COMMUNITY PARTICIPATICIPATION IN URBAN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN METRO CEBU, PHILIPPINES

CASE-STUDY REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

This study is a sociological research designed to understand the various types of community management approaches as far as solid waste management is concerned. Specifically, it contains two case studies of low income communities, namely, Barangay Pitogo in Makati, Metro Manila and Barangay Basak-San Nicolas in Cebu City, Metro Cebu.

This study is part of the Urban Waste Expertise Programme (UWEP) initiated by WASTE and funded by the Netherlands Directorate General of International Cooperation.

UWEP is a six-year programme (1995-2001) with the purpose of generating employment in waste handling through small and micro-enterprises, and improving the environmental conditions of low income communities. Through its course, the programme wants to develop local expertise by means of research and pilot projects, and to disseminate documented knowledge and technology as far as waste management is concerned. Furthermore, the programme aims to promote waste policies which aim at integration of SME’s in the existing waste management systems through regional meetings and policy conferences with local authorities and development organizations. UWEP is implemented mainly in three regions, namely, Latin America, West Africa and South West Asia.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The main purpose of the study is to document the various community management approaches implemented in the two case communities in relation to SWM activities and projects. Community management approaches (CMA) concern the question "how do you dot it?" What can you do to persuade people, which arguments can you use, how can you collect regular fees, how can you supervise the waste collectors, etc. Examples of such CMAs are:

- An awareness campaign to make residents realize that uncollected waste is not an individual problem but a community problem.

- The establishment of street committees with responsibility for motivating residents.

- Regular collection of fees for operation and maintenance.

- Surveillance or monitoring by people of the community.

- Communication and Complaint procedures between local settlement community and municipal authorities.

The two case communities experienced some changes in the way they treat and handle domestic solid waste. They were known to have garbage scattered along the major and narrow streets and other public places. That was before they implemented their respective SWM project. Although far from being the ideal communities, both now command a certain degree of respect from the larger community for having cleaner surroundings. How they managed to effect behavioral and institutional changes and promote community participation in the SWM is the focus of this study.

1.3 METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS

Gathering data for the case studies involved actual field visits in the two communities. (See Slides No. B1) Two research assistants were hired to interview key informants, like the Barangay official, teachers and school principals, the priest and informal leaders. (See Slides No. B2) Focus group discussions were also utilized to get more information and validate previous ones. (See Slides No. B3) Interviews were both formal and informal using open-ended guide questions followed by relevant probing queries. Most of the interviews were recorded on tape. Ocular inspections of streets and neighborhood landmarks, unobtrusive observations of normal community SWM activities and slide photography were done.

In terms of secondary data, the research team requested barangay and CBO records from community leaders and member. Records included maps, minutes of meetings, old photos, posters and other printed materials.

As far as limitations of the study is concerned, the main issue is the scarcity of written materials about the two case studies. The team relied mostly on the memory and perception of the key informants. As such, the team took extra time in validating, if possible, given information from other sources. For Barangay Pitogo, this was not much of a problem since it is located within Metro Manila and easily accessible. With Basak-San Nicolas, however, the team did not have the luxury of time since it is located in the southern island province of Cebu that required more travel and field work expenses. Fortunately, both communities and their leaders were accommodating to the researchers.

1.4 REVIEW OF RELATED PROGRAMS AND LITERATURE

The need to understand community participation and community-based environmental management initiatives have been addressed by researchers and concerned institutions for the past several years now. In 1992, the UNDP-funded and WB-managed Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Programme (MEIP) initiated studies on this issue in four Asian cities (Lapid, 1992). The purpose was to understand the impact of urban environmental degradation on the welfare of the poor, find out how they were coping with it and to recommend community-based actions to enhance welfare. This was followed by a similar study under the UNDP Asia Pacific 2000 Programme (AP2000). In the Philippines, three other urban centers, Baguio, Cebu and Davao were the subject of the study (CAPS, 1992a).

Another related undertaking is the four-year research program (1992-96) initiated by the Program on Environment of the East-West Center and the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawaii. Aside from mere research, this program calls to task the research teams in seven Asian cities to work with communities to both assess current conditions and to build the institutional capacity for improving environmental management. Given a participatory approach, the research activity becomes an action research whereby the communities become aware of their problems, and then help plan, formulate and implement solutions even after the research is over.

This UWEP study on community management approaches on SWM is a related effort but deeper in nature. While the previous programs focused on what the communities have done or are trying to do, this UWEP study tries to ask how things are done and who in particular are doing what.

