local community enjoys the (4) ECONOMIC BENEFITS from such initiatives in a (5) SUSTAINABLE MANNER.

Technology has a role to play in waste management but only when judiciously applied to carefully selected components of the waste stream. The real solution has more to do with community education and organizing rather than building expensive and complicated machines.

In the case of the Philippines, a lot of work needs to be done to convince our policy-makers and government officials to put their energies and resources instead on proven and commonsensical front-end solutions . Even with the best intentions, the programs being proposed seem to favor the establishment of high-tech, albeit, expensive waste management technologies (mainly incinerators and landfills) that the country can ill-afford nor sustain.

Basically, the real solution begins with source separation. Trash is made by mixing and can be UN-made by separating these into several well-defined categories. Once separated, it would be easier to find rational solutions to deal with every component of the waste stream. Paper and glass for example could be recycled. Toxic materials like batteries and pesticide cans need to be removed from the general waste stream and dealt with separately. Organic wastes , on the other hand, can go directly to community gardens and/or composting facilities. For this to succeed,however, government needs to put in resources in the development of the right infrastructure for recycling and composting while giving a premium at the same time to public education and awareness programs on waste.

In recent years, two key activities have produced astonishing results with respect to waste reduction. First, is the use of waste audits for industry. When local manufacturers are required to find out at what points in their processes they generate waste, they find many places where they can make less waste and save money in the process. For example, Quaker Oats of Canada, after a waste audit, was able to reduce its waste stream by over 90% and save an enormous amount of money in the process.

Second, is the use of "volume based charging systems" for households and institutions. Simply put, the more waste you generate the more you pay. The city of Seattle has a monthly garbage fee, which is based upon the size of container used for the non-recyclable fraction of the waste stream. Other communities require a pre-paid coupon to be used on every bag of non-recyclable trash put out at the curb. These are often referred to as "Pay-by-bag" schemes.

Many households and communities around the world have developed both formal and informal means of getting reusable objects moving from one owner to the next. These include garage sales, yard sales, jumble sales, flea markets, and thrift shops, the Salvation Army and Goodwill Industries. While reuseables represent a small fraction of the waste stream it is a highly valuable one.

The important thing about the reuseables and repair center is that it can be the springboard for many other community activities. It can be used for education. It can involve both seniors and youngsters, who can be taught how to repair things at an early age. It can be used to teach people how to compost in their backyards and even to build their own composting units out of materials collected at the center. It can also be used in the repair of items for sale or be made available to the public in a "paint exchange". The center may also become a meeting place for the community.

Composting can be run on almost any scale. It can be done in the backyard or the basement (vermiculture) in the community or in a centralized facility. However, a key principle is to maintain tight control over what materials enter the composting operation, because the ability to use the material can be compromised if unsuitable materials are composted: e.g. non-source separated material.

After source separation, composting is the most important step in the alternatives scenario, because it is the organic material in landfills which cause so many problems. It is organic waste, which when it rots underground, generates 1) methane, which contributes to global warming, 2) organic acids which are capable of dissolving the metals in the waste stream and getting them into surface and ground water, and 3) awful odors. Thus a key objective of composting is to keep organic waste out of the landfill.

Many citizens who might not be interested in community composting might be excited about a community garden. The latter would ideally supported with a community composting operation. It makes perfect economic sense for municipalities to support such operations, because every pound of organic waste composted means one pound of waste that does not have to be picked up, transported and disposed of. It is also a very positive way of integrating waste management waste that does not have to be picked up, transported and disposed of. It is also a very positive way of integrating waste management with the local community.

The three golden rules to secure markets for recyclables are " quantity, quality and regularity." The industries that will use these materials must be confident that they will get their regular supply of material free from contaminants that can ruin their processes, e.g. ceramics in glass, plastics in paper, PVC plastic co-mingled with polyethylene or PET. Source separation schemes have helped to meet some of these demands.

Today, the driving force underpinning the economics of recycling is "avoided costs." It costs money to recycle, but it is economically viable when the over-all cost of collecting and recycling a ton of recyclables is less than disposing a ton of waste. The enemy of recycling is cheap landfills. Those in favor of recycling need to argue that cheap landfilling is artificially cheap because he long term costs of future damage to the environment, both locally (toxic emissions to air and groundwater) and globally (waste of finite resources).

While toxics only make up 1-2% of the household mainstream, if left un-addressed, they threaten every other aspect of waste handling strategy. It is important to get these materials identified and made visible

Some toxics like mercury, are so intractable, we should question their use –altogether. If industry insists on their use, and government allows it, then these industries must be force to take back the object that contain them. In a similar fashion we should require the oil industry to take back the motor oil, and tire manufacturers to take back used tires. They should be challenged to find ways of recovering these valuable feedstocks.

After source separation has kicked in and materials like reusables, recyclables, compostables and toxics have been sent to different facilities for processing, there will be a fraction left over. This fraction consists largely of the residue, which is deemed, currently, to be to be non-reusable, non-recyclable or non-compostable. At some point we will have to find a way to tell manufacturers that if we can’t re-use recycle or compost this material, they shouldn’t be making it. We should further demand that if they insist on continuing to make it, then it is they who have to look after it when we have finished with it.

The aforementioned processes are by no means simple nor purport to be the complete solution to our waste problems. While simple in principle, the execution of these systems requires a lot of hard work, perseverance and creativity.

But clearly, this approach is moving in the right direction. It is far superior to a reliance on raw waste landfilling or incineration. It will improve, as more and more manufacturers learn to combine selling to the present, with caring about sharing our limited resources with the future.

• Alternatives to Incinerating Trash by Dr. Paul Connett, Chemistry Department, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY

• Overview of Legislative Initiatives for An Integrated Solid Waste Management System by Prof. Ma. Lourdes G. Rebullida, UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies, 2000

• Unity Statement of the National Conference on Ecological Waste Management by the ECO-WASTE COALITION: ZERO WASTE 2020

Source: Environmental Research Foundation P.O. Box 3541 Princeton, NJ 08543-3541


TAKEN FROM GREENPEACE MANILA