Terminal Eval - SBESWMP
Terminal Eval - SBESWMP
Terminal Eval - SBESWMP
happy to know that this project survived and successfully attained its objectives despite
the overwhelming hurdles it faced during its implementation.
I would like to end this acknowledgement by believing that The business of CBESWMP
is making it the peoples business.
Acronyms
List of Acronyms
CBESWMPP
COA
DENR
EMB
ESWM
ESWMD
IEC
FPRE
HH
LGU
M&E
MMDA
MOA
MRF
MSMO
NGO
NSWMCS
PMO
PNR
SWM
SWMO
UNDP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Title
Page
Acknowledgement
Acronyms
Executive Summary
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.2.7
4.2.8
4.2.9
4.2.10
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
5.0
6.0
7.0
BRIEF BACKGROUND
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE FPREP
APPROACH AND METHODS
Approach and Method Adopted in the FPRE
Criteria Employed in the Evaluation of Project
Performance
Rating Employed
EVALUATION RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Project Objectives and Design
Project Performance Based on Evaluation Criteria
Barangay Compliance to RA 9003
Barangay Compliance to MOA
Relevance of the Project to the Needs of the LGU
Efficiency of Project Implementation
Effectiveness of Project Outputs
Project Benefits and Impacts
Sustainability Potential of Project Initiatives
Project Ownership and Stakeholder Participation
Replicability of the Project
Applicability and Usefulness of the Project Monitoring
and Evaluation System and IEC
Lessons Learned
Project Management and Coordination
Community Organizing and Information Campaign
Waste Segregation
Site Selection, Construction and Operations of MRF
Garbage Collection
Monitoring and Enforcement
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PHOTO DOCUMENTATIONS
PFRE SUMMARY POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
1
3
6
10
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
15
19
23
33
38
41
53
57
58
60
60
61
61
62
63
63
64
ANNEXES
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Title
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Brief Project Background
The Community-Based Ecological Solid Waste Management Programme (CBESWMP) is
funded by UNDP and implemented by MMDA from January 2002 to 2005 and by the
NSWMCS from January until December 2006 for its extension phase. The project aims to
establish a community-based ecological solid waste management system in pilot
barangays, which can serve as models for replication in other barangays; and to develop
the capability of barangay LGUs to implement RA 9003.
In accord with its objectives, the project has three major components, namely: 1) setting
up the CBESWMP system, 2) building up the capabilities of barangay implementers, and
3) developing the enabling tools for policy development from which a model shall evolve to
guide replication in other LGUs.
Final Project Review and Evaluation (FPRE) Study
This report presents the results and findings of the Final Project Review and Evaluation
(FPRE) study. The FPRE study reviewed and evaluated the performance of the
CBESWMP project in terms of its level of effectiveness, efficiency in the delivery of
outputs, benefits and impacts generated, and sustainability potential so that its design and
implementation can further be improved when it is replicated in other barangays.
The evaluation study covered all the 11 pilot barangays, the 10 solid waste management
offices of the City/Municipal LGUs, the implementing agencies MMDA, NSWMCS and
their PMOs, and the UNDP Program Officers for the project.
Pilot barangays and their LGUs which are included in the evaluation study are:
1) Sto. Nino, Paranaque City
2) Barangay 598, Manila City
3) Barangay 52, Caloocan City
4) Barangay 56, Caloocan City
5) Barangay VASRA, Quezon City
6) Barangay Niugan, Malabon City
7) Barangay Pilar, Las Pinas City
8) Barangay Rosario, Pasig City
9) Barangay Tanza, Navotas Municipality
10) Barangay COMEMBO, Makati City
11) Barangay Tunasan, Muntinlupa City
The triangulation method was employed in the evaluation study, wherein the data used
for analysis were derived from three sources: secondary data from project documents, the
survey data on perception and information from interviews and focus group discussions
involving the stakeholders from the pilot barangays and City/Municipality solid waste
management officers, and the survey data provided by respondents from implementing
agencies to include MMDA, NSWMCS, PMO and UNDP. The data and information
collected from the three sources were checked for their consistency and accuracy.
