Waste-to-energy: Boon or bane for Philippines?

(Part 2)

Institutionalizing WTE development

MANILA, Philippines — Laws are also being proposed to institutionalize WTE development and expand the allowed WTE technologies in the country, particularly to remove the ban on incineration.

The Clean Air Act bans incineration, which the law defines as the burning of municipal, biomedical and hazardous wastes, which emit poisonous and toxic fumes.

In January last year, House Speaker Lord Allan Velasco said the government should consider the adoption of WTE technologies in the treatment and disposal of solid waste as many of the landfills in the country would soon be filled up.

“The huge amount of waste that we produce threatens to overwhelm our landfills and create worse garbage disposal problems,” he said. “Before this happens, we must now look for cleaner and more sustainable methods to treat and dispose of solid waste, such as WTE.”

The House of Representatives approved on third and final reading House Bill (HB) 7829 or the proposed Waste Treatment Technology Act on Nov. 24, 2020.

The bill aims to allow the use of any WTE technology, including incineration, as long as it does not produce poisonous or toxic fumes.

With this, it seeks to amend the Clean Air Act by repealing Section 20 to allow the use of incineration for WTE purposes.

At the time, Velasco – one of the principal authors of the proposed law – urged the Senate to pass the WTE bill to help solve the country’s perennial garbage problem.

The Senate version, which was authored and sponsored by Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian, was pending on second reading. But the upper chamber no longer has enough time to pass Senate Bill 1789 in the 18th Congress.

“It got overtaken by events. It was sponsored on the floor, but with six sessions days left, leaving it with no chance to be approved,” Gatchalian said.

The senator, however said, he would continue to push for the passage of the WTE measure as he has been reelected for another six-year term.

“I will continue to push for it. The practical approach is to build WTE. The options are limited [to immediately solve the garbage problem,” the lawmaker said.

Empowering LGUs’ waste management through WTE

During his nine-year tenure as local chief executive of Valenzuela City starting 2004, Gatchalian said solid waste management was a major problem of the city—it had no lands available for MRFs.

In fact, he said there are no MRFs in Metro Manila because it’s not practical for urban areas, forcing 80 percent of LGUs to dispose their garbage in illegal dumpsites, according to DENR.

“Without MRFs, you cannot implement the 3Rs—reduce, reuse and recycle. That’s where the problem is. That’s why only 30 percent of our barangays have MRFs,” the lawmaker said.

“To build sanitary landfills is expensive. You have to have big amount of land. You have to put polyethylene protection to prevent leaks and contamination of lands,” Gatchalian said.

Based on this experience, he authored the Senate bill to primarily empower LGUs to adopt WTE as one of the several solid waste management treatment options.

“The problem with WTE is the feedstock. We have two complicated things in our system, one is the political cycle of every three years. The law addresses that. The mayor can sign long term contracts, there will be constant supply of garbage to the WTE. Second is the scale. The law addresses that by allowing LGUs to cluster together, become one big supplier of garbage,” Gatchalian said.

However, the lawmaker admitted that WTE facilities still have harmful effects—similar to the impact of power generation, metal production, and fuel burning.

“I will not sugar coat. This technology—like other technologies such as coal, natural gas, steel, cement plants—emit harmful dioxins and furans. But these technologies also have a way to mitigate it. What’s important is the technology to mitigate the harmful effects,” Gatchalian said.

That’s why the proposed law puts more safeguards for WTE—adding the health and environment protection in the mix.

“The DENR only answers the environmental side. But we added one layer, we added public health side. We required health impact assessment as another layer of safeguards,” Gatchalian said.

Moreover, the WTE bill does not focus solely on the development of WTE facilities, but also adding a solution to the country’s garbage crisis.

“The Philippines is one of the fastest growing economies. As population grows, so does garbage generation, growing at 40 percent. If we don’t address this garbage issue, it will become a crisis because where will we throw our garbage,” Gatchalian said.

Currently, all our garbage is thrown into sanitary landfills. But we cannot just rely on building more landfills since land is finite.

As it is, sanitary landfills generate methane, destroys ozone layer, emit furans and toxins.

The senator cited Singapore as an example. Our ASEAN neighbor is a land scarce city-state.

Singapore’s National Environment Agency said its growing population and booming economy have contributed to a about seven-fold increase in the amount of solid waste disposed from 1,260 ton a day in 1970 to a peak of 8,741 ton a day last year.

The country has four WTE plants which reduce the volume of solid waste by about 90 percent, generate electricity and extend the life span of Semakau Landfill—the country’s only landfill.

Harmful effects overshadow benefits

However, green groups the costs outweigh any supposed benefits of WTE—particularly the environmental, health and climate impacts.

In July last year, environmental advocates challenged the DENR DAO on WTE development in a petition filed before the Supreme Court (SC).

The petitioners, represented by lawyers from the Philippine Earth Justice Center Inc., said the DAO 2019-21, which issued guidelines on processing biodegradable and residual waste for use in the WTE facilities as well as on storage of wastes and by-products, do not offer a solution to managing waste and puts people at risk from toxic emissions.

Greenpeace said WTE causes health problems in nearby communities as it emits highly toxic pollutants, such as heavy metals and dioxin, which have long been linked to immune system impairment and cancer.

This technology also emits particulate matter associated with respiratory illnesses, reduced life expectancy and increased death rates from cardiovascular diseases.

