Manila: Waste Management

Informal and Formal: Addressing Waste Management in Manila

Introduction

The capital city of Philippines, Manila, is one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Home to over 1.8 million people, the port city has witnessed exponential urban growth and development over the last two or three decades. The city is divided into north and south halves by the Pasig River, which runs through it. For the purpose of electing city council members and serving as a representative in the Philippine Congress, the city is divided into six political districts in addition to its sixteen administrative districts. Manila is often seen as the gateway for development in South East Asia. As one of the largest ports in the region, Manila has a glamourous history of trade, making it a global city. The Port of Manila is the largest seaport in the Philippines and a major international shipping route in SEA. The city’s Spanish colonial history has also established its links with Europe and North America, and today it is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Manufacturing and trade economy in Manila has flourished, making it a lucrative destination for urban expansion. The city has attracted migrant workers from all around South East Asia, as well as the world, which has caused unprecedented urban growth in the region. Today, with over 43,000 people per square km, Manila is extremely dense. It houses many of SEA’s financial giants, and is the headquarters of the Asian Development Bank.

Like most other fast-growing cities, Manila too faces challenges around its rapidly developing economy. Increase in urbanisation in the region has been accompanied with a myriad of problems. Lack of space, income inequality, over-exploitation of natural resources and inefficient governance have impacted Manila’s past and present. One of the main challenges that Manila faces today is solid waste management.

Manila city is part of one of the most prosperous and dynamic regions in Asia; Metro Manila. However, booming economic activity in the region has contributed to excess of waste, much of which is not managed. Over the last three decades, Manila has struggled in dealing with its trash.  According to data from the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, or MMDA, 9,499.44 tons of garbage were thrown out daily by Metro Manila residents in 2016 (Fernandez, 2019). More than half of Manila’s waste is not collected and disposed properly. Untreated waste continuous to be thrown out into rivers, creeks and seas.

Waste Collection, Management and Disposal: The Issue

An article by Medium reported that Manila’s Department of Public Services states that more than 2,000 tons of garbage bags are being collected in Manila per day, which is then carried by over 500 trucks. ‘Amidst the waste that is being collected by the Department of Public Services, a large percentage of waste ends up in streets, canals, sewages, and other waterways’ (Fernandes, 2019).

Manila has a large number of esteros spread across the city, connecting its rivers to the sea. This natural drainage system has become clogged due to pollution and solid waste dumped daily. Waste from informal settlements and households often ends up in estuaries due to a lack of formal collection. Rapid population growth in the city has caused the proliferation of slums, where daily household waste is dumped without treatment. Uncollected garbage is usually thrown on streets, around homes, or into waterways, contributing to health problems for slum residents.

Manila has had a controversial history with dumping sites, with most being overused and causing a waste management crisis. Open dumping sites cause the spread of disease, are aesthetically unappealing, and often catch fire, posing risks to residents. ‘Generation of waste is increasing rapidly... while collection services are becoming less efficient’ (Bernardo, 2008).

Crisis of Landfills

Since 1991, Manila has witnessed a downfall of its waste management system. Up until 1991, the city managed several landfills, including the well-known Smokey Mountain landfill. Smokey Mountain began in the 1950s as an unplanned dumpsite at the city’s northern periphery. Garbage disposed through both formal and informal processes ended up here, growing around the slums of the Tondo district. Many residents eked out a living as scavengers, recycling and separating trash. By the 1980s, the population climbed to 30,000, and Smokey Mountain became a symbol of urban squalor and Manila's growing garbage problem (ADB, 2014).

In 1990-1991, city officials decided to close Smokey Mountain and redevelop the land for informal settlements. By 2004, the landfill was removed, and slum-dwellers were moved into newly built social housing. However, many chose not to relocate as their primary income as scavengers was unavailable in the new district.

Around 1991, the government received aid from the World Bank to open a 73-ha regional sanitary landfill in San Mateo, Rizal, followed by the 65-ha Carmona regional landfill in 1992. These sites were intended to formalize waste management but failed to meet the city’s growing needs. Operations declined due to poor management, and environmental concerns rose. Informal settlements and recycling centers proliferated around these sites, and unplanned dumping continued at other locations, such as Payatas and Catmon (ADB, 2004).

The crisis escalated in late 1999 when the San Mateo landfill ceased operations due to public opposition, causing a breakdown in Manila's waste system. Widespread uncollected waste and private dumpsites emerged. Plans to transport waste to Bataan and Semirara Island faced resistance and legal challenges. In July 2000, the Payatas dump site experienced a disastrous waste mass failure, temporarily closing before reopening (ADB, 2004).

Involving Informality- Local Level Waste Disposal Systems

Since 2001, additional controlled dumpsites, such as the Rodriguez facility in Montalban and Tanza in Navotas, have been established. Despite these efforts, Metro Manila’s disposal capacity remains low, with untreated waste polluting waterways and exacerbating flooding. Manila lacks recycling systems and innovative waste management strategies. Methods like energy generation through incineration, recycling reusable materials, and household-level waste management have yet to be effectively implemented.

There have been governmental interventions and policies addressing solid waste management in Manila, but they have largely failed to resolve the issue. Multiple regulations at national and subnational levels have promoted better waste management. Policies at the national level emphasized efficient local governance. The Local Government Code of 1991 devolved waste collection and disposal responsibilities to local governments, consistent with decentralization (Atienza, 2011). Several policies, including the Republic Act 9003 – Ecological Solid Waste Act of 2000, were introduced, but they have not significantly improved Manila’s waste management system.

The RA 9003 Act aimed to involve Local Government Units (LGUs) in preparing municipal solid waste management boards and 10-year waste management plans. Its goals included banning open dumping sites and converting them into controlled landfills while encouraging private sector and community participation. Despite these efforts, implementation remains weak. Open dumping persists, exacerbated by population growth, weak compliance, financial constraints, and lack of community involvement.

Household waste collection is the responsibility of the Metro Manila Development Authority. However, segregation and recycling are not mandated, leaving waste unsegregated and non-recyclable (Tantuco, 2018). Most segregation work is performed by ragpickers and informal workers, who rely on waste sorting for their livelihood. Yet, these skilled workers are excluded from local government projects, perpetuating class inequality and a process of “othering.”

Today, the informal waste sector thrives across Metro Manila, comprising not only waste pickers but also collectors at communal collection points, itinerant buyers, junkshop dealers, and garbage truck crews (Paul et al., 2012). Despite their contributions, LGUs have offered little support to this sector. Collected waste, even when handled formally, is mixed and sent to landfills. Recycling, composting, and energy-linked incineration remain absent, further compounding the problem.

Years after its introduction, the RA 9003 Act remains poorly implemented. The informal waste sector continues to operate without recognition or support, and the lack of innovation, financial resources, and stakeholder involvement hampers progress in addressing Manila’s waste crisis.

The issue with Manila’s solid waste management lies in its failure to involve relevant stakeholders, particularly the inhabitants of informal settlements. The RA Act of 2000 is the most comprehensive policy on solid waste management in the Philippines, but its implementation remains lacking. Open dumping sites still exist, and the problem has worsened with population growth. Weak compliance, lack of innovation and technology, financial constraints, and insufficient community involvement exacerbate the issue.

Collection of household waste is the responsibility of the Metro Manila Development Authority. However, segregation and recycling at household levels are not mandated, leaving household waste largely unsegregated and non-recyclable (Tantuco, 2018). Much of the segregation work is done by ragpickers and informal workers, who earn a living from sorting waste. Despite their skills, local governments often view waste pickers as threats to proposed projects. A culture of class inequality perpetuates their exclusion.

The informal waste sector thrives across Metro Manila, including collectors at communal waste points, itinerant buyers, junkshop dealers, and garbage truck crews (Paul et al., 2012). Although this sector plays a vital role, it receives little government support. Collected waste, even formally handled, is mixed and sent to landfills, with no active recycling or composting programs. Incineration is not linked to energy production and adds to pollution.

Informal waste pickers collect waste door-to-door, segregate recyclables like plastic, sacks, and metals, and sell them to junkshops. Many former waste pickers own or operate junkshops with family members. Though some establish relationships with barangays, distrust persists due to top-down governance. Studies show that informal recycling reduces waste management costs and provides livelihoods for the urban poor (Paul et al., 2012). However, laws prohibiting waste picking at landfills without offering alternatives force many to continue informal practices.

Upscaling Waste Picking: How can formalizing help?

Formalizing waste picking within municipal frameworks could alleviate urban poverty and reduce environmental waste. Informal workers’ expertise in segregation can increase recycling rates and enhance waste incineration efficiency. Despite their contributions, public authorities rarely acknowledge their work, leaving them vulnerable to unstable incomes, health risks, and social stigma. Despite their crucial role, public authorities have not officially acknowledged them, creating a major obstacle for workers in accessing social services. This informal workforce, predominantly composed of women, faces vulnerability due to unstable income, challenges related to land occupation, health injuries, and social stigma (UNDP, 2022). Including informal workers in Manila’s waste management system is crucial for advancing a circular economy and promoting innovative solutions like energy generation through waste incineration (Barcegol and Gowda, 2019).

