Waste Management Alliance-Buidling Approach of Rural Municipalities of Southern Leyte, Philippines

Voltaire L. Acosta, V.A., Paul, J.G.; Honor-Do, M.J.; Loquinte, R.; Mortera, V.A. & Rentuza, R.C. (2009)

International Conference WasteSafe, Khulna, Bangladesh, November 10-12, 2009 1 | P a g e

WASTE MANAGEMENT ALLIANCE-BUILDING APPROACH OF RURAL MUNICIPALITIES OF SOUTHERN LEYTE, PHILIPPINES

Voltaire L. Acosta and Johannes G. Paul AHT Group AG, SWM4LGUs Project / GTZ-AHT, E-mail: [email protected]

Mary Jane C. Honor-Do Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) CENRO-San Juan

Roberto A. Loquinte, Virgilio A. Mortera and Rico C. Rentuza Municipalities of Anahawan, San Juan and St. Bernard, Province of Southern Leyte

ABSTRACT Like many municipalities in developing and decentralizing countries, local government units (LGUs) in the Philippines are striving to improve solid waste management (SWM) systems. In comparison to urbanized cities, many municipalities are too small to deliver basic services to the public. To enhance economies of scale and resource base, three adjacent rural towns formed the “Southern Leyte Pacific Municipal Environmental Alliance” (SoLePaMEA). The group adapted a broad clustering model that not only shares facilities but includes diffusion of experiences from agreed SWM pilot projects. With national-local knowledge transfer from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, SoLePaMEA underwent a consensus-building process to arrive at job- and resource-sharing agreements while taking into account internal and inter-LGU socio-political and technical issues. This paper puts particular emphasis on the simplified tools used in stakeholder consultation and summarizes approaches and experiences made during alliance-building and phased implementation of joint SWM programs.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Philippines is presently undergoing democratic governance and decentralization processes. Under recent national policies, local government units (LGUs) are endowed with local autonomy and powers in recognition that LGUs are at the forefront of the delivery of basic services to the people and communities, including the field of solid waste management (SWM). But like in many other municipalities in the developing world, these local authorities are coping up to meet their “relatively new” and broader service obligations, defined in concert with their communities, in consideration of their limited technical expertise and financial resources. For the 120 cities in the Philippines today, this may be less of a problem but it is a major challenge for the majority of the 1,511 municipalities whose total annual income is less

than PhP 100 Million (USD 2 Mio). The country’s national policy on SWM was passed in 2000. Republic Act (RA) 9003

otherwise known as Philippine Ecological Solid Waste Management Act assigned cities and municipalities with greater SWM roles such as mobilizing the SWM Board, preparing the 10-Year SWM Plan, collection of residual wastes, disposal facility management (e.g., dumpsite closure/rehabilitation and sanitary landfill establishment), crafting SWM ordinances and ensuring financial sustainability. In addition, cities and municipalities are expected to support its component barangays [the smallest political subdivision in the Philippines and itself considered as LGUs] in achieving the mandatory 25% waste diversion through segregation, composting and recycling. Such tasks require high degrees of technical expertise, administrative specialization and financial resources. Considering that most municipalities in the Philippines can only tap a fraction of their annual budgets and have a limited number of capacitated personnel for SWM, alternative ways need to be explored by the LGUs to implement the legal prescriptions while contributing to the filling in of national policy gaps.



Since 2005, AHT GROUP AG (AHT) has been implementing the Solid Waste Management for Local Government Units (SWM4LGUs) Project on behalf of the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) with funding support from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The overall goal of the GTZ-AHT SWM4LGUs Project is to build the capability of Philippine LGUs in establishing integrated solid waste management systems and operate them in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner. Together with its partners from the government of the Philippines’ Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), GTZ-AHT assists a dozen LGUs, primarily the cities, in complying with RA 9003 while bridging local lessons with national-level policy actions.

To come up with an SWM model for rural municipalities, the project has also been

supporting a number of towns in the province of Southern Leyte in building an alliance for municipal clustering on SWM projects. Unlike most cities, small municipalities have little choice but to pool resources and coordinate efforts to solve common SWM problems.