The action thrust of these related programs coincides with the thoughts or theories of recent related literature. The necessity of improving the welfare and environment of low-income communities through community participation seems to be the connecting thread in all these and other related programs. How to do this is the big question. Government action is an important ingredient but these studies have shown that community participation is an important factor to consider. Douglass (1992) posited the view that empowering households and communities to participate as active decision-makers in the use and management of these resources is a central issue and that if low-income households and communities are not empowered to improve their capacity to manage the environment, the future of cities will be one of drastic environmental decline.

Moreover, recent literature have tried to debunk traditional mindset of technocrats and planners that poverty "causes" environmental deterioration and the urban poor generate wastes that degrade their habitat (Lee, 1994b). Urban environmental degradation is a product of a complicated web of social, political and economic activities. Rapid urbanization, industrialization and migration coupled with institutional incapacity of governments to respond properly are a few contributing factors. The more common view now is that the urban poor are the victims and not the cause of environmental deterioration. Given access to important resources like land and even a minimal support from external groups and institutions, low income communities can improve and maintain a decent and livable environment.

Speaking of external support, NGOs have shown great potential as catalysts in assisting low-income communities in terms of empowerment and environmental issues (Lee, 1994). For the longer term, the increasing activism of indigenous NGOs in mobilizing community collective efforts represents a significant source of outside support. Local NGOs can facilitate the successful implementation of a community-based effort through an empowering strategy for the poor and their access to important environmental resources, particularly land, infrastructure and services necessary for environmental management" (Douglass, Lee and Lowry, 1994, p. xiv).

Nevertheless, although external assistance is important, a one-way top-down approach to community development is not effective and sustainable as experiences of development agents have shown. Intervention agencies, even with the best intentions, cannot impose "foreign" concepts and programs, and expect positive and sustainable results. In designing a community based development, community participation must be encouraged. It is important to realize that groups or member of groups cannot carry out certain task or achieve their goals individually (Narayan, 1995). Intersectoral partnership between communities and the private sector, both formal and informal, is the proper approach to strengthen urban environmental management, specially SWM (van de Klundert and Lardinois, 1995).

1.5 OVERALL SWM SITUATION

Solid waste management (SWM) in the Philippines, in general, can hardly be described as earth-friendly. The most common method, specially in urban areas, involves collection by garbage trucks from waste generators, and disposal through dumpsites and landfills. In the rural areas, many resort to burning and backyard dumping. In Metro Manila, the 9 million residents generate about 5,000 metric tons of garbage per day. The local government units (LGU) of the 8 cities and 9 municipalities comprising Metropolitan Manila, also known as the National Capital Region (NCR), are in-charge of collection while the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) takes care of disposal. MMDA has about 4 major dump sites and 2 sanitary landfills. Unfortunately, most are approaching or have reached full capacity. This problem is even compounded by the growing public clamor for the closure of one landfill due to adverse environmental impact. The solid waste problem in Metro Manila is now in crisis proportion with no comprehensive solutions in sight. The panic button has already been pressed. Uncollected garbage on street sidewalks and vacant lots have become a common sight around the capital. Evidently, the simple collect-and-dispose method of SWM is not a sustainable and environment friendly approach (Lapid, 1995).

1.6 CURRENTS TRENDS IN SWM

Current discussions among experts and concerned officials revolve around the setting up of a number of incinerators and/or waste-to-energy plants all over the country. Foreign suppliers are actively promoting waste-to-energy (WTE) plants as a method of disposing waste. The local government units are impressed by the possibility of getting rid of garbage quickly and at the same time produce energy in the process, unaware of the various technical matters to be considered.

The more vocal environment-oriented NGOs have opposed this approach due to the air pollution that may come about and the high cost of building and maintaining these WTE plants according to international standards. There is also the argument that the composition of urban solid waste in Metro Manila and other urban centers may have high levels of moisture due to organic waste and, therefore, may not be suitable for such plants.

While the debate is going on, the good news is that this crisis situation has brought about local initiatives by NGOs and communities which can be called earth friendly. These initiatives include composting, recycling and an industrial waste-exchange program augmented by information and education campaigns (Lapid, 1995). The NGOs involved in SWM are few but growing in number (CAPS, 1992b). Those in the informal sector like the junkshops, itinerant waste collectors and small recyclers are beginning to be recognized. Many local government units around the country are getting attracted to Zero Waste Management (ZWM) as espoused by the Recycling Movement of the Philippines. ZWM, a term already becoming a household word, is an ecological approach to waste management whereby all household solid and liquid waste can be convert, processed or reused into something useful. A town just north of Manila is now composting its wet market waste and has gained popularity.

Barangay level initiatives to SWM, though still limited in number, are spreading. These two case studies to be discussed below can stand as witness.