The participatory approach was adopted wherein the stakeholders were directly
involved in the rating of the performance of the project using the criteria prescribed in the
TOR of the study. The parameters used in evaluating the performance of the project were
evaluated by the stakeholders using a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 as the highest.
Cost effectiveness of the project was highest in barangays Sto. Nino, 598, 52 and 56. This
means that project investments were the lowest in these barangays and yet they produced
the highest effects in terms of changing the residents behavior on segregation. It should,
however, be mentioned that barangays 52, 56 and 598 did not receive investments on
MRF thereby lowering their project cost resulting in higher cost effectiveness. The other
barangays with moderate level of cost effectiveness are: Rosario (P707/HH), VASRA
(P841/HH) and Niugan (P863/HH). COMEMBOs improvement in compliance rate to
segregation was nil because even before the project was implemented it had already a
very high compliance rate of 98%. Thus, it was not cost effective for the project to invest in
COMEMBO. Even without the project, the barangay can do well on its own of maintaining
a high level of segregation rate.
Project Benefits and Impacts
Several benefits and impacts were brought about by the project and its components
to the stakeholders particularly the LGUs and the communities. These include:
1) employment and income to ecoaides, street sweepers, SWM enforcers, pushcart
vendors, junkshop workers from the sale of recyclables;
2) improved cleanliness of environment and minimized hazards to health;
3) minimized if not eradicated dumping of wastes on the sidewalks, streets and
vacant lots (including hanging of garbage bags on fences, threes and lamp posts);
4) minimized odor and spread of vermins (rats, flies and cockroaches);
5) improved discipline among households (segregation);
6) improved cooperation among households in proper disposal of wastes;
7) reduced the volume of wastes collected by garbage trucks and the volume
disposed in dumpsites/landfills extending the life span of dumpsites and sanitary
landfills);
8) reduced the number of trips of dump trucks resulting in savings by LGU on
garbage collection;
9) proper sorting and storage of recyclables made possible by MRFs; and
10) capacitated barangay LGUs on ESWM through training, IEC, planning and
provisions of equipment and facility (pushcarts, ecotrikes, MRF, composter,
computer, weighing scale, etc.).
Sustainability Potentials of the Project Initiatives
Sustainability of the CBESWMP project in pilot barangays is tacitly ensured due to several
driving factors:
1) political factors - compliance with the law and fear of being penalized,
2) economic factors - income from MRF and incentive payment for waste diversion
from City LGU,
3) environmental and social factors - clean environment, free from vectors of
diseases, and contented residents,
4) institutional factors - barangay has the capability or know how and basic facility for
ESWM, and
5) ethical factors - doing what is good for the residents, fulfilling what is expected of
barangay officials and fulfilling good governance system).
All the pilot barangays are confident that they can sustain the initiatives of the
project. The City/Municipal LGUs through their SWMOs also affirmed their commitment to
continually provide support the CBESWMP efforts of the pilot barangays.
10
11
2) to generate lessons learned from the implementation of the projects activities and
the outcomes achieved that will be useful for similar projects in the future for the
same sector; and
3) to develop specific recommendations for major stakeholder groups anchored on
the conclusions the different stakeholder groups will develop based on their own
recommendations and insights.
The FPRE examined the performance of the project in terms of the successful
implementation of its project components as follows:
1) Setting up the CBESWMP system, which is mainly comprised of: a) selection of
sites based on commitment, provision of counterpart budget, availability of SWM
plan and other criteria listed below, b) community organizing and planning, c)
infrastructure support MRF construction, composting sites, d) institutional
arrangements, which included a) core group formation, b) collection system, and c)
M&E system.
2) Capability building consisting of a) community planning, b) IEC design, production
and dissemination, c) study tours and exchange visits, and d) learning by doing.
3) Developing the enabling tools for policy implementation, which primarily involved:
a) the institutionalization of CBESWMP, and b) replication models based on best
practices.
3.0 APPROACH AND METHODS
3.1 Approach and Method Adopted in the FPRE
The evaluation study employed the triangulation method wherein the data and
information collected are checked for their consistency and accuracy against three
sources: secondary data in the form of project documents, the survey data on perception
and information provided by the respondents from pilot barangays and City/Municipality
solid waste management officers, and the survey data provided by respondents from
implementing agencies to include MMDA, NSWMCS, PMO and UNDP. Complemented by
his field observations, the primary and secondary data and information gathered were
analyzed by the Consultant.
