The waste crisis of Metro Manila is among the negative externalities of urbanization, which is loosely equated with economic growth. It is but normal to regard Metro Manila as the country’s premier metropolis because of fast paced urbanization. As early as the 1970s, the region’s level of urbanization was at 100% (Ballesteros 4). Urbanization is a process in which the area is acquiring the character of cities. Industrial and commercial activities progress alongside this process. Thence, the values of capitalism are inculcated along the way; primary of which is consumerism. The value of consumerism in Metro Manila has intensified our daily waste generation deed. Congestion is also a consequence of urbanization; the population density of Metro Manila, which is at 15,617 persons per square kilometre, was highest among the regions, based on the 2000 Census. The congestion of metropolis multiplies the amount of waste being disposed (note: disposing not at their own backyard). We have a need for recipient of the urban waste because of the fact that Metro Manila has less than 2 year disposal capacity (at the time of the ADB Metro Manila Solid Waste Management Study). Notwithstanding these facts, Metro Manila wastes are serviced by dumpsites with inadequately engineered protection systems. On top of that, sanitary landfills are poorly developed in the region. The list of sanitary landfill sites from the National Solid Waste Management Commission reflects there is a single sanitary landfill site that exists i.e., the Brgy. Tanza Sanitary Landfill in Navotas City. While the region is running out of disposal capacity, mandated sanitary landfills are not being developed.
Efforts to accord waste management, with the principle of sustainability of land resources via ecological integrity, were made apparent in Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 or Republic Act No 9003. RA 9003 sets sensible guidelines that translate into effective waste management. Because dump sites pose environment, health and other social risks, RA 9003 lays action plans to avert dump site deficiencies and environmental risks by providing for closure of open dumpsites, operation of controlled dumpsites until to 2006 only and establishment of fully operational sanitary landfills by 2006. The closure of open dump sites and eventually the controlled dump sites signifies the end of our reliance to short-term yet dangerous approach to waste disposal. The movement to a rational system of engineered sanitary landfills indicates its commitment to long-term and environmentally sound actions for waste disposal. The sanitary landfills are equipped with technology that allows it to stay clear from the hazards of dump sites such as leachate and landfill gas (by treatment system) and these landfills can be closed and converted to other uses. Also, it delegates the primary responsibility for solid waste management to local government. RA 9003 mandates the local government to prepare a 10-year solid waste management plan. This approach creates a link between waste management and development plan, which is also prepared by the local government, allowing waste management to be anchored on the community’s development plan. While RA 9033 may give us spark of hope in our battle with garbage crisis, it still allows us for dependence over landfills. This dependence creates another conflict, i.e., where should the landfill be located.
Siting of Disposal Facility and Land Use Planning
With the people’s mentality limited to waste collection (thinking that household’s waste problem can be shortly resolved by garbage collection) and attitude confined to not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY), the disposal phase of waste management carries most of the waste crisis. The bulk of garbage issue is now more concentrated on the disposal and the location, identification or siting of the waste disposal facility. This brings to mind that waste management is actually a function of land use planning. Because land is a scarce resource, competing and conflicting land use is inevitable. Hence, the allocation, use and management of country’s land and land resources should be carefully planned to attain the common good, general welfare. In as much as the highest and best use of land area is a relative concept since it considers the relative demand for that certain use, highest and best land use is ultimately determined by the general welfare or what land-use will bring most benefit to all with due regard to the concept of sustainability. Waste disposal facility utilizes a land resource. One striking concern is that Metro Manila is running out of disposal capacity, and furthered by the fact that there are waste disposal facilities that have closed because of the immense public opposition it has received.
Hence the issue on the identification and availability of sites for the final waste disposal in Metro Manila is truly a land-use issue. It was discussed that facilities such as sanitary landfill or dump site should be carefully located because of their potential to pollute the environment and risk the life and limb of affected residents. Thus, the final waste disposal site for Metro Manila must be carefully located. However, the difficulty in locating a prospective disposal facility arises from perspectives of two major stakeholders: First, from the public point of view wherein they simply object to any site suggested because all of them simply don’t want it in their own backyard. Then, from the disposal agencies wherein they complain that either the site is too small or too distant.
Landfilling is perhaps the oldest method of waste disposal. But this has been modified in the last 30 to 40 years to minimize environmental hazards. Sanitary landfill requires large area and suitable location. Setting this up involves three phases, which are construction, operation and post-closure. The preparation of landfill site involves detailed analysis of biotic factors in the site such as water and air quality. The environmental impact assessment for a sanitary landfill involves protection of the healthy and safety of the public in the immediate impact area of the proposed site; prevention of on-site pollution and off-site environmental damage; and economics of operation. The assessment of environmental impacts of sanitary landfills is necessary to avert the usual danger we associate with it; some of which are the dangers of leachate contamination, landfill gas migration that can ignite landfill fires, human contact to exposed waste because of inadequate covers of dumpsites. There must be a real environmental impacts assessment because the RA 9003 directs our move towards sanitary landfill and away from dumpsites which are dangerous, high environmental, public health and social risks. In a sanitary landfill, wastes would be planced in sanitary landfill cells equipped with engineered environmental protection systems, including landfill lining systems, to act as barrier between the original ground and the waste itself. Typically, it also has a leachate and landfill gas collection and treatment systems, groundwater monitoring wells and landfill cover systems. These specifications must be ensured so as to avoid the abovementioned risks that a landfill can bring to environment and community. In terms of operation of sanitary landfill, there are also technical specifications involving the entry and exit of garbage trucks; compacting and unloading garbage; spraying with insecticides; spreading and levelling by bulldozers; and periodic soil covering, among others. These specifications imply proper maintenance of the landfill site so as not to endanger groundwater, public health and the environment. Similar to land-use planning which takes into account not only the biological and natural framework but more importantly the institutional/sociocultural factors affecting land use, sanitary landfill site planning involves assessment of the socio-cultural and economic impacts of such land use. These will include the possible displacement and resettlement of the affected communities; the potential effects on crop yields, fish catch, water availability i.e., the effect of the site on the natural resources that they utilize economically; public health problems; problems arising from inadequate housing and sanitation facilities of the laborers; safety and peace and order among workers and community.
Likewise, RA 9003 specified the criteria for siting a sanitary landfill. First, the site selected must be consistent with the overall land use plan of the LGU; the site must be accessible from major roadways or thoroughfares; the site should have an adequate quantity of earth cover material that is easily handled and compacted; site must be chosen with regard for the sensitivities of the community residents; the site must be located in an area where the landfill's operation will not detrimentally affect environmentally sensitive resources such as aquifer, groundwater reservoir or watershed area.
Questions of Suitability and Public Acceptability
It is necessary that every sanitary landfill project must comply with the technical criteria set upon so as to avoid environment and community dangers that will outweigh the prospective benefits that can be given by landfill projects. We have cited some technical criteria that can guide planners on site location of sanitary landfills. I will not cite the geological, chemical specifications on siting landfills. Various literature points that and ideal sanitary landfill must meet local zoning and land use criteria. It must also control landfill gas and safely protects surface and groundwater quality, thus the operation will not affect external environmentally sensitive areas. It must also be accessible by solid waste vehicles in all weather conditions, pointing out the distance factor in siting of landfill i.e., the distance from the source of waste to the disposal facility. Alongside the technical suitability, we also have to deal with public acceptability in evaluating a sanitary landfill because there are communities that will affected in landfill operations. While land use planning is a technical exercise, it must also be anchored on the social and economic goals of the area. It should be therefore, if not outright congruous, responsive with the socio-economic goals and values of the community affected by land use planning. Likewise, the use of land resources is not confined only with the analysis of its biological and natural factors. It must also be delved with the institutional framework, taking into account the man’s cultural environment. At the height of the operation of the earlier San Mateo landfill (the one which opened in 1991), residents lobbied for the total closure of the landfill. Their reasons usually varied from economic underdevelopment to environmental hazard brought by the landfill but the pervasive argument is that they do not want the waste of Metro Manila be disposed in their place. To put it simply, they didn’t want to bear the cost of Manila’s wastes. The NIMBY mentality was also prevalent among these protesters. The very same mentality held by the residents of Metro Manila that created our need for disposal sites (sites which should be outside the backyard of Manila). Obviously, no locality has been willing to take Metro Manila’s garbage even Metro Manila (because of the NIMBY mentality). A survey found that while 67% of residents believed that Metro Manila has a serious garbage problem, 73% did not want to see a sanitary landfill in their community, 78% of surveyed household had no idea where their collected garbage was taken for final disposal (Asian Development Bank 19). There is generally low public acceptability for such disposal facility, especially because of the improper location of sanitary landfills.
