project brief for the swm best practises forumfaspselib.denr.gov.ph/sites/default/files//publication...

06.02.2017 Seite 1 Seite 1 06.02.2017

GTZ - AHT - Support Project

Solid Waste Management for Local Government Units

(SWM4LGUs)

- Project brief for the SWM Best Practises Forum -

Cebu City, September 14, 2009

Compiled by:

Johannes Paul, PhD

06.02.2017 Seite 2 Seite 2

SWM for Local Government Units (SWM4LGUs) .

1. Key facts and project data

2. Regional coverage and participating partners

3. Methods and approach

4. Status of implementation

5. Impacts and problems/issues encountered

6. Lessons learned .

06.02.2017 Seite 3 Seite 3

GTZ – Technical Support Project

Solid Waste Management for Local

Government Units in the Philippines

(SWM4LGUs) .

Key-Facts:

Duration: Phase 1: January 1, 2005 – December 31, 2007

Phase 2: January 1, 2008 – December 31, 2010

Project Partner: Department of Environment and Natural Resources Project Inputs: Phase 1/2: 72 Month TL, 200 Month national Longterm

Experts, 58 Month Shortterm Experts (Int. 20 / Nat. 38)

Responsible for

GTZ Contract: Dr. Uwe Scholz

Team Leader: Dr. Johannes Paul Backstopper: Udo Lange, AHT, Essen

Conducted by: AHT GROUP AG, Essen, Germany .

06.02.2017 Seite 4 Seite 4



2. Regional coverage and participating partners .

06.02.2017 Seite 5 Seite 5

SWM for Local Government Units (SWM4LGUs) . Involved partners:

.

NSWMC, FASPO and EMB national office

EMB 6 regional office Iloilo City and REC-6

EMB 7 regional office Mandaue City and REC-7

EMB 8 regional office Tacloban City and REC 8

EMB 13 regional office Butuan City and REC 13

Selected Local Government Units:

• Region 6: Iloilo City, San Carlos City and Buenavista

• Municipality,

• Region 7: Dumaguete City and Bayawan City ,

• Region 8: Ormoc City, Maasin City, Baybay City,

Municipalities of Palompon, Isabel, St. Bernhard,

San Juan, Anahawan, Li-loan and Hinunangan

06.02.2017 Seite 6 Seite 6 06.02.2017

Province covered

by the project

GTZ – AHT support project

Solid Waste Management for Local Government Units

in the Philippines

06.02.2017 Seite 7

Maasin

Dumaguete Siquijor

Bacolod

Iloilo City

Cebu

Tagbilaran

Bantayan

Cadiz City

Masbate

Tacloban

Borongan

Province of Region 5



Province of Region 8 km

150 100 50 0

Region VII

Region VI

Region V

Region VIII

Status: Feb 2008

Baybay

Kalibo

SWM4LGUs: Partner LGUs for the 2nd project phase 2008-2010

SWM4LGUs Project office 1 GTZ-AHT / 1 Nat. LTE

Bais

St. Carlos

Solid Waste

1 DED

Solid Waste

:1 DED

Bayawan City

Mandaue

Solid Waste

1 DED

Partner in Phase 1

Partner starting Phase 2

City > 70,000 pop)

SWM4LGUs 1 Nat. LTE with EMB 7

City > 70,000 population

Municipality < 70,0000

population

Municipality from UDEM

SWM4LGUs 1 Nat. LTE with EMB 8 PassiCity

Roxas City

Dalaguyete

Talisay

Isabel

Ormoc

l

SWM4LGUs participation EMB 13

06.02.2017 Seite 8 Seite 8 06.02.2017

Partner LGUs 2nd Project Phase SWMLGUs

Region 6

1. Iloilo City, Panay

2. San Carlos City, Negros

3. Roxas City, Panay

4. Buenavista, Guimaras

Region 7

5. Dumaguete City,

(Dauin Mun.)

