As Boracay Island stakeholders brace for the impact of closure to tourists beginning today (April 26), the government is hopeful of fully addressing the various environmental problems besetting the country’s top tourist destination.
Aside from water pollution and the degradation of forestland and wetlands, Boracay Island, the country’s top tourist destination in Malay, Aklan, is facing a dilemma that mirrors literally a stinking national problem with seemingly no solution in sight: garbage.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) officials believe there is one viable solution: turn waste into energy. DENR executives believe garbage can be used as biomass to generate energy in the form of electricity and/or heat from the primary treatment of the waste. A form of energy recovery, waste-to-energy (WtE) is being eyed as a long-term solution to Boracay Island’s garbage problem.
DENR Secretary Roy A. Cimatu wants to make the entire island a garbage-free zone by ensuring that all the solid waste generated by local residents and the local and foreign tourists are shipped out every day, his designated spokesman, Undersecretary Jonas R. Leones, told the BusinessMirror. Cimatu, to note, heads Task Force Boracay (TFB), the interagency body tasked by President Duterte to deal with the problems afflicting Boracay.
Leones, the DENR’s Undersecretary for Policy, Planning, International Affairs and Foreign-Assisted Projects, said that with the poor enforcement, if not defiance to abide by a lawful order to enforce a measure that seeks to address the looming garbage crisis, the establishment of a WtE facility becomes inevitable.
The proposal to implement WtE on Boracay Island, however, comes with howls of protest from environmental groups, triggering anew a spirited debate on the issue of producing energy from waste.
‘Garbage prone’
FLOCKED by tens of thousands of local and foreign tourists all year round, Boracay Island is producing about 90 tons of garbage every day. However, only about 30 tons are being collected and brought out of the island.
The proposal for the establishment of a WtE facility, hence, was made by Eligio T. Ildefonso, Executive Secretary of the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC), during the crafting of action plans held by the TFB in March.
“I was the one who made the proposal during our action planning sessions [last month] because it is the only viable long-term solution to the garbage problem on Boracay,” Ildefonso said.
But he quickly said that WtE is just one of the options for Boracay, as there are other ways to prevent the garbage problem from worsening. This, Ildefonso said, couldn’t be done without the full cooperation of all the stakeholders.
“Imagine an island with only three barangays generating 100 tons of garbage per day? One day of failing to take out the garbage is already a problem,” he said.
Besides, Ildefonso said he is not recommending the establishment of an engineered sanitary landfill on the island, as it is a fragile island ecosystem already facing enormous pollution problems.
Action plan
THERE are three materials recovery facilities (MRF) situated in each of the three barangays on Boracay Island: Manoc-Manoc, Balabag and Yapak.
According to Ildefonso, part of the action plan to address the garbage crisis on the island is to sustain the operation of these MRFs and to strictly enforce or implement Republic Act 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000), particularly the proper waste segregation to reduce, reuse and recycle waste.
All establishments, big or small, are now required to designate environmental managers who will be responsible for the firm’s compliance with various environmental laws, particularly solid waste management, which also espouses the composting of biodegradable waste.
Part of the action plan is also to ensure that tourists entering Boracay are properly informed of their responsibilities while on the island, particularly the part of maintaining a clean and green environment through proper waste disposal.
“Before entering Boracay, tourists will be properly informed of the law against indiscriminate waste dumping or disposal, which will be strictly implemented during their stay on the island,” said Ildefonso, already looking at the end of the six-month moratorium on tourism activities on the island.
A looming crisis
THE Philippines is facing a looming garbage crisis. With a population of over 100 million, the Philippines produces 40,000 tons of garbage every day, or 14.6 million tons of garbage a year.
Garbage is a serious environmental and health issue.
Aside from emitting a foul odor, garbage in open dumps produces methane, a toxic, greenhouse gas (GHG) that accumulates into the atmosphere, causing global warming. Other GHG from broken household appliances, such as air-conditioning units and refrigerators, can also cause the thinning of the ozone layer.