1.1 Local Situation The province of Southern Leyte is bounded by bodies of water in three directions with its

eastern part facing the Pacific Ocean, which is the one of the reasons for the area’s high amount of rainfall. Economic activities are highly dependent on agriculture and fishing and its families have poverty incidence more or less similar to national average (NCSB, 2006). In terms of local government resources, most municipalities in the province belong to the lower income brackets based on their internal revenue allotment (IRA). IRAs are the annual budget received by the LGUs from the national government as its share in government revenues.

Figure 1 Location of SoLePaMEA municipalities The delivery of municipal solid waste management services in Southern Leyte is relatively

limited with coverage areas usually just concentrated in poblacion [town proper] areas. A handful of LGUs have come up with SWM Plans, pilot-tested partial waste segregation systems, and established composting and material recovery facilities (MRFs) albeit with limited tonnage capacities. There is presently no sanitary landfill in the province and each municipality still operates at least one dumpsite. Notably, the presence of a dumpsite in a municipality is the most prominent reason for municipal mayors to face administrative sanctions and/or citizen’s suits as provided by RA 9003.

In recognition of the community’s demand for better services and the discharge of their

official duties, the LGUs of the towns Anahawan, Hinunangan, Liloan, San Juan and St. Bernard have embarked upon building an alliance in SWM municipal clustering. To avoid spreading themselves too thinly, the three (3) administratively adjacent municipalities of



Anahawan, San Juan and St. Bernard spearheaded the consensus-building efforts in establishing the “Southern Leyte Pacific Municipal Environmental Alliance (SoLePaMEA)”.

The concept of municipal clustering is not new to the Southern Leyte local authorities. In

fact, the Inter Local Health Zone initiative of these Pacific towns was given a national award for successfully pooling their resources in establishing a common district hospital and rural health services, which each could not afford individually. Nevertheless, the concept of clustering in other sectors, or by other LGUs for that matter, remains a challenge unique to the local situation and common needs of the municipalities.

1.2 Legal Framework There are national laws and policies in the Philippines that provide the legal basis to

encourage municipal clustering depending on local needs. Foremost is the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article X Section 13, which states that “Local government units [LGUs] may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them in accordance with law.”

In 1991, Republic Act [RA] No. 7160 otherwise known as The Local Government Code of

the Philippines was passed to confer upon LGUs, as the state’s territorial and political subdivisions, a meaningful local autonomy while institutionalizing more responsive and accountable local government structure. Specifically, Section 33 of RA 7160 provides for cooperative undertakings among LGUs and specifies that the “LGUs may, through appropriate ordinances, group themselves ... [and] in support of such undertakings, the LGUs involved may, upon approval by the Sanggunian [municipal council] concerned after a public hearing conducted for the purpose, contribute funds, real estate, equipment, and other kinds of property and appoint or assign personnel under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the participating local units through Memoranda of Agreement.”

Furthermore, when waste management was identified as one of the functions that could

be devolved chiefly to LGUs, RA 9003 otherwise known as Philippine Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 stipulated that cities and municipalities were mainly responsible for SWM planning, public information and residual waste collection and disposal while assisting their barangays in recyclables and biodegradable waste management. Acknowledging the resource constraints of most municipalities, Section 44 of RA 9003 mandates LGUs “to [cluster] ... for purposes of jointly addressing common solid waste management problems and/or establishing common waste disposal facilities”.

1.3 Clustering Models In general, clustering refers to the pooling of efforts and/or resources of neighboring cities

and municipalities to address common local challenges. Among its inherent advantages are enhanced economies of scale, higher financial base and more flexibility, which all contribute to the overall improvement of locality’s environmental situation.

Various strategic clustering models have been studied for possible benchmarking. A

sourcebook published by the World Bank looks at ‘regionalization’ as a logical option for small municipalities in India wherein the operation and management of a common sanitary landfill is lead by a professional agency while the cost-sharing scheme is based on tipping fees proportional to the waste tonnage delivered (World Bank, 2008). Similar initiatives are also present in the Philippines. The Metro Manila Development Authority serves as the regional council legally mandated specifically to manage or contract out disposal facilities for the national capital region. There are also the proposed clustering projects of Metro Bohol, Northern Metro Cebu, South Cotabato, Tacurong-Isulan, Malay-Buruanga, Albay District III, and Misamis Oriental clusters (Jardin, 2007), which explore the scheme of managing a common landfill with support from the national government, the province and/or the private sector.