The review and evaluation study adopted the participatory approach wherein the
stakeholders were directly involved in the rating of the performance of the project using the
criteria prescribed in the TOR of the study. The following steps were undertaken in the
evaluation process:
1) Review of project documents to examine project issues, problems and
accomplishments vis--vis objective and target outcomes of the project. The
project documents reviewed include: contracts and agreements between UNDP
and MMDA and NSWMCS, project reports, project fact sheets, IEC materials
(printed and AV materials), signed copy of MOA between barangays and PMO,
and implementing rules and regulations of IRR.
2) Preparation of evaluation instrument in the form of survey questionnaire. The
questionnaire was designed to generate responses that address the criteria for
evaluation. Four types of questionnaires were prepared and administered to key
respondents from barangay LGUs, SWMO of City/Municipality LGUs, implementing
agencies: MMDA, NSWMCS and UNDP-PMO, and UNDP.
12
3) The survey questionnaires were reviewed and commented by PMO and NSWMCS
staff and were revised accordingly. The revised survey questionnaires were then
tested in one barangay LGU and one SWAMO LGU and then refined for
administration to all target respondents.
4) Interviews were conducted in Tagalog and respondents from the barangays usually
included the barangay chairpersons and SWM Kagawads. In barangays wherein
other barangay officials joined the interview, the approach in generating responses
was shifted to a group discussion type but focusing on the questions being asked
(FGD approach). In 7 of the 11 barangays surveyed, the barangay chair was
present. Only the barangay chairpersons of barangays 52, 56, Rosario, and
VASRA, were not available during the time of the interview. Of the 10 LGU-SWM
Officers, only three were not available for the interview, namely: Manila, Muntinlupa
and Malabon although they fully filled-out and submitted the questionnaire sent to
them. The last batch to be interviewed included: NSWMCS top officials and staff,
PMO staff, and UNDP Program Officers. The former Project Directors of MMDA
were the first to be interviewed at the start of the evaluation study. The complete
list of respondents is given in Annex 1.
5) The results of the interviews were documented for reference of the NSWMCS and
UNDP in their future undertaking of similar projects.
6) The Project Evaluation Report which contains the results and findings of the
evaluation study was submitted and presented to UNDP-PMO, implementing
agencies, pilot barangays and LGU SWMO for information, validation and
comments.
The participatory review and evaluation process adopted gave an opportunity for the PMO,
NSWMCS, Barangay LGUs, and City SWM participants to exchange learning experiences,
ideas and suggestions. The interview sessions and FGDs also gave the stakeholders the
opportunity to assess the project and at the same time self-evaluate their level of
performance in the implementation of the project and compliance with RA 9003. The
participatory process is axiomatically a social learning process and the stakeholders have
ownership of the results of the evaluation study including its recommendations.
3.2 Criteria Employed in the Evaluation of Project Performance
The participatory review and evaluation rated the performance of the project in terms of
the following criteria established by the implementing agencies:
1) Compliance to RA 9003 and the projects MOA,
2) Relevance of the project to the needs of the LGUs,
3) Efficiency of project implementation,
4) Effectiveness of project implementation,
5) Project benefits and impacts,
6) Sustainability potentials of the project initiatives,
7) Project ownership and stakeholders participation,
8) Replicability of the project, and
9) Applicability and usefulness of the projects M&E system and IEC.
3.3 Rating employed
A rating system, using a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 as the highest score, was used in the
evaluation of the projects performance in terms of the criteria adopted. The rating for the
aforementioned criteria was done by the stakeholders who responded to the
13
interviews and focus-group discussions that were conducted. Depending on the criteria,
either the average or the mode of the ratings was derived to draw out conclusions.
4.0 EVALUATION RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This chapter presents the summary tables that were mainly derived from the results of the
stakeholders survey. The tables show the ratings made by the respondents to the criteria
that were adopted in the evaluation study. Although most of the tables provide quantitative
results of evaluation, some tables are descriptive. All the tables serve as the bases for
analyzing the results of the evaluation study.