In the event of a heavy downpour, garbage leach pollutes the soil, contaminates aquifer and nearby water bodies—streams, rivers, lakes or worse, including coastal and marine waters.
Metro Manila, the country’s capital region populated by around 12 million people, produces 9,000 tons of garbage every day, almost a fourth of what the entire country’s total garbage produce.
Ocean menace
WITH an 80-percent garbage collection efficiency in Metro Manila, 20 percent or 1,800 tons of the 9,000 tons of garbage produced daily end up in vacant lots or worse, clogging waterways—canals, creeks and rivers causing severe flooding—or they end up draining to larger water bodies like Laguna de Bay or Manila Bay.
Clogging of the drainage system is one of the major causes of flooding in Metro Manila.
The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, the Department of Public Works and Highway, the Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission (PRRC) and various local government units extract tens of tons of garbage to remove the clog from drainage systems to prevent flooding, especially before the onset of the rainy season.
From the Pasig River alone, a river that connects the Manila Bay and Laguna de Bay, the PRRC said it is collecting an average of 500,000 kilos of waste every year.
Dumping of garbage is common in squatter colonies found along these so-called danger zones.
However, indiscriminate dumping of waste happens even in the open seas, behind the back of concerned maritime authorities and law-enforcement units.
Threat to biodiversity
OCEAN plastic pollution is a serious threat to marine ecosystems and wildlife, according to Dr. AA Yaptinchay of the Marine Wildlife Watch of the Philippines.
The Marine Wildlife Watch of the Philippines is one of the leading marine wildlife conservation advocacy groups and was responsible in the crafting of several guidelines, a first in the Philippines, for the proper or safe rescue, rehabilitation and release of trapped or injured marine wildlife such as whales, dolphins, dugong and marine turtles, in partnership with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Biodiversity Management Bureau (DENR-BMB).
According to Yaptinchay, the ingestion of micro-plastics by wildlife can cause blockage of the gut and the lungs leading to death.
Likewise, its ingestion by wildlife from zooplankton to large marine fauna can also lead to death or adversely affect reproduction, as micro-plastic toxins in the bloodstream and tissues can lead to diseases, including reproductive impairment.
“Entanglement in trash and micro-plastics, including discarded nets or ‘ghost nets,’ by wildlife will cause suffocation or drowning leading to death,” Yaptinchay said. “A pile of trash, especially plastic, in the water column occupies space, which can displace wildlife. Those that sink to the bottom will smother the substrate, which will kill all organisms under it, including corals or a whole reef.”
On the other hand, he said floating debris are known to carry non-native species across continents, which may introduce alien invasive species to another ecosystem. The spread of invasive alien species is a major driver of biodiversity loss.
“The plastic trash will be present [in the ocean] for a long time. Macro-plastics just become micro-plastics and ghost nets will keep on killing as long as it is in the water,” Yaptinchay added. “Once we set it to lose in the natural world, there is no getting it back nor stopping it from affecting wildlife and their habitat.”
2 birds, 1 stone
ASIDE from addressing the country’s looming garbage crisis, WtE is being eyed as a solution to the perennial power supply shortage.
Even the Department of Energy (DOE), of late, started to initiate the move to promote WtE to boost power-generation capacities on remote or isolated islands like in Puerto Princesa City, in the island-province of Palawan, considered as the country’s last ecological frontier.
The P2.1-billion WtE deal entered into by the DOE and the Puerto Princesa local government unit (LGU) and Austworks Corp., the facility provider for the construction of a so-called WtE plant, involves the construction of a “thermal gasification” facility.
Environmental groups said it is the scientific name for a WtE incinerator to be constructed in the city’s Santa Lourdes Sanitary Landfill, as well as provide garbage-collection services.
The WtE plant will supposedly generate 5.5 megawatts of electricity from the city’s 110 metric tons per day of waste.
Boracay is producing around that volume of waste every day, qualifying the island’s three barangays alone for a WtE facility that will generate the same amount of electricity if the plan pushes through.
‘Wait a minute’
ZERO-waste advocates, however, cautioned that WtE promotes waste incineration and thus is prohibited under Philippine laws.
Ruel Cabile, a campaigner of EcoWaste Coalition, a member of No Burn Pilipinas, chided the DENR for actively promoting WtE.
Early this month, No Burn Pilipinas, comprising of over 50 environmental groups and climate justice activists, questioned the legality of an agreement for a WtE facility between the Department of Energy (DOE) and Puerto Princesa City.
“Waste incineration is banned under Philippine laws, specifically, the Clean Air Act. Incinerators turn solid waste into toxic air pollution and produce deadly cancer-causing chemicals such as dioxins and furans, which accumulate in soil and water,” Cabile said. “It is highly questionable why the DENR, mandated to protect the environment, is now acting as the peddler for these facilities.”
Likewise, he said any WtE incineration plan for Boracay is merely replacing one kind of pollution with another. The DENR is not solving the island’s pollution problem, but is actually making it a lot worse. Toxic chemicals in air pollution contaminate soil and water and travel distances. How do they plan to clean up Boracay’s beaches once it is contaminated with heavy metals and dioxins?” he asked.
Health risks
ACCORDING to No Burn Pilipinas, a coalition of over 50 environmental groups, it is opposed to WtE and waste incineration because of the related health risks.
The group has said the by-product of waste incineration is fly ash, which not only causes lung and heart problems to nearby populations but is also classified as hazardous waste because of the concentration of toxic chemicals from the burnt materials.
“Boracay will need to construct a hazardous waste landfill to handle incinerator fly ash. However, because Boracay is a small island, the question is whether it is permissible to site a hazardous waste landfill on the island without contaminating groundwater with heavy metals and carcinogenic chemicals. With contaminated air, soil, seas and groundwater, Boracay may well turn into a cancer island, creating a situation that is far worse than what we have now,” Cabile said.
Not renewable
NO Burn Pilipinas also argued that WtE does not count as a clean, renewable energy source like solar power or hydropower.
According to Cabile, the purported gains producing electricity through waste incineration is a fallacy.
“Incinerators produce very little electricity, and actually consume more energy than it creates. They use electricity for maintenance and operations such as cranes, pumps, conveyors, and use fossil fuel for start-up and for its furnaces,” he explained. “Municipal solid waste is not an efficient fuel so more energy goes into burning it than what is actually produced.”
If the government truly wants a sustainable solution for Boracay, it should pursue a zero-waste approach for the island, starting with the strict implementation of the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, Cabile recommended.
“More sustainable, practical and people-centered waste solutions are already happening in the Philippines and across Asia,” he added. “Many cities are already practicing zero waste, which aims for the minimization and eventual elimination of waste through reduction, redesign, reuse and recycling, starting with waste segregation at source.”
The law
SIGNED on July 24, 2000, RA 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, provides for an ecological solid waste management program.
The law mandates the creation of the necessary institutional mechanisms and incentives, declaring certain acts prohibited and provided penalties and appropriating funds for its implementation among other purposes.
For this, the law created the NSWMC composed of 14 members from the government sector and three members from the private sector. The NSWMC acts as a policy-making body and undertakes activities for the proper implementation of the law.
The law declared as a state policy to adopt a systematic, comprehensive and ecological solid waste management program, among others, to ensure the protection of public health and the environment.
Further, Section C of the law mandates the state to: “Set guidelines and targets for solid waste avoidance and volume reduction through source reduction and waste minimization measures, including composting, recycling, reuse, recovery, green charcoal process, and others, before collection, treatment and disposal in a appropriate and environmentally sound solid waste management facilities in accordance with ecologically sustainable development principles.
However, waste incineration is prohibited under the law, as it calls for the “proper segregation, collection, transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid waste through the formulation and adoption of the best environmental practices in ecological waste management excluding incineration.”
Failed law?
“WtE is the only way forward to address the garbage problem, especially in Metro Manila,” said Leones, who was instrumental in strengthening the capacity of the DENR’s Environmental Management Bureau (EMB).
There is a move in the House of Representatives to lift the ban on waste incineration under two laws: RA 9003 and RA 8749. House Bill 2286 seeks to repeal the provisions that ban waste incineration under the two laws.
Last year, the House Committee on Ecology chaired by Rep. Estrellita Suansing of the First District of Nueva Ecija has approved the creation of a technical working group (TWG) for the purpose of amending the two environmental laws.
The TWG, to be headed by Rep. Carlos Cojuangco of the First District of Tarlac, will tackle a proposal by Rep. Carlito Marquez of the Lone District of Aklan under the proposed measure, specifically to repeal Section 20 of the Clean Air Act.
The measure aims to address what is believed by proponents of the bill as “urgent solid-waste issues in the country that lead to flooding, erosion, landslides, as well as other dangers on landfills and dumpsites affecting people living near them.”
The bill also intended to clarify the claim that waste incineration is harmful to the environment, and seeks to set up WtE facilities in the country.
While banking on the wisdom of the country’s lawmakers in deciding the fate of the proposed measure lifting the ban on the use of incinerators, Leones maintained that the DENR is open to other options, including sticking to no-burn WtE technologies that have been “proven and tested” and are available in the market while waiting for the legislative measure that will pave the way for waste incineration to take effect.
“We need to convince the legislators to give WtE a chance. The reason why the policy [on WtE] is not moving forward is because there is really a strong opposition waged against WtE,” Leones said.
He maintained that there are other countries that are “clean and green” like Taiwan, China and Singapore that make use of waste incinerators and had not once encountered pollution or health problems.
Poor compliance
LEONES said LGUs, which are primarily responsible for the enforcement of RA 9003 on the ground, are slow to comply with the various provisions of the law. After 18 years since the law was passed, many LGUs remain reluctant or unable to implement even the basic requirements, which are to promote segregation at source, reduce, reuse and recycle, or even practice composting.
Leones noted that most LGUs lack the capacity to implement the provisions of RA 9003, from launching information drives to encourage waste segregation, hauling, the establishment of MRFs and establishing an engineered sanitary landfill in lieu of open dumps.
In many cases, like in highly urbanized areas such Metro Manila, Metro Davao and Metro Cebu, lack of space for even composting of biodegradable waste or establishment of an MRF and engineered sanitary landfill, is a major obstacle, even with the LGUs’ financial and technical capacity, or willingness to abide and follow the letters of the law.
“For so many years, only about 30 percent of LGUs have actually begun to comply because of the requirements. Others may be defying the law because they believe it is impractical,” Leones explained. “There is no space for segregation.”
WtE solution
ACCORDING to Ildefonso, WtE solution may very well apply in other areas of the country, especially where the establishment of an engineered sanitary landfill is no longer possible because of lack of space but will require a huge investment.
The NSWMC said around 400 open dumps are still in operation in various parts of the country. These open dumps should be shut down under RA 9003.
But lack of space for the establishment of an engineered sanitary landfill, ideally, one where residual waste will be disposed into, is a major challenge.
Also, LGUs have no financial capacity to establish and operate such facility, which explains why the NSWMC is encouraging clustering of LGUs wherein a group of LGUs will pool together their resources for the establishment of such facility or enter into a public-private partnership deal for the purpose of putting up a power plant to produce energy from waste.
There are many interested investors willing to put up MRFs, and engineered sanitary landfills, but this is packaged with the operation of a WtE facility.
NSWMC resolution
THE NSWMC has already come up with a resolution in support of WtE. However, it does not include waste incineration, which remains a contentious issue.
Waste incineration is commonly used to dispose of waste at the same time converting them into useful energy, whether in the form of biofuel, methane gas, or electricity.