It remains to be a challenge to develop a cluster involving rural municipalities with very

small capital base to venture into inter-municipal cooperation or non-profit public corporation, which could be attractive enough for private sector participation later on. Based on the experiences of many developed countries, waste management started out as purely a local government undertaking but increasing demand for better service delivery attracted private agencies to take over with a more competitive asset management.

While many of the proposed clusters in the Philippines are primarily concentrated on the

establishment of common waste disposal facilities, the municipalities of Southern Leyte also intend to define other sharing arrangements for other components of SWM. From the point of view of the LGUs involved, clustering does not exclusively mean sharing of physical infrastructure but can also take shape in the form of technical knowledge sharing through pilot projects. And more importantly, the cluster model to be developed should be demand-driven and based on local needs.

2. ALLIANCE BUILDING STRATEGIES The full implementation of RA 9003 has been a continuous challenge to cities, specifically

in putting up resource recovery programs and sanitary landfills (SLF). Lower-income municipalities are confronted with an even greater feat – implementing RA 9003 utilizing any available albeit limited resources that they have.

Despite the logical advantages of clustering, many LGUs had to hurdle traditional

constraints in inter-municipal cooperation, which include unclear roles of institutions, strong local politics and bureaucracy, and limitations in resources. Through a series of consensus-building strategies, the Southern Leyte LGUs have planned, held dialogues, compromised and agreed on a clustering model where workload and resources will be equitably shared by all LGUs right from the start (Honor-Do, 2008).

2.1 Leveling-off Common SWM Concerns

The three municipalities commenced with an inventory of its available financial resources and evaluating each town’s level of compliance with the mandates of RA 9003. As shown in Table 1, the municipalities have comparable demographics, area and budgets. St. Bernard has the relatively highest income but it also has the highest population. Anahawan has a larger administrative area than San Juan but the latter has relatively more economic activity.



Table 1 Municipal profile and status of RA 9003 implementation

Anahawan San Juan St. Bernard

Municipal Profile

Population, 2008 8,359 13,304 26,297

Area (hectares) 5,809 4,956 10,020

Income Class, 2008 5th Class 5th Class 4th Class

Annual Budget for SWM, 2008 PhP 300,000

(USD 6,000)

PhP 500,000

(USD 10,000)

PhP 287,000

(USD 5,740)

Waste Characteristics

Waste generation rate 0.32 kg/capita/day 0.40 kg/capita/day 0.22 kg/capita/day

Waste composition: Food waste Yard waste Recyclables Residuals Special waste

WACS, 10/2007

21.08% 48.08% 27.91% 2.12% 0.79%

WACS, 04/2006

6.03% 49.54% 43.61% 0.82% 0.00%

WACS, N/A

- - - - -

Status of Municipal Compliance to RA 9003

Resolution adopting RA 9003 Adopted Adopted Adopted

Municipal SWM Board Created, Functional Created, Functional Created, Functional

Municipal ENR / SWM Office(r) Designated an SWM focal person

Officially created an MENR office

Designated an SWM focal person

Municipal 10-Year SWM Plan None Prepared, Adopted Drafted

Information, Education (IEC) Campaigns

Yes, RA 9003 orientation

Yes, Barangay assemblies

Yes, Incorporated in all BDPs

Enforcement Not yet undertaken Not yet undertaken Not yet undertaken

Waste Segregation at Source Not yet practiced Yes, in pilot areas Not yet practiced

Segregated Waste Collection Not yet practiced Yes, in pilot areas Not yet practiced

Materials Recovery Facility Constructed MRF Constructed MRF None

Closure of Existing Dumpsite Not yet Not yet Not yet

Sanitary Landfill (SLF) Site None, available site is quarry-type

None, soil type is not clayey

Yes, one site is suitable

The municipalities also share similar status as regards RA 9003 implementation. All LGUs

have functional municipal SWM boards and local statutes but all the three still illegally operate dumpsites. Although the municipality of San Juan is ahead in terms of piloting its waste segregation and recovery system, it has limitations in putting up a landfill because the type of soil in the area does not pass the national SLF site identification guidelines. Only St. Bernard has potential site approved by the authorities but like Anahawan, its service area is primarily rural and agricultural.