4.1 Project Objectives and Design
Overall, the objectives of the project were generally attained; however, the objective
on the institutionalization of instruments (tools and models) and appropriate
implementation mechanisms relevant to SWM at the community level was somewhat
operationally vague and difficult to evaluate. The PMO cited its IEC and M&E system
accomplishments as part of this objective. However, the development and
institutionalization of tools and models should appropriately be contextualized in terms of
the documentation of workable and practical systems of implementing CBESWMP, which
is equivalent to best practices that emerged in pilot barangays; and laying the groundwork
for the adoption or replication of the LGUs of these best practices in their other barangays.
Nonetheless, the PMO, under the initiatives of the NSWMCS, was able to document and
print the CBESWMP guidebooks towards the closing month of the project.
The following objectives of the project were satisfactorily met with the first objective
even surpassed:
1) to contribute to meeting the target of increasing recycling level from 4% at the
household level to at least 10% by the year 2010; and
2) a developed community-based ESWM system which can be adopted by LGUs with
strong support from NGOs and POs.
One deliverable mentioned in the original project document that was not accomplished is
the linking-up of the CBESWMPP with the Local EPM of the DENR. The planned
educational tours of representatives from pilot barangays to learn from the ESWM
experience of Tagbilaran, Bohol, Cagayan de Oro and Lipa City, Batangas did not
materialize. Instead, the participants were brought to San Fernando, La Union, Baguio City
and San Fernando, Pampanga to showcase the best practices on ESWM in these areas.
In addition, the manual cum educational modules on community-based planning and
management of ESWM, which is intended to guide project implementers at the start of the
project, was only produced during the end of the project hence, defeating its purpose.
These manuals and guidebooks can still serve their purpose when CBESWMP is
replicated in other barangays. At present, the experience on CBESWMP of Tanza is
currently being replicated in other barangays in Navotas.
Something must also be said about the criteria for selecting pilot project barangays, which
were employed by the projects implementing agency the MMDA. Pilot barangays were
selected based on the following criteria:
1) willingness and commitment of Mayor and local officials and solid waste managers
as expressed by their submission of the CBESWMP core group composition with
at least 5 members;
2) number of households is between 1,000 to 1,500 only;
3) not a village or subdivision;
14
The compliance of the pilot barangays to the key provisions of RA 9003 was rated by their
respective respondents consisting of barangay officials (Barangay Chairperson, Kagawad
for SWM and other officials). Table 1 shows the compliance rating before the project and
during the project.
Before the project, six (6) barangays of the total 11 pilot barangays or 55% did not have a
written SWM plan; 7 barangays (64%) were not strictly enforcing segregation and
households were not into recycling of wastes; 9 barangays (82%) were not composting; 9
barangays (82%) did not have an MRF; and 8 barangays were not strictly enforcing the
prohibition against dumping and burning of wastes. In summary, the survey results
show that before the project, most of the pilot barangays were not able to comply
with the key provisions of RA 9003.
During the implementation of the project, most of the barangays got the opportunity
to comply with RA 9003s key provisions. Seventy three percent (73%) of the
respondents gave a high rating (8 and above) of their compliance in strictly enforcing the
dumping or burning of wastes; 63% gave high rating of their compliance with recycling and
MRF establishment; and 45% gave high rating of their compliance with waste segregation
and preparation of SWM plan (Table 1).
4.2.2
The MOAs between the project and the pilot barangays were signed only during the
extension phase of the project in 2006 under the NSWMCS. The MOA requires that the
15
latter should meet the following requirements: site for MRF, materials and facilities for
MRF, personnel to supervise the MRF operations, sustain the operations of the MRF,
ensure that junkshops are sanitary and orderly, and submit monthly monitoring reports on
recyclables to the project.
All the barangays complied with the provisions of the MOA related to MRF, except
for Barangays 52, 56 and 598, which found no suitable sites for MRF (Table 2). Of the
8 barangays compliant to MRF establishment, 5 barangays, namely: VASRA, Niugan,
Tanza, COMEMBO and Tunasan did not provide materials and facilities for MRF
construction. The cost of construction was entirely borne by the project.
All the barangays monitor closely and keep tab of the cleanliness and orderly of junkshops
within their jurisