Cost of Providing Solid Waste Management
Attributes
Medium: Land
Country: Philippines
Analytical Framework(s): Economic Analysis
Study Date: 2002
Publication Date: 2005
Major Result(s)
| Category | Resource/Environmental Good | PHP (2002) |
PHP (2014)1 |
USD (2014)2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low-Income LGU | cost per ton3 | 978.00 | 1,554.55 | 34.76 |
| Low-Income LGU | cost per household served | 797.00 | 1,266.85 | 28.32 |
| Middle-Income LGU | cost per ton | 958.98 | 1,524.32 | 34.08 |
| Middle-Income LGU | cost per household served | 1,074.00 | 1,707.14 | 38.17 |
| High-Income LGU | cost per ton | 1,360.00 | 2,161.75 | 48.33 |
| High-Income LGU | cost per household served | 1,296.00 | 2,060.02 | 46.06 |
About the Inflation Adjustment: Prices in Philippines (PHP) changed by 58.95% from 2002 to 2014 (aggregated from annual CPI data), so the study values were multiplied by 1.59 to express them in 2014 prices. The study values could be expressed in any desired year (for example, to 2025) by following the same inflation calculation and being sensitive to directional (forward/backward) aggregations using your own CPI/inflation data.
Study Note: Rapid urbanization and changing lifestyles create problems in solid waste management. In the Philippines, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (R.A. 9003) or program (SWMP) was enacted into law to deal with these problems. The law sets guidelines and targets for solid waste avoidance and volume reduction and mandates local government units (LGUs) to take responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Act. However, despite the authority given to the LGUs, they are still in a quandary about its implementation. Specifically, it is not clear how they can best finance the implementation of R.A. 9003.
Study Details
Summary: This study was conducted to analyze the financial costs and benefits of the SWMP activities of 41 selected LGUs in the Philippines. Fifteen of these LGUs were members of the Solid Waste Management Association of the Philippines (SWAPP). The rest were made up of 10 big urbanized LGUs and 16 small rural LGUs. As expected there were wide variations in the socio-economic profile of these LGUs. The analysis of both the financial costs of implementing the SWMP and the actual revenues obtained from solid waste management showed that an overall fiscal gap existed. This needs to be financed either through fee-based or non-fee-based mechanisms or both. However, when the total economic benefits of the SWMP were considered (these included the revenues obtained by LGUs, earnings made by other parties and savings from avoided landfill costs), it was found that there were LGUs that enjoyed positive net benefits. In general, the SWAPP-listed LGUs had relatively small fiscal gaps. Thus, the training and linkages provided by the SWAPP may be a crucial mechanism to help all LGUs finance and comply with the SWMP. One of the potential sources of revenue to bridge the current fiscal gap is the rechanneling of garbage fees that are currently incorporated in the business permits/licenses paid by commercial establishments. The LGUs may also wish to handle SW collection and disposal themselves since this can be cheaper than contracting the services out. Despite the potential revenues that may be obtained from selling recyclables and compost, the LGUs surveyed felt that the cost of undertaking these activities outweighed the benefits. It is felt that this opinion needs to be validated through solid financial analysis.
Site Characteristics: A total of 41 LGUs from six regions in Luzon and two regions in the Visayas were visited and interviewed about their solid waste management programs and activities. Out of the 41 LGUs, 15 were SWAPP-listed LGUs (11 from Luzon and four from the Visayas) and 26 were classified as other LGUs (20 from Luzon and six from the Visayas). These other LGUs were further classified as either big or small LGUs. Big LGUs are those with more than 35,000 households each, while small LGUs had less than 35,000 households. The LGUs varied in terms of their land areas, number of barangays, households, populations and income. There was a large variation in the land area of individual LGUs across the different categories. The land area of SWAPP-listed LGUs ranged from 26.25 sq km to 276.33 sq km; big other LGUs had land areas ranging from 21.50 sq km to 425.50 sq km; while the small other LGUs had areas from 32.20 sq km to 317 sq km. With the exception of Quezon City, the LGUs in the National Capital Region (NCR) in both the SWAPP-listed and other LGU categories had smaller land areas than the rest of the LGUs. These LGUs were urbanized communities and therefore had higher populations and household numbers. The biggest population density was recorded in Quezon City. This was due to the presence of big universities, hospitals and government institutions in the city. By virtue of their classification, the big other LGUs had the highest average population density of 8,978 persons per sq km (range from 617 to 18,964). The SWAPP-listed LGUs, being a mixed bag of big and small LGUs (only 46 percent had more than 35,000 households) had lower population densities. The small other LGUs had population densities averaging 649 persons per sq km (range from 215 to 1,452 persons per sq km) due to their larger land areas, lower number of households, smaller populations and lower number of urban barangays. Overall, the LGUs studied had a higher average population density than the national population density in 2002 of 225 persons per sq km.
Comments: The concerns raised by LGUs about the management and implementation of the SWMP included: a lack of skills among the staff implementing the program; inadequate financial and human resources; a lack of waste disposal sites; and, the strict requirements necessary to obtain environmental clearance certificates. Their plans to improve SWM included: intensifying the use of material recovery facilities (MRF); appropriate technical training programs; finding acceptable disposal sites that can be upgraded; and, the creation of specific SWM units.