2.2 SWOT Analysis

In an orientation workshop conducted by the GTZ-AHT SWM4LGUs Project and

facilitated by DENR-CENRO’s SWM coordinator, each municipality analyzed its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats or SWOT (GTZ, 2007) in the context of RA 9003. Table 2 synthesizes the gaps and possible options for improvement proposed by the LGUs.



Table 2 SWM gaps and potential solutions proposed by the municipalities

Gaps Options for Improvement

Policy-making, Planning and Financing Systems

Outdated and unimplemented policies; Absence of municipal ordinance adopting RA 9003

Review existing ordinances on SWM and localize RA 9003 into an omnibus comprehensive statute. Integrate provisions for stronger IEC and enforcement office/system

Absence of 10-Year SWM Plan; Some SWM plans have unrealistic targets.

Formulate 10-Year SWM Plan in a participatory manner with a more dynamic and responsive design to address current/future needs.

Policies have no budget allotment, or have funds that are difficult to tap by implementers.

Integrate SWM budget into annual funds. Create a separate SWM accounts within the municipality/barangay’s general funds dedicated for SWM collection of fees, etc.

Limited SWM budget; Unsustainable setup; Lack of policies in charging reasonable SWM fees; Low collection rates of SWM fees (usually only from business but not households.

Various LGU levels to find alternative fund sources.

Prepare FS for loan applications if budget is insufficient.

To enhance cost-recovery conduct: (a) SWM full-cost accounting, (b) willingness-to-pay studies, (c) local policies, (d) auditing system in collecting/tapping funds for SWM and (e) higher fee schedules for un-segregated waste.

Political, Administrative, Organizational and Institutional Dynamics

Inactive municipal SWM Board; Members unfamiliar with exact roles or have limited knowledge.

Re-activate local SWMBs especially during political transitions. Assign coordinator/secretariat to facilitate policy making and monitoring of activities. Capacitate members.

Inactive barangay SWM Committees (BSWMC).

Municipalities to assist component barangays in planning and capacity development, especially for focal persons.

Absence of TWG to implement Board policies; Members often tasked with multiple functions.

Local chief executives should issue a Special Order creating the SWM TWG responsible for implementing and enforcing the policies and plans crafted by the SWMB.

Absence of dedicated Municipal ENRO or SWM focal person.

Designate MENROs or SWM focal persons while paving the way for the creation of a dedicated/regular office.

Political affiliations are major constraints in clustering.

Pilot and establish institutional, operational and financial model, through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).

Limited or unstructured external support assistance for LGUs

DENR-EMB and the Regional Ecology Center to provide support and technical assistance to LGUs.

Waste Segregation, Segregated Collection, Recycling/Recovery, & Public/Private Participation

Limited awareness/participation of communities on segregation

Conduct IEC and social marketing. Infuse values formation. Encompass all target groups. Work with various sectors.

Lack or inconsistent public policies on segregation; Mixed collection of pre- segregated waste.

Put up practical, sustainable and consistent segregation system. Empower and involve barangay officials and stakeholders. Establish incentive and penalty systems. Prohibit mixing of already segregated wastes.

Lack or unconsolidated data on markets for recyclable materials

Link up with buyers, junkshops and consolidators. Create markets for recyclables and compost products, if possible.

Limited equipment and infrastructure for segregation

Install segregated waste bins. Put up accessible MRFs preferably in each barangay. Select suitable technologies.

Waste collection coverage is only limited to town centers.

Leverage efforts with barangays and communities. Encourage composting in households and farmlands.