Negros

6. Bayawan City, Negros

Region 8

7. Maasin City, Leyte

8. Ormoc City, Leyte

9. Baybay City, Leyte

10. Palompon Mun., Leyte Isabel Mun., Leyte

11. San Juan Mun., Leyte

Hinunangan, Leyte

St. Bernard, Leyte

12. Liloan, Leyte

1 and 4-8 – partner LGU 1st Phase

11 and 12 – partner LGU of UDEM

06.02.2017 Seite 9 Seite 9




3. Methods and approach .

06.02.2017 Seite 10 Seite 10

GTZ Water Program

GTZ Program component:

Solid Waste

Management for Local

Government Units

Capacity building

for

DENR-EMB

Regions

6,7,8 & 13

Capacity building

and establishing of

Model SWM practices

for selected

LGUs

Know how transfer

SWM-Training

Expert development

Organizational strengthening

Enhanced consultancy for

LGU’s and private sector

Net working

Environmental monitoring

Knowledge management

Project inputs and

joint activities for:

Know how transfer

SWM-Training

Expert development

Establishment of sustainable

SWM practices

Integration of private sector

in SWM

Environmental monitoring

public information and

community marketing

PPP

NGOs,

Academe,

professional

associations

NSWMC / EMB national level

REC

PRBM

SWM4LGUs - Overall objective: Selected LGUs implement integrated

Solid Waste Management systems proficiently and economically.

06.02.2017 Seite 11 Seite 11 06.02.2017

Overall duration 2005-2012 (second phase 01/2008 – 12/2010)

Multi-level approach

National level: policy advise to NSWMC and DENR-EMB

Regional level: capacity development of regional EMBs, Establishment

and Support of Regional Ecology Centers

Local level: capacity development of LGUs; enabling informal sector

Technical focus

Waste management planning

Waste management policies and (regulatory) instruments

Enabling informal sector: collection & segregation, composting, recycling

Landfill siting, planning, construction and operation/management

Monitoring of waste management facilities

SWM4LGUs – overall objective (2005-2012):

Overall objective: Selected local governments implement integrated

waste management systems proficiently and economically

Project concept:

06.02.2017 Seite 12 Seite 12 06.02.2017

Overall Objective (2005-2012):

Selected local governments implement integrated waste management systems proficiently and economically.

Indicators:

1. At least 5 cities each with a population of over 70,000 operate regulated landfill sites

according to the standards set by legislation.

2. The 5 regulated landfill sites operate a monitoring system giving early warning of

environmental dangers according to recognised standards.

3. In at least 5 cities the operation costs for waste management are financed by a system

of waste taxes/fees which covers at least 30% of the local budget for waste

management (currently less than 5%)

4. In at least 5 cities recycling processes are applied using the informal sector by which

an increase of 25% in resource recovery is attained.

5. Relevant actors from policy making, civil society and the private sector agree on key

criteria (definition of objectives, content, competences, regulation) for a national solid

waste management strategy (documentation of the agreement procedure). The

implementation of at least three concrete derivative measures was initiated.

Objective and indicators – national, regional and local level

06.02.2017 Seite 13





4. Status of implementation .

06.02.2017 Seite 14 06.02.2017

Objectives and Indicators of Phase 2 (2008-2010):

Select local government units gradually implement the waste legislation in cooperation

with the regional environmental authorities as well as the national commission for solid

waste management.

Indicators

1. The measures carried out to improve the waste management in at least 3 cities

each with a population of over 70,000 inhabitants (regulated landfill, composting,

material recovery) correspond to the standards defined in the waste legislation.

(evaluation by auditors).

2. Relevant actors in at least 5 LGUs agree on local waste ordinances, which enable a

gradual covering of the operation costs of at least 20% of the municipal waste

management budget via a system of waste taxes/fees (evaluation by auditors).

3. The organisational structure for solid waste management in environment

authorities put into place in at least one province fulfils the criteria (set up,

competences, personnel, inventory and working capital) agreed with the relevant

actors (DENR, EMB, NSWMC, PENRO, CENRO).

4. With the help of standardised methods (training modules, tool box for the planning

and implementation of waste managementsystems etc.) at least 10 of the 33

municipal LGUs are better qualified to apprehend their tasks (evaluation by

participants at qualifying measures).

06.02.2017 Seite 15 06.02.2017

Indicator 1, Phase 2 (2008-2010):

1. The measures carried out to improve the waste management in at least 3 cities each with a population of over 70,000 inhabitants (regulated landfill, composting, material recovery) correspond to the standards defined in the waste legislation.

Status: proper management on composting and material recovery is progressing, implementation of landfills is delayed.

Landfilling: 5 LGUs are either in the process to finalize their landfill planning and licensing process (Ormoc and Maasin), started a Feasibility Study for a landfill (Iloilo), are constructing a landfill (Bayawan) or operate a SLF (San Carlos1).