Case Study: Suitability and Acceptability of San Mateo Landfill Facility in Brgy. Pintong Bukawe, San Mateo, Rizal
The paper was limited to archival research; there were no site visit and community interviews because of time and budget constraint. San Mateo, Rizal is a first class urban municipality of Rizal Province. San Mateo is one of the largest municipalities in Rizal Province in terms of land area, at approximately 65 square kilometres. San Mateo lies in the Marikina Valley. The valley extends south towards Marikina City, Pasig City and Cainta, Rizal. The Marikina River runs through the western portion of the municipality and the Nangka River runs through the southern portion. The dynamic Sierra Madre Mountains, the longest mountain range in the Philippines, are located at the mid-eastern portion, while the Quezon City hills are located to the west. The municipality features many spacious parks, tree-lined streets and roads, and industrial zones. Most of the municipality is composed of residential areas and the other side is composed of tons of trees, high plateaus and mountains. San Mateo is a lush valley bounded by mountain ranges and sliced by a river. Aside from hosting light to medium industrial establishments and bustling commercial and trade centers, the municipality has recently welcomed the construction of sanitary landfill, which was proposed and developed by San Mateo Sanitary Landfill and Development Corp. (SMSLDC). The initial 19-hectare landfill facility in would service its host town and neighboring cities and municipalities, including Metro Manila. The arrangement is the municipality would pay no fees to bring in its garbage in the said facility. As for Metro Manila, Metro Manila Development Authority Chairman Bayani Fernando had yet to hammer out an agreement on terms and conditions particularly on charges for Metro Manila wastes. SMSLDC was able to secure an ECC from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) which is under the DENR on November 24, 2008 by apparently presenting documents signifying their intent to construct a dump in Sitio Mabilog na Bato, Barangay Pintong Bukawe in Rizal. The new landfill in Barangay Pintong Bukawe is outside from the protected zone, it is actually located seven kilometres from the Marikina watershed. The 5-hectare crater of the sanitary landfill facility is lined up with layers of high density polyethelene membrane that is certified impermeable; this ensures the safety of the San Mateo residents against secretions from the solid wastes that may endanger their health. The construction of such facility will not just reduce waste crisis in Metro Manila and San Mateo but will also bring about new jobs. It is estimated that about 2,000 of the town’s population will be given jobs as recyclers, who will earn at least P300 daily. The local government is affirmative of the facility because of the economic gains that it can bring to the town. (Standard Today February 3, 2009 San Mateo dump gets the green light)
This seemingly good news amidst the perennial garbage disposal problem of San Mateo and Metro Manila has been the subject of opposition of San Mateo residents and environmental advocates. The sanitary landfill, which started its construction in 2008 was met with resistance by several environmental groups. The proposed landfill was said to be constructed on ground area within a protected forest. As argued by opposition, Barangay Pintong Bukawe is an environmentally-critical area because it was declared part of the Marikina Watershed. This was in the light of Supreme Court decision on December 13, 2005 that ordered the closure of the first San Mateo sanitary landfill, which is also located in Brgy. Pintong Bukawe and was developed by Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) in 1985. The said decision nullified Proclamation 635 issued by former President Fidel Ramos, which allowed the use of a portion of the Marikina watershed reservation area as a sanitary landfill. The first San Mateo landfill is within the watershed area. The decision was congruous to the RA 9003 that ordered closure of sanitary landfills located within an aquifer or groundwater reservoir or watershed area; landfill must be located in an area where the landfills operation will not detrimentally affect environmentally such sensitive resources. Furthermore, the ruling of Supreme Court was backed by studies conducted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) that showed the first San Mateo landfill was an environmental and health hazard.
What is more striking was the report that the 19-hectares initial phase of the project was actually built on a private property in Brgy. Guinayang. This was confirmed by the advocacy group Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment (Kalikasan-PNE). They cited that the landfill is to be constructed not in the permitted site in Sitio Mabilog na Bato, Barangay Pintong Bukawe, but is actually planned to be expanded up to 200-hectares in Barangays Maly and Guinayang, which are actually protected forest area. Barangays Maly and Guinayang are two of five areas in San Mateo that were declared as watershed areas by virtue of Presidential Proclamation No. 1636, proclaiming 4.775 square kilometers of San Mateo Rizal as a Protected Forest Area under the National Integrated Protection Areas System (NIPAS) on April 1977.
As a response to the opposition to the sanitary landfill and accusation against SLMDC, environmental groups have launched statements of criticism and petition calling for immediate stop of sanitary landfill. Even the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has ordered an investigation on this landfill. While the Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) is issued by Environmental Management Bureau, which is under DENR, Secretary Jose Atienza noted that EMB has issued an ECC to the said project in another area different from the area of complaint. Hence the landfill construction in Brgy Maly and Guinayang prompted the agency to investigate because they granted permit in Brgy Pintong Bukawe. Furthermore, the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources has urged the Upper House to conduct an inquiry on the landfill amidst reports that is being constructed on protected forest watershed area. The investigations conducted by the executive and legislative arm of government were instigated by the seemingly anomalous and incongruous plan of the developer. In the event that there is really an irregularity between the approved site of development and actual site of construction, this may reflect how political and economic power can bypass environment standards that sets the technical suitability.
As long as we do not change our individual ways on how we dispose our wastes, demand for landfill will mount and mount. With engineered and technologically equipped landfill, the issue is not the environmental risk of the landfill per se but rather the land allocation and utilization. No one would want a landfill within their community. Even if this point was missed by the law, RA 9003 is good start to effectively manage waste crisis. It must be properly and strictly implemented to realize its goals. Recycling and composting is one of the means to divert our ways from waste disposal and these methods must be really institutionalized at barangay levels to increase awareness among individual household. This, even in small way, is a big aversion to the mounting waste crisis of Metro Manila. This can minimize demand for landfills and thence reduce conflicts over the location and operation of the landfills. But in the case of the new San Mateo landfill, the point of their opposition is the construction of the landfill in environmentally protected areas. National land use issues such as rapid urbanization and population growth must be taken into account. This is just one of the manifestations that the process of uncontrolled urbanization takes place at the expense of the natural environment. The increase in urbanization entails increase in urban land use and encroachment of unbuilt environment or green areas. In same way, increase in urbanization means increase in urban activity and increase of waste generation. The increase of urban activity and land area may imply search for new areas where the urban activity and its derivatives can take place. Since growth in waste generation accompanies growth in urban activity, disposal facility or sanitary landfill must be recognized as an acceptable urban land use. With that recognition, proper planning of site location and the operation as well (by way of proper engineering) must follow to avoid conflict between urban activity and unbuilt or protected environment. With political power and irregularities aside, I deem that public opposition (opposition emanating from NIMBY attitude) can be averted if the public and major stakeholders have participated in choosing the site search process for sanitary landfills. Public opposition could lead to wasted investment or investment not optimized partly because it can be closed immediately due to public pressure as what happened in the earlier San Mateo landfill or if it is not bound for closure, it can create costly delays in operations. However, in the case of present San Mateo landfill, the opposition does not simply come from NIMBY attitude but from their knowledge on the irregularity in the construction of sanitary landfill because it was allegedly constructed on environmentally critical areas.
References
Asian Development Bank. The Garbage Book. Metro Manila: Asian Development Bank, 2004.
Ballesteros, Marife. “Land Use Planning in Metro Manila and the Urban Fringe”.
Discussion Paper Series No. 2000-20 (2000)
Clark, Michael, Denis Smith. and Andrew Blowers. Waste Location: Spatial Aspects of Waste Management, Hazards and Disposal. New York: Routledge. 1992.
Desiderio, Louella. “Atienza orders probe on new San Mateo landfill”.
Business World. 22 January 2009.
National Framework for Physical Planning from NEDA website
Natividad, Beverly. “San Mateo residents protest new landfill”
Philippine Daily Inquirer. 17 January 2009.
Quina, Francis Paolo, “Wasting Away: The Challenges of Solid Waste Management in the Philippines.” University of the Philippines Forum. July 2008.
University of the Philippines. 22 December 2008
Severino, Howie. “Basura: Saw it Coming.” GMA. CD-ROM. 1999.
Villar, Manny. “P.S. Res. No. 884.” Senate of the Philippines.
No comments:
Post a Comment