Disposal Facilities: Closure and Rehabilitation of Dumpsites & Establishment of Sanitary Landfills

Absence of dumpsite closure plan; Low priority vis-à-vis SLFs.

Provide technical assistance to LGUs. Appropriate funds for closure of dumpsites.

Proposed SLF sites are either geo-technically or socially un-acceptable

Conduct proper SLF site identification. Cluster with other LGUs with available sites. LGUs to undertake social acceptability programs even if not mandatory.

Initial investment for SLF is high; Operating expenses will be a regular burden to LGUs.

Identify best financing schemes. Municipal council should source out funds for SLF operations. Design cost-recovery systems. Enter into SWM/SLF clustering if applicable.



2.3 Individual Municipal SWM Planning

In support of each municipality’s relatively long-term 10-year SWM plan and with a fresh assessment of its level of compliance with RA 9003, the LGUs have undergone parallel workshops to craft its individual SWM plans. Prior to actual planning, the LGU representatives had been capacitated on the regulatory, technical, financial and other cross-cutting concerns in implementing waste management programs.

The planning exercise was focused on identifying realistic targets and activities, which are

doable within the next three years. These medium-term plans were later presented to, and adopted by, their respective municipal councils.

2.4 Joint Municipal SWM Planning

A succeeding participatory workshop was conducted for the municipalities to identify those activities in their work plans, which they were willing to implement independently or share with the others. Independent activities were only what each LGU can do based on local situation while shared activities were those that need more expertise and resources to implement. Shared activities were consolidated and formed the group’s joint SWM work plan.

The joint work plan was not immediately passed by the respective municipal councils as a

number of issues needed to be resolved. The facilitators recognized right from the start that this scheme of alliance-building has high sustainability potential in the long run but the process itself is more prone to intra- and inter-LGU dynamics. Whether administratively valid or politically driven, the need to respond to these concerns was fully acknowledged and addressed through a series of consensus-building sessions.

2.5 Joint Council Sessions

Under the Philippines’ Local Government Code, no project can be implemented by any LGU without the due approval of its respective Sangguniang Pambayan (SB) [municipal council]. The council has the power to appropriate budgets and approve activities for funding. Upon the request of all municipalities, a special joint SB session was held to give opportunity to all SB members to clarify issues and understand the proposed clustering scheme. Concurrently, the local legislators were informed on the responsibilities of LGUs under RA 9003 and the technical, administrative and financial aspects of waste management.

Various clustering options were also presented to the LGUs for benchmarking. After being

updated on the progress of alliance-building, a participatory workshop was held with the SB members along with the LGUs’ technical working group representatives. Table 3 summarizes the main issues that the municipalities perceive as challenges in SWM clustering.



Table 3 Main issues and challenges in SWM clustering

Issues Challenges

Community involvement and social acceptance

Public acceptance (in all municipalities) re: concept of SWM clustering

Potential lack of cooperation from the general public

Negative impression from the community, especially for host LGU(s)

Technical and operational framework

Sharing scheme on landfill maintenance (landfill cells and access road)

Sufficiency of shared disposal area (no. of years)

Exclusion of hospital and clinic waste

Organizational and employees’ strength

Lack of technical capability to establish and sustain the program

No specific employees to handle SWM / Lack of work force

Fear of overloads in office responsibilities among technical staff

Political dynamics (internal and external politics)

Internal LGU politics (dynamics within a municipality)

Inter-LGU political dynamics (mistrust between municipalities)

Apprehensions of other LGUs violating policies laid down in the MOA

Financial resource availability

Financial incentive or budget for the ESWM office / personnel not specified

Budgetary constraints (LGU’s share in initial capital costs)

Sustainable source of annual operating budget for SWM facilities

Joint agreements and enforcement

Strict implementation of household segregation in all municipalities

Ningas cogon (bush-fire type) implementation

Commitments of the clustered municipalities

Sustainability of the program amidst political transition

As a response to the recognized potential constraints in clustering, the LGUs agreed

upon the creation of decision-making and technical bodies to oversee the shared SWM activities in all municipalities. Although RA 9003 has suggestions on the functions of a possible “local SWM cluster board”, it does not define its membership. Furthermore, a “joint technical working group (TWG)” is not also mandatory under the law. Still, the participating LGUs found it essential that such bodies be created hence its composition and functions should then be defined and officially agreed upon.