In Manila, employing informal workers can also increase reach of waste collection, therefore reducing waste dumping into estuaries. Informal waste workers may have more extensive reach within communities, or may belong to communities with dense population, especially in formal settlements, therefore enabling more efficient waste collection. Efficient waste collection also diverts waste away from landfills, as more waste gets recycled, or composted. Informal workers also possess valuable local knowledge, which can be harnessed for effective waste management strategies. Local workers have knowledge of community practices, and can be a gateway towards co-production frameworks. Better mapping of informal settlements can be done through the inclusion of informal workers, leading to more efficient waste collection. Including them fosters collaboration between formal waste management systems and local communities, promoting a sense of ownership and responsibility. Entire neighbourhoods can be mobilized to clean up clogged estuaries and marshlands, reducing health risks and flood risk.

Integrating informal waste workers into formal waste management systems provides stable employment opportunities and livelihood support, improving their economic well-being. By recognizing and valuing informal workers, social inclusion and poverty alleviation can be achieved. Along with the social benefits, integration of informal workers is also cost-effective. The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) spent ‘P3.336 billion in 2022 on garbage collection, nearly double compared to what it shelled out in 2017’ (Cruz, 2023). Increase in collection cost is attributed to tipping fee, which the municipality has to pay to continue using landfills, and is attributed to the weight. Development of a better system of waste collection which encourages segregation and recycling can significantly reduce costs, for the municipality and for individuals.

While Manila struggles with its solid waste management, some success stories have emerged. The Municipal Waste Recycling Program (MWRP), funded by USAID, provided a grant to Catholic Relief Services (CRS) to train local residents in Metro Manila as door-to-door waste collectors. Each trainee received a $325 livelihood grant to help start an SWM business. Some had prior experience as informal waste workers, selling recyclable waste to scrap dealers. After training, beneficiaries used the grant to acquire essential equipment like pushcarts, weighing scales, and uniforms. They then initiated door-to-door waste collection, serving 200 households by the project's end (UrbanLinks, 2021).

Although Manila's Smokey Mountain dumpsite is closed, surrounding communities still rely on waste picking and recycling. Manila’s Sustainable Project Management (SPM) NGO received a grant from the ADB’s Poverty and Environment Fund (PEF) to implement the Smokey Mountain Remediation and Development Program. The program aimed to provide a safer, more lucrative alternative to junk shops, focusing on recycling, a business residents knew best (ADB, 2014).

Innovative Change: Composting through Urban Agriculture

A defining characteristic of waste generated in Manila is the high proportion of organic matter (Hiramatsu et al., 2009). The amount of organic waste increases the excess moisture content, which shortens the life of landfill sites, increasing the overall load on waste disposal (Takizawa & Murakami, 2001). Selective removal of organic waste makes landfills more effective, and promote circular economy.

To further support upscaling of business by informal workers, composting and urban agriculture can be used in Manila. A study done by Hara et al., 2011, showed that in some districts in Quezon city, efficient organic waste recycling systems can be enabled through urban agricultural activities in vacant spaces in the city. In Metro Manila, organic matter which does get composted is sent large neighbouring farms, as buyers for compost in urban spaces is low. However, using compost from household waste for urban agriculture is feasible in Manila (Hara et al., 2011). Through quantifying the amount of organic waste being produced in three districts or barangay, the authors were able to assess the feasibility of producing compost from organic waste. The amount of vacant land in the districts and the possibility of increasing active agriculture land within urban spaces was assessed. The study concluded that the potential use of compost within the vacant lands for developing a local compost recycling system is feasible (Hara et al., 2011). However, further research and involvement of government, as well as international organisations is essential. Regardless, there is potential for use of organic waste for composting within Metro Manila. Adopting innovative solutions such as composting for urban agriculture, and involvement of informal workers in the SWM system, can highly benefit Manila’s waste management system.

Conclusion:

Manila's solid waste management challenges persist despite efforts to decentralize waste governance and integrate informal waste workers. However, programs like the Municipal Waste Recycling Program and initiatives promoting composting and urban agriculture offer potential solutions. Effective collaboration with local communities, informal workers, and government can foster a more sustainable and inclusive waste management system, reducing environmental and health risks.