Composting: Composting projects were established and are operated by the following partner LGUs: Roxas, Buenavista, San Carlos, Bayawan, Dumaguete and Ormoc. However, the established treatment capacity remains < 10 % of the annual collected organic waste except for San Carlos City.

Material Recovery: Projects to enhance resource recovery are part of all work plans of partner LGUs for Phase 2. So far Dumaguete, San Carlos and Iloilo established various projects for material recovery which have realistic chances to lead to the legally defined waste diversion rate of >25% until end of Phase 2.

SWM4LGus: Status of project implementation, SLF component

06.02.2017 Seite 16 06.02.2017


1. The measures carried out to improve the waste management in at least 3 cities each with a

population of over 70,000 inhabitants (regulated landfill, composting, material recovery) correspond to the standards defined in the waste legislation. (evaluation by auditors).

Status: proper management on composting and material recovery is progressing,

implementation of landfills is delayed.

Landfilling: 5 LGUs are either in the

process to finalize their SLF planning

and licensing process (Ormoc and

Maasin), started a Feasibility Study

for a landfill (Iloilo), are constructing

a landfill (Bayawan) or operate a SLF

(San Carlos).


06.02.2017 Seite 17

BAYAWAN WASTE

MANAGEMENT AND

ECOLOGY CENTER

SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

BUFFER

ZONE

WEIGH BRIDGE AND

GUARD HOUSE

OFFICE AND

STORAGE BUILDING

MATERIALS

RECOVERY FACILITIES

COMPOSTING

FACILITIES

DIGESTERS

AND SLUDGE

DRYING BEDS

WASTEWATER

TREATMENT

FACILITY

CELL 1

CELL 2

CELL 3

CELL 4

CELL 5

CELL 6

MONITORING

WELLS

LEACHATE PIPE

SYSTEM

SPECIAL

WASTE

VAULT

BUFFER

LAGOON

06.02.2017 Seite 18 06.02.2017

Indicator 2, overall objective (2005-2012):

2. The 5 regulated landfill sites operate a monitoring system giving early

warning of environmental dangers according to recognised standards.

Status: draft technical monitoring standard submitted, pending legal

instrument

The project proposed a technical guideline for dumpsite and landfill

monitoring to the NSWMC in August 2008. In order to enforce the

proposed monitoring standard the NSWMC needs to verify this guideline

as Department Administrative Order (DAO).

A further guideline to enhance the SLF site selection process was

submitted by SWM4LGUs in November 2007 to the NSWMC. This

guidelines needs to be released as DAO to enhance the delayed SLF site

selection process.


06.02.2017 Seite 19 06.02.2017


1. The measures carried out to improve the waste management in at least 3 cities each with a population of over 70,000 inhabitants (regulated landfill, composting, material recovery) correspond to the standards defined in the waste legislation. (evaluation by auditors).

Status: proper management on composting and material recovery is progressing, implementation of landfills is delayed.

Landfilling: 5 LGUs are either in the process to finalize their landfill planning and licensing process (Ormoc and Maasin), started a Feasibility Study for a landfill (Iloilo), are constructing a landfill (Bayawan) or operate a SLF (San Carlos1)).

COMPOSTING: Composting projects were established and are operated by the following partner LGUs: Roxas, Buenavista, San Carlos, Bayawan, Dumaguete and Ormoc. However, the established treatment capacity remains < 10 % of the annual collected organic waste except for

San Carlos City. Material Recovery: Projects to enhance resource recovery are part of all work plans of

partner LGUs for Phase 2. So far Dumaguete, San Carlos and Iloilo established various projects for material recovery which have realistic chances to lead to the legally defined waste diversion rate of >25% until end of Phase 2.

SWM4LGus: Status of project implementation, composting component

06.02.2017 Seite 20

Pilot sites and applied composting processes

Buenavista Municipality with 91 tons/year production capacity and 0,42 Mio Peso investment cost (boxes composting);

San Carlos City with 365 tons/year production capacity and 1,4 Mio Peso investment cost (windrow composting);

Roxas City with 146 tons/year production capacity and 2,34 Mio Peso investment (drum composting);

Bayawan City with 55 tons/year production capacity and 1,24 Mio Peso investment (drum composting);

Iloilo City – ongoing, delayed due to lack of operation area;

Dumaguete City – with xx tons/year production capacity and x,xx Mio Peso investment;

Ormoc City – with xx tons/year production capacity and x,xx Mio Peso investmemt.