2.6 Alliance SWM Board and Joint TWG

The functions of the Alliance SWM Board were deliberated. In the legal context, RA 9003 only stipulates that, “In the case of clustered LGUs, a governing memorandum of agreement of the cluster may be created in addition to ordinances, stipulating that the local SWM cluster board shall administer the fund.” The said cluster board shall also be responsible to “develop schemes to sustain the fund”, approve SWM fund requests, “establish appropriate [SWM] special accounts” and facilitate knowledge and skills exchange.

Based on this, a corresponding set of LGU representatives was suggested. The parties

concerned emphasized the need for objectively nominating board delegates based on held positions and not based on personalities to minimize political interventions even in the future. In addition, another set of representatives for the joint TWG was also identified. The joint TWG was envisioned for each LGU’s technical staff to coordinate with each other and collaborate on implementing the policies set forth by the Alliance Board. Table 4 shows the composition of each LGU’s representatives to the municipal partnership.



Table 4 Composition of the SoLePaMEA SWM Board and Joint TWG

Members of the Alliance SWM Board Members of the Joint SWM TWG

1. Mayor with Vice-Mayor as his/her alternate 1. Focal person for SWM or MENRO

2. Councilor, Environment Committee 2. Municipal Engineer or General Services Unit

3. Councilor, Finance Committee 3. Municipal Planning and Development Officer

4. Municipal Budget Officer 4. Municipal Agriculturist or Technician

5. Focal person for SWM or MENRO 5. Draftsman

As shown in the above table, the LGUs found it necessary for the SWM focal persons to

sit in both bodies. It was rationalized that this organizational structure facilitates both the implementation of board policies and the bridging of technical matters that require decision-making actions. Furthermore, the SWM partnership was officially called the “Southern Leyte Pacific Municipal Environmental Alliance (SoLePaMEA)”.

With the identification of the composition and functions of the governing bodies, a

participatory administrative setup was defined. However, the gap between the newly formed organizational structure and the draft joint work plan needed to be linked together.

2.7 Job- and Resource-Sharing Arrangements

The preceding meetings and workshops revealed that in the Philippine context, or in other “family-oriented” cultures as well, the issue of trust and how to resolve equitable sharing of resources are crucial in democratic governance and in proper management of conflicts or potential conflicts. During group meetings, each LGU has an official stance on critical matters but may not necessarily reflect the opinion of each representative from that LGU. Therefore, inter-LGU decisions should ideally match those that are compromised within each LGU.

GTZ-AHT and DENR-EMB/CENRO successfully pilot-tested a simple yet customized

participatory workshop tool, which aims to identify job-sharing and resource-sharing arrangements for SoLePaMEA. The workshop design first encouraged each individual municipality to arrive at a consensus on a number of issues. The results from each LGU were then analyzed through a reflection workshop for the representatives to understand how similar or different each municipality perceives the proposed clustering arrangement. This exercise was undertaken for the whole SWM program and for the common SLF.

As shown in Table 5, the results of the workshop revealed how each municipality shared

many similar views as regards the sharing of finances and workload. Pilot areas for each LGU were likewise uniquely identified. San Juan wanted to focus on establishing a model materials recovery facility (MRF); Anahawan would pilot recycling and composting; while St. Bernard hoped to specialize on segregation and social marketing for public participation. The distribution of pilots areas was conceptualized such that SoLePaMEA would not merely focus on sharing of facilities but also in the form of knowledge or skills transfer. The lessons from pilot components would be later shared as a model for other LGUs to replicate (GTZ, 2007).