The DENR, which is the agency mandated to manage the country’s environment and natural resources, has already adopted in June 2016 NSWMC Resolution 669. That resolution was titled “Adopting the Guidelines Governing the Establishment and Operation of Waste to Energy Technologies for Municipal Solid Wastes.”
Among the WtE technologies allowed under the guidelines are gasification, pyrolysis, bioreactor, biomethanation, hydrolysis, pyrolytic gasification, plasma and other thermal processes. Ildefonso earlier said these technologies do not use incinerators.
Leones said in countries with a similar situation like Singapore, WtE and waste incineration offered a viable solution to the garbage problem. “There are five incineration plants in Singapore,” he said. “And the Marina de Bay; under that, is WtE facility.”
Enhanced capacity
ACCORDING to Leones, the DENR-EMB over the years was able to enhance its capacity to measure and analyze the dioxins and furans produced by incinerators.
“Before, we do not have the capacity. We now have the technology and the capacity to analyze dioxins and furans,” he said, referring to the established dioxins/furans laboratory at the DENR-EMB in Quezon City.
Moreover, he said there is already a guideline for WtE in the form of the NSWMC resolution.
He added that the DENR itself is in the final stage of crafting its own WtE guideline.
“We already have a guideline for final approval. We really don’t want to be antagonistic about it. But it is ready, once a law is passed lifting the ban on waste incineration, then we can proceed with the finalization of the guidelines,” he said.
Debate continues
BUT the debate over the issue of WtE will not simply go away.
According to the group Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), there is no such thing as “no-burn” WtE technology.
The group said incinerators are facilities that treat waste by burning it and that they come under many names such as “mass burn incinerators,” “thermal treatment facilities,” or so-called “waste-to-energy” plants and involve processes such as combustion, pyrolysis, gasification, or plasma arc.
But they all have the same claim— “burning waste will make our waste problems disappear.”
Among the most aggressively promoted incinerators are waste-to-energy facilities, GAIA’s Lea Guerrero said.
She added there is a minimum volume of garbage needed to make the operation of a WtE facility economically viable.
With no sufficient feedstock, production of electricity in WtE facilities is doomed to fail.
Solar, wind power
CABILE said instead of promoting WtE, the DOE should promote solar power and wind power or hydro-power instead of WtE, which is not a viable solution to the energy problem, or could even worsen the quality of air that we breathe with the emission of smaller but even deadlier particles of dust from incinerators into the atmosphere.
He said the DOE, instead of promoting WtE, should focus on harnessing the power of the sun, or the wind, as they are a more viable option for power generation.
Cabile is also skeptical that the DENR-EMB is now capable of efficiently analyzing dioxins and furans as claimed by Leones.
“The only WtE process we agree to is the anaerobic WtE, which is really a no-burn process,” he said.
He said an anaerobic WtE is being used at a facility in Cavite and in Pampanga, which the NSWMC and the DENR should look into and promote, instead of believing that other WtE technologies that involve incineration are “no-burn” technologies.
“We are not surprised by the DENR’s move to suggest to LGUs to go for WtE because it is their way of giving a quick solution to solid waste management,” he said.
According to Cabile, going for a quick-fix solution to the solid waste management problem is an admission of the failure on the part of the government to implement the laws to ensure a healthy and balanced ecology.
“What the government should do is go after the LGUs that fail to implement the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act and the Clean Air Act. Why do they have to contradict or amend the laws?,” Cabiles said. “We at No Burn Pilipinas and EcoWaste Coalition maintain that zero-waste management is the solution to the garbage problem. It should be implemented and the two laws [RA 9003 and RA 8749] enforced and respected.”
Apparently, the hands of the government, particularly the DENR, DOE and NSWMC, are tied to what is allowed by law. To end the neverending debate, a clear-cut policy should be put in place.
Are we sticking to the policy that says no to waste incineration or are we going for an all-out WtE solution?
Image credits: Nonoy Lacza