06.02.2017 Seite 21

Windrow composting in San Carlos City

06.02.2017 Seite 22 06.02.2017


1. The measures carried out to improve the waste management in at least 3 cities each with a

population of over 70,000 inhabitants (regulated landfill, composting, material recovery) correspond to the standards defined in the waste legislation. (evaluation by auditors).

Status: proper management on composting and material recovery is progressing,

implementation of landfills is delayed.

Landfilling: 5 LGUs are either in the process to finalize their landfill planning and licensing

process (Ormoc and Maasin), started a Feasibility Study for a landfill (Iloilo), are

constructing a landfill (Bayawan) or operate a SLF (San Carlos1)).

Composting: Composting projects were established and are operated by the following

partner LGUs: Roxas, Buenavista, San Carlos, Bayawan, Dumaguete and Ormoc. However,

the established treatment capacity remains < 10 % of the annual collected organic waste in

the best case so far.

Material Recovery: Projects to enhance resource recovery are part of all work

plans of partner LGUs for Phase 2. So far Dumaguete, San Carlos and Iloilo

established various projects for material recovery which have realistic chances to lead to the legally defined waste diversion rate of >25% until end of Phase 2.

SWM4LGus: Status of project implementation, MRF component

06.02.2017 Seite 23

San Carlos City – LGU Material Recovery Center

Know what’s coming in: Waste stream analysis

Keep it simple - MRF design parameters

Clustering of efforts

CD for involved stakeholder groups

06.02.2017 Seite 24 06.02.2017

Indicator 4, overall objective (2005-2012):

4. In at least 5 cities recycling processes are applied using the informal

sector by which an increase of 25% in resource recovery is attained.

Status: PPP with Holcim established as core instrument for recovery and

informal sector involvement

The LGUs Iloilo, Dumaguete and San Carlos City deal already with a

considerable number of informal sector representatives at their local

dumpsites. In Bayawan and Ormoc City further municipal recycling

projects are in development.

SWM4LGus: Status of project implementation, MRF component

06.02.2017 Seite 25

160 tons/day delivered

solid waste

Improvements at the

Calajunan Disposal site (Iloilo)

06.02.2017 Seite 26 06.02.2017

Involvement of informal sector

GTZ worldwide program

“Partnership for Recycling”

Respect existing, socially viable structures

Capacity development for informal groups

Collection + Segregation

Recycling

Composting

06.02.2017 Seite 27 06.02.2017

PPP with Holcim Development of internationally recognized co-processing ordinance

Parallel implementation of activities in 12 countries worldwide

DOST national guidance manual for co-processing of AFR

Capacity development program

Co-Processing demonstration projects

Selected industrial waste streams from

economic zones

Residual municipal waste streams

Agro-industrial waste streams

06.02.2017 Seite 28 06.02.2017

..pictures..

The MRF at Calahunan in Iloilo City

06.02.2017 Seite 29

AFR recovery

06.02.2017 Seite 30

”1-Tonner-Bags” filled with AFR from Iloilo City

06.02.2017 Seite 31

Emission test on AFR from Iloilo City in April 2008

06.02.2017 Seite 32 06.02.2017


2. Relevant actors in at least 5 LGUs agree on local waste ordinances, which enable a gradual covering of the operation costs of at least 20% of the municipal waste management budget via a system of waste taxes/fees (evaluation by auditors).

Status: 2 LGUs already reached 20%, another 6 implement necessary frame conditions (e.g. SWM Full-Cost-Accounts and SWM

ordinances) to enhance their cost recovery for SWM services.

Dumaguete and Iloilo both reached already the benchmark of 20% cost recovery for provided SWM services. Buenavista and Bayawan released a new local SWM ordinance in 2007 respectively 2008. Maasin, Ormoc, Baybay and Palompon started with the establishment respectively revision of their local SWM policies.

SWM4LGus: Status of project implementation, cost recovery

06.02.2017 Seite 33

Revenues generated from the Implementation of ISWM

Ordinance in Dumaguete City 2001-2007

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

1,541,399.60 1,671759.29

1,802,118.98 1,804,196.42

1,860,090.02 1,869,934.61

1,926,876.27

06.02.2017 Seite 34 06.02.2017


4. With the help of standardised methods (training modules, tool box for the

planning and implementation of waste management systems etc.) at least 10 of

33 urbanized LGUs in the Visayas are better qualified to apprehend their tasks.