Table 5 Job- and resource-sharing arrangements for overall SWM program


General

Clustering of SWM programs is beneficial to all LGUs Yes Yes Yes

Clustering all SWM components is better than alone No No No

Clustering certain SWM components is better than alone Yes Yes Yes

Assessment of SWM Components

SWM component that the municipality of piloting as its area of specialization

Composting & Recycling

MRF establishment

IEC, Waste segregation

Responsibilities and Arrangements

Responsible to establish pilot selected by the LGU Solely the LGU Depends on pilot Solely the LGU

Responsible to operate and sustain pilot selected Solely the LGU Depends on pilot Solely the LGU

SWM program clustering should be bound by MOA Yes Yes Yes

As for SLF establishment, it was unanimously decided that efforts and resources would

be equitably shared by the LGUs (Table 6). This collective understanding of managing joint SWM facilities already set it apart from the previous clustering models in the Philippines where one LGU, with the support of the province or the state, establishes its own sanitary landfill and will later be joined by other LGUs within the cluster once it becomes operational.

Table 6 Job- and resource-sharing arrangements for shared SWM facility (sanitary landfill)


General

Clustering of SLF is beneficial to all LGUs concerned Yes Yes Yes

Landfill Planning, Establishment and Construction

Responsible (technically) to establish the SLF Shared equitably Shared equitably Shared equitably

Responsible (financially) to establish the SLF Shared equitably Shared equitably Shared equitably

Landfill Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring

Responsible (technically) to operate and monitor SLF Shared equitably Shared equitably Shared equitably

Responsible (financially) to operate and monitor SLF Shared equitably Shared equitably Shared equitably

Responsibilities and Arrangements

LGU assures that only residual wastes will be delivered to the common landfill facility

100% assurance

> 80% assurance

100% assurance

SLF clustering should be bound by MOA Yes Yes Yes

From the presented results it appears that the envisioned shared responsibility to

establish and operate a joint landfill may be the most prominent challenge for the municipal cluster and its involved LGUs specifically in defining “equitable” indicators (GTZ, 2006).

2.8 Regular SoLePaMEA Board Meetings

The SoLePaMEA board has been the first official local SWM cluster board formed in the Eastern Visayas region. Initially working on the memorandum of agreement, the SoLePaMEA board has already held a number of joint board meetings to resolve new SWM challenges arising from the partnership.

2.9 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

The outputs of all the workshops to build the alliance were utilized in crafting the memorandum of agreement (MOA) for SoLePaMEA. The MOA contains general provisions, the passage of individual and joint local ordinances, LGU work- and resource-sharing commitments on pilot areas and jointly-operated facilities, the composition and functions of the alliance board and joint TWG, as well as the conditionalities for MOA termination.



It was learned in the previous case studies that the single most important factor affecting the decision of the LGUs to enter into a MOA is the over-itemization of certain provisions such that a minor clause not acceptable to one party could cause them not to join. This restraining factor was minimized when it was agreed that for special projects or for those entailing major decisions, the SoLePaMEA board could issue official resolutions supplementary to the MOA.

2.10 Pilot Activities on Areas of SWM Specialization

As previously agreed, each municipality would specialize in a selected area of SWM. Through this scheme, each pilot-test serves as an information or technology incubator for the group. Having one pilot does not necessarily preclude an LGU to undertake other programs mandated by RA 9003. This arrangement only fosters research and application of different SWM systems to save the other partners from undergoing the learning curves because the techniques learned will be shared to others. The GTZ-AHT SWM4LGUs Project has been supporting this unique initiative by providing technical assistance to the specializing LGU, often together with some TWG members from other municipalities.

A train-the-trainers training on recycling-for-livelihood program was undertaken in St.

Bernard. This hands-on program taught potential replicators on how to transform recyclable materials into sellable bags, decors and accessories. More than 50 people were capacitated, around 80% of which were women, and have since then trained others on recycling skills.

Figure 2 Train-the-trainers’ training on recycling for livelihood programs in St. Bernard Since LGU-Anahawan was the one who identified composting as pilot area, a series of

training programs on vermicomposting and organic farming were held for its community leaders and farmers. In return, the municipality establishes a demo-composting center and training pavilion to provide a knowledge transfer center for other SoLePaMEA partners.

