ZW-Policy-Makers-FINAL.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 INTRODUCTION This briefing paper presents a list of Zero Waste policy recommendations for local government officials as well as for national officials and policy makers in the Philippines. The aim is to provide local and national decision- and policy-makers with a set of sustainable options that they can pursue when they lay out management systems for municipal solid waste in their areas of influence. around ‘sustainable cities’ tackle how It comes at a time when city and municipal localities manage their resources and waste. officials are faced with the golden opportunity to transform their localities into The city-led C403 initiative, for example, has Zero Waste Cities—and in the process help set forth a Zero Waste Declaration stating them establish resilient and sustainable that “the sustainable, prosperous and cities, help fulfill Sustainable Development liveable cities of the future will ultimately Goal 11, comply with the Ecological Solid need to be zero-waste cities.”4 Although Waste Management Act or Republic Act such initiatives are at their early stages and (RA) 9003, and transition to a sustainable much change need to be done at the local circular economy. level (even for signatory countries), these programs are sending a signal that the shift In the past few decades, we have seen to Zero Waste has long begun. increased understanding about environmental sustainability and the Clearly, the term “Zero Waste Cities” is not crucial role of cities and municipalities in just a buzz word or an unreachable pie- its advancement. More recently, with all the in-the-sky. US cities such as San Francisco, current challenges associated with rapid San Diego, and New York, as well as more urbanization, the importance of making than 400 cities and municipalities in the cities liveable (“inclusive, safe, resilient European Union, 16 cities in Asia, including and sustainable”) has been adopted as an four in the Philippines, are transitioning important SDG (Goal 11).1 towards Zero Waste systems.5 There is global recognition that Zero Waste The Philippines, likewise, has institutionally policies at the city and municipal level are embraced Zero Waste, through Presidential among the crucial strategies for climate Proclamation No. 760, which declared resilience as well as resource sustainability.2 January as “Zero Waste Month.” Many initiatives and programs centered 2 WHY GO ZERO WASTE? RA 9003 law mandates the adoption of “a systematic, comprehensive, and ecological solid waste management program” which shall, among others: Zero Waste presents a robust strategy to a. “Ensure the protection of public solve a waste crisis in a city. health and environment; b. Utilize environmentally-sound It helps facilitate efficient segregation and methods that maximize the utilization collection systems, sets out doable and of valuable resources and encourage cost-effective solutions for the ecological resources conservation and recovery; management of organic waste, reduces c. Set guidelines and targets for consumption of wasteful products and solid waste avoidance and volume packaging, and presents viable alternatives reduction through source reduction to landfilling and incineration, which are and waste minimization measures, both acknowledged to be harmful, end-of- including composting, recycling, pipe, and expensive disposal technologies. re-use, recovery, green charcoal process, and others, before Implementing Zero Waste decreases collection, treatment, and disposal pressure on the environment, mitigates in appropriate and environmentally climate change, reduces pollution, improves sound solid waste management air quality, and supports local economic facilities in accordance with development and livelihoods. ecologically sustainable development principles.” Zero Waste strategies also support the achievement of Sustainable Development Currently, officials and lawmakers are Goal #11 targets, namely: grappling with the question of how to address growing waste volumes. What 11.6 - “reduce the adverse per capita can they do within their capacity that can environmental impact of cities, including by make significant positive impact on their paying special attention to air quality and city and constituents—without causing more municipal and other waste management,” environmental damage that will result from and landfills or waste incineration? 11.B - “substantially increase the number This paper seeks to respond to this need: of cities and human settlements adopting it aims to give local government leaders and implementing integrated policies and and policy makers recommendations for plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, policies that put Zero Waste in action and mitigation and adaptation to climate implement RA 9003, while demonstrating change, resilience to disasters…”.6 that Zero Waste is both practical and achievable. In the Philippines, Zero Waste strategies are the keys to successfully implementing RA 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act.7 3 Local government leaders are at the center of this transformation—and with strong support from the national level—can provide much-needed political will to spearhead their city’s or municipality’s journey to Zero Waste. ZERO WASTE: ‘RESOURCE MANAGEMENT’ VS ‘WASTE MANAGEMENT’ The concept of Zero Waste is a new wave of This concept is reflected in the way waste innovation in environmental planning and infrastructure was designed: as large-scale resource management. centralized facilities (landfills and waste incinerators), dependent on the hauling, It supersedes older and now-debunked delivery of large quantities of waste for models of waste management, particularly disposal, and availability of land. These facilities waste incineration, including waste-to-energy are prohibitively expensive, and developing incineration and its variants such as pyrolysis, countries are often heavily reliant on loans for gasification, plasma arc, and refuse-derived their construction. fuels. Waste incineration is banned in the Philippines under RA 8749 or the Clean Air Act The other drawback is pollution: landfills and of 1999 and RA 9003. incinerators produce harmful pollution. In contrast to waste incineration, Zero Waste Even the most technologically-advanced presents a holistic—and pollution-free—approach landfills leach out toxic chemicals. Similarly, that facilitates a circular, closed-loop system, waste incinerators are major sources of transforming the outdated concept of ‘waste pollution, specifically cancer-causing dioxins management’ to ‘resource management.’ and furans. These toxic chemicals are created during the burning process. Simply put, Zero Waste is Modern waste incinerators still produce dioxins, efficient resource management. furans, and heavy metal emissions. Their pollution control systems merely capture some It helps city planners (not all) of these toxic chemicals and transfer unlock a path that avoids them to by-product ash and slag. Even the most environmental destruction advanced pollution control systems do not capture all the toxics, so that governments need and its corresponding social, to put pollution emissions standards in place. health, and economic impacts. Moreover, the facility’s by-product ash or slag Thus, it is a fundamental part of still need to be disposed of in a specially enabling sustainable cities. designed hazardous waste landfill that can handle ash. (For more information about fly ash, see Annex 2: Can Philippine cities deal with it?) “Waste management”: Irrespective of whether the design and maintenance are good or bad, waste incinerator the old approach facilities pose very serious health risks to Until the previous century, the concept of ‘waste surrounding communities, and contribute to management’ was to take the waste and make it the global load of persistent organic pollutants ‘disappear’ by dumping in a landfill, or burning (POPs)—highly toxic chemicals subject to priority in a facility. elimination under the Stockholm Convention.8 4 In other aspects of environmental sustainability, A circular economy is an economy “that does landfills and incinerators destroy resources not waste and pollute, an economy that keeps rather than preserve them. This puts a lot of products and materials in use and rebuild pressure on the planet—creating the need for the natural capital of our ecosystems.”9 In this more extraction and production, which are model, the value of materials is preserved, and recognized as main drivers for much of the extraction is minimized; waste prevention is world’s environmental problems, including the key and disposal is not considered a sound climate change. strategy. Waste management was a model accepted in the 20th century. New thinking in 21st century, however, has revealed the pitfalls of the At the heart of the circular ‘linear economy’ where extraction and waste economy is the Zero disposal were the norm. Now, with a clearer understanding about the need to transition to a Waste approach. sustainable ‘circular economy’ (where resources are conserved rather than destroyed), and the efficiency of decentralized systems, ‘resource This shift from ‘waste’ to ‘resources’ is also management’ strategies are recognized as the illustrated in the Waste Hierarchy, a ranking of right approach. resource and waste management approaches according to ecological sustainability. Resource management: the path Zero Waste approaches are located at the top for future sustainability of the hierarchy, indicating that these are the With the change of perspective