Status: 13 out of 16 standardized modules developed and tested

with 12 LGUs; accreditation proposal ongoing

Training modules and various tools to implement the waste

legislation are in preparation. So far, 13 out of the 16 proposed SWM

training modules were already delivered to key personnel of the

involved partner organizations (EMB regions 6, 7, 8 & 13, NSWMC

and 12 LGUs).

Further SWM tools and SWM best practices are in development and

will be accessible at the new project website end of 2009

(www.swm4lgus.org).

SWM4LGus: Status of project implementation, capacity building

http://www.swm4lgus.org/

06.02.2017 Seite 35 06.02.2017

Proposed additional indicator for Gender, Phase 2 (2008-2010):

5. Both genders equally participate in project activities and capacity development

measures as well as in decision-making processes. Projects which address the

informal sector integration especially support women and women with children

with focus on providing livelihood opportunities and other social benefits.

Status of project related gender aspects:

Project participation at national and regional levels is fairly balanced with 56% female participation. However, the participating LGUs are significantly

dominated by male participation of 83%.

Decision-making processes in partner organizations at national and regional

levels are balanced with 52% female contribution. Decision making at local level, however, is heavily dominated by men with > 87%.

Informal sector activities at the Calahunan dumpsite could achieve gender-

balance with 56% female involvement and especially caters for mothers in

the age bracket 31-60 years providing relative safe and hygienic working conditions including protection equipment and competitive income.

SWM4LGus: Status of project implementation, gender aspects

06.02.2017 Seite 36






5. Impacts and problems/issues encountered .

06.02.2017 Seite 37 06.02.2017

Indicator 1, Phase 2 (2008-2010) – for LANDFILLING: 1. The measures carried out to improve the waste management in at least 3 cities each with a

population of over 70,000 inhabitants (regulated landfill, composting, material recovery)

correspond to the standards defined in the waste legislation. (evaluation by auditors).

1 LGU operates a SLF, 1 LGU started SLF construction, two further

LGUs received an ECC for SLF implementation in 2009;

Local SWM expertise for SLF planning/operation lacking;

SLF siting is still governed by site availability not suitability;

Detailed technical guidelines for SLF implementation lacking, hence mistakes during planning, material acquisition and construction are

common;

Position for SLF officer not defined in LGU personnel needs;

Investment and equipment for SLF establishment lacking in most LGUs;

Significance of dumpsite closure and SLF operation not understood in

view of climate protection.

Strength, weaknesses, issues, challenges, gaps

06.02.2017 Seite 38 06.02.2017

Indicator 1, Phase 2 (2008-2010) – for COMPOSTING: 1. The measures carried out to improve the waste management in at least 3 cities each with a

population of over 70,000 inhabitants (regulated landfill, composting, material recovery) correspond to the standards defined in the waste legislation.

LGUs provide composting projects which are too small in capacity, meaning the bulk of collected organic waste can not be processed;

Although the private sector (PS) is successfully involved in agricultural composting, LGUs do not tap the PS for compost operations;

Household composting is hardly functioning; if established incentives are not provided for households to maintain organic waste segregation;

The established segregation processes/technologies so far hardly deliver suited organic material for composting;

Standards and quality guidelines for municipal composting are not established;

LGUs are “not allowed” to sell compost outside their jurisdictions without FPA license and have not marketing experiences. Hence, they fail to recover project investments and operation cost,

In general, LGUs have no expertise to establish and maintain a market for organic recycling products.

Strength, weaknesses, issues, challenges and gaps

06.02.2017 Seite 39 06.02.2017

Indicator 1, Phase 2 – for SEGREGATION/MATERIAL RECOVERY:

1. The measures carried out to improve the waste management in at least 3 cities

each with a population of over 70,000 inhabitants (regulated landfill, composting,

material recovery) correspond to the standards defined in the waste legislation.

Waste segregation result is poor in most LGUs;

Private junkshops are available, however, their recovery rates and

environmental performance are unclear;

Barangay MRFs are partly established, but mostly with low efficiency;

Material recovery “happens uncontrolled” at source, along the roads,

on the collection truck and on the dumpsites;

The most of the material recovery at the local level is performed by the

informal sector; LGUs lacks tools and guidelines to deal with informal sector and to utilize their skills for the local SWM program;

Role of middlemen and consolidators are mostly unclear for LGU;

The private sector involvement into municipal SWM remains low.