Figure 3 Illustration of vermicomposting demonstration facility in Anahawan



Meanwhile, San Juan has already constructed its own MRF to serve its poblacion barangays [town proper]. During this time, the LGU was able to successfully generate income from the sale of recyclables to partially finance the salaries of personnel involved in segregated waste collection and MRF operations. At a certain period, improvements to the structure and equipment have been undertaken so the segregated collection system has been temporarily stopped. Nevertheless, this ‘downtime’ has lead to refuting the common LGU notion that engaging the public to segregate their wastes is politically unpopular. In fact, one household remarked to CENRO-San Juan’s SWM coordinator, “What happened to our segregated collection system? We were quite resistant to it at first but we found it quite practical in our household. It’s a normal practice for us already.”

3. CONCLUSIONS Local lessons and experiences are critical to the learning processes of each municipality

and the SoLePaMEA as a whole. Although the clustering framework involved in working with SoLePaMEA had been lengthy and tedious, many benefits such as building networking, awareness raising and knowledge transfer capacitated involved local leaders during the planning process. But what sets this alliance-building model apart from other initiatives is that all LGUs agreed to share resources equitably even at the start of the planning process. This is deemed as the high road since most clustering activities so far commence with a host LGU investing on a joint facility while others join later on.

Inter-municipal cooperation seems an easy task but the experiences in Southern Leyte

prove that alliance-building not only involves the technicalities of SWM implementation but also needs resolving intra- and inter-governmental issues at the local level. Defining the sharing schemes include compromises, political will and support of stakeholders in the region. In the longer run however, such efforts may be a worthwhile endeavor as clustering is the only viable option that low-income municipalities have. In addition, certain risks from this model are outweighed by the fact that many and especially smaller municipalities in the country might not have access to other sources of initial capital but its own pooled resources.

Through the MOA, agreements and commitments were officially defined. These include GTZ-espoused policy instruments such as standards, user fee systems, monitoring procedures and success factors. In this regard, SWM knowledge can be more efficiently transferred to the community if norms are set and the cluster approach is standardized.

It is also worthy to note that sustaining the pace for building an inter-municipal

cooperation can be more effective with the presence of a facilitator or mediator. In many instances, DENR-CENRO San Juan’s SWM coordinator, Ms. Mary Jane Honor, has been asked to facilitate or mediate in conflicting issues. The facilitator is a field officer of the national government and the LGUs acknowledge her as non-partisan. The technical knowledge on devolved environmental functions is also within the DENR so the process itself leads to knowledge transfer from the national to the local authorities. Hence this clustering model is considered as a best practice and showcase not only nationwide but could be adopted in other developing and decentralizing countries as well.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The project partners are grateful for the technical support provided by the Philippines’

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) through its Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) and Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) in San Juan, Southern Leyte, in partnership with AHT Group AG who implements the SWM4LGUs Project on behalf of the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) with funding support from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The partnership’s success is attributed to the cooperation and goodwill of the local authorities, legislators, various sectors and the people of the municipalities of SoLePaMEA.



REFERENCES GTZ (2006). Policy Instruments for Resource Efficiency, GTZ, Eschborn, Germany. GTZ (2007). Knowledge Management for Project Managers and Other Decision-Makers:

Learning from Experience, GTZ, Eschborn, Germany. Honor-Do, Mary Jane C. (2008). SoLePaMEA experiences in alliance building for waste

management, LMP Mayor’s Development Center, October 2008, Laguna, Philippines. Jardin, Raul T. (2007). Proposed clustering projects, Proceedings of the 'Revisiting Payatas

and Moving Forward’ Seminar, Quezon City, Philippines, September 2007. NSCB (2006). Official Poverty Statistics of the Philippines 2006, NSCB, www.nscb.gov.ph. Philippine Congress. (2000). Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (RA 9003). Urmeneta, Reggie A. (2007). Waste analysis and characterization studies (WACS) reports,

SWM Technical Files of Environmental Management Bureau Region 8, Tacloban City. World Bank (2008). Improving Municipal SWM in India: A Sourcebook for Policy Makers and

Practitioners, WBI, ISBN 978-0-8213-7361-3, Washington D.C., USA.

Documents

Waste Management Alliance-Buidling Approach of Rural Municipalities of Southern Leyte, Philippines