“Experts and studies on WTE have revealed serious health and environmental risks due to emissions of carcinogenic dioxins, heavy metals, and greenhouse gases which drive the climate crisis. Such technologies lead to direct and indirect exposure to toxic substances for workers and nearby communities, which includes inhalation of polluted air and ingestion of food grown in an environment contaminated with these substances. Toxins from emissions, fly ash, and slag in a burn pile can travel long distances and deposit in soil and water, eventually entering human bodies after being accumulated in the tissues of plants and animals,” Ledesma said.

In Davao City, the city government already acquired a 10-hectare lot for the proposed WTE project planned with Kitakyushi of Japan and JICA.

The proposed project will be put up is an agricultural area producing coconut, mangoes among others, Plastic-Free Pilipinas Project regional coordinator for Mindanao Jill Banta said.

Moreover, based on interviews and data gathering, communities surrounding the proposed WTE project have no idea what the project is for as there were not enough public consultations done.

“I think even the barangay officials don’t even know the potential impacts of the project and there’s no resistance from communities,” Banta said.

“I’m not from the barangay where the incinerator will be put up, but the impacts are projected to reach my barangay because it’s still part of the 10-kilometer radius from the incinerator,” she said.

So far, the proposed project has not seen progress as it was reverted to the DENR upon the recommendation of the Davao Regional Council, which is currently reassessing the urban masterplan for the proposed Metro Davao area.

“We’re thinking of legal actions, but at this part of the timeline, we’re organizing information and education campaigns in the surrounding communities. We’re also thinking of going to JICA to request that they cancel their support and funding…given that the project violates their guidelines,” Banta said.

In Cebu City, several groups had opposed the proposal of New Sky Energy Philippines Inc. to establish an incinerator-based WTE project.

Among those that presented their position to the Cebu City council was the PECJ in December last year.

Without any news of development since then, the Cebu City Council approved last March a joint venture agreement (JVA) with New Sky Energy Philippines Inc. for the project and is now up for Swiss challenge.

PECJ litigation associate Kristine Joy Argallon said the city council is aggressively trying to integrate WTE even if it is not included in the 10-year solid waste management plan under the law.

The JVA was signed even the partners have yet to identify the specific location of the WTE facility.

“There were no IEC consultations or public hearings conducted contrary to what they said in December,” Argallon said.

Even as the city council pushes the project as an energy project, she explained that a WTE facility uses more electricity to burn solid waste than to generate electricity.

“The benefit of the energy component of the WTE is minimal. And while it can minimize solid waste, it is converted into a different type of waste that’s toxic for people,” Argallon said.

Danica Castillo of Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) said WTE is only seen as a band aid solution since it needs a certain quota for garbage to do its job, which encourages the production of solid waste instead of reducing it.

“You’re not addressing the waste problem. You’re not nipping it in the bud,” she said.

WTE facilities are also economically and financially troubling for LGUs given the tipping and transport fees alone to provide the feedstock from solid waste.

Based on PECJ’s calculations, the tipping and transport fees P1 million for a minimum 800 tons of solid waste to be fed to the WTE facility.

“That’s how many hundreds of million pesos a year and that’s 40 years if they are locked in into a contract. How will we allow this to continue for 40 years? The efforts to reduce waste at source is sidelined,” Argallon said.

Moreover, not all LGUs produce the same amount of solid waste that could feed a WTE plant.

Under the proposed WTE law, LGUs can cluster together to be able to meet the quota of garbage to power a WTE project.

But if an LGU imports garbage from other locations, it would produce more pollution from transporting these solid wastes from one place to another.

“In other countries, they have to import biomass/WTW to feed their plants. And that is also not environmentally correct, because if you import, you’re going to transport these huge quantities of biomass and that will affect the climate because of the pollution from the transport,” said Pedro Maniego Jr., senior policy advisor of Manila based climate and energy policy group Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC).

Instead, government should focus on safer, environmentally friendly practices to solve the country’s waste problems.

“We’re advocating for regulation and the ban of use of single plastics. We’re also advocating for a zero waste lifestyle and holding polluters accountable,” BFFP’s Castillo said.

In a report published last March, Tokyo-based Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) said that transitioning to a circular economy could build better growth and create more value with fewer materials. ADBI is Manila-based ADB’s think tank.

The Philippines, at present, has no integrated circular economy strategy or policy framework that exists in the Philippines.

While a circular economy will not happen overnight, the country needs to implement changes and reforms, institutional and policy-wise, a lawyer and legal policy consultant Gregorio Rafael Bueta said in the ADBI report.

“That is why it is necessary to have a plan or road map for the journey toward a circular economy. This can also begin with an assessment of the current policy landscape to see what current policies already support the circular economy; what the gaps are; and most importantly what resources are needed to make it happen,” he said.

The country also requires not just a whole-of-government, but a whole-of-society approach to address the waste problem, the author said.

“Legislators and politicians, must have the political will to enact bold law and policies for a circular economy. This must be met with an equal commitment to see its full implementation and enforcement,” Bueta said.

“The private sector also must be involved, as investments and innovation cannot solely be done by the government. Nongovernment and civil society organizations, especially those already implementing small-scale and ‘backyard’ circular economy programs, also play an important role. Lastly, the buy-in of citizens must be secured to ensure their participation in the system and compliance with any new regulation,” he said.