06.02.2017 Seite 40 06.02.2017

Indicator 1, Phase 2 (2008-2010) – for CO-PROCESSING: 1. The measures carried out to improve the waste management in at least 3 cities each with a

population of over 70,000 inhabitants (regulated landfill, composting, material recovery, co-processing) correspond to the standards defined in the waste legislation.

Material recovery for co-processing and production of AFR is not established in

LGUs yet;

The informal sector and especially waste pickers are interested to get involved

into AFR production out of municipal wastes as additional livelihood;

The LGUs recognize potentials for waste diversion and cost savings on waste

disposal management if co-processing and AFR recovery would be practiced;

Cement producers are capable and interested to utilize AFR out of the municipal

SWM stream;

The informal sector needs capacity building to perform and sustain AFR

production;

DENR did not provide a legal baseline for AFR production out of the municipal

SWM stream yet.


06.02.2017 Seite 41 06.02.2017

Indicator 2, Phase 2 (2008-2010) – SWM COST RECOVERY:

2. Relevant actors in at least 5 LGUs agree on local waste ordinances, which enable

a gradual covering of the operation costs of at least 20% of the municipal waste

management budget via a system of waste taxes/fees.

2 LGUs apply “pay-as-you-throw-schemes”, several partner LGUs work

on new local SWM ordinances;

The most partner LGUs still have a very low cost recovery;

Only one LGU established a SWM full cost account system so far;

SWM fees are accounted under general fund and can not directly be

recovered for SWM program enhancements;

From the local DF up to 20 % can be used for environmental management but no “least budget level” is prescribed for LGUs. Hence

SWM programs may be delayed/postponed due to other, more

pressuring LGU needs/priorities;

The most LGUs can not provide the needed investments for municipal SWM facilities.


06.02.2017 Seite 42 06.02.2017

Indicator 3, Phase 2 (2008-2010) – SWM ORGANIZATION by DENR:

2. The organisational structure for SWM in environment authorities put into

place in at least one province fulfils the criteria (set up, competences,

personnel, inventory and working capital) agreed with the relevant actors DENR, EMB, NSWMC, PENRO, CENRO).

EMB personnel is not capacitated to serve the regional LGUs, e.g. only 2-3 SWM

personnel per EMB regional office for > 100 LGUs;

SWM officers of PENRO and CENRO level are mostly multi-tasked;

So far no DENR Memorandum exists which clarifies roles, task, functions for

EMB and PENRO/CENRO personnel tasked to perform SWM;

EMB and PENRO/CENRO personnel need technical skills development to be able

to provide consultancy services for LGUs;

EMB and PENRO/CENRO personnel luck budget and equipment to perform their

tasks related to SWM;

Although Regional Ecology Centers were established in Regions 6,7,8 and 13

with the support of SWM4LGUs their performance depends mainly on EMB and

the funds provided by EMB, whereas the nationwide organization of RECs is not

standardized and financed so far.


06.02.2017 Seite 43






5. Impacts and problems/issues encountered

6. Lessons learnt .

06.02.2017 Seite 44 06.02.2017

SWM4LGUs: Lessons learnt Although RA 9003 was released in 2001, the sector development remains

rather low and most LGUs are far behind the set legal targets in their

implementation schedules. As one key issue, the low cost recovery for

provided SWM services within the most LGUs hinders system improvements

and project implementation. Besides, the available budget is too low in most cases to cover the needed investments. So far, no official guideline is released

which regulates the “least annual budget level” to be provided by LGUs for

SWM. Almost all LGUs continue to treat SWM with lower priority and hence

delay the needed budget negotiations.

Related to landfill establishment various legal gaps delay project development and especially DAOs and technical guidelines are lacking to more efficiently

support LGU processes such as for waste segregation, site selection, landfill

construction, operation, monitoring and rehabilitation.

Many LGUs still do not have an SWM expert or SWM office and lack technical

skills. The institutional capacity of EMB to efficiently supervise, regulate, monitor and advise LGUs in SWM remains insufficient. Last not least, the

involvement of the private sector to assist LGUs in SWM but also of

universities to educate professionals who could perform SWM functions in the

future remains too low.

06.02.2017 Seite 45

THANK YOU !

DENR FMS R-6 Compound

2/F Lab.-Building, Parola Steet

5000 Iloilo City, Panay, Philippines

Phone/Fax: +63-33-5099788

E-mail:

mailto:[email protected]

project brief for the swm best practises forumfaspselib.denr.gov.ph/sites/default/files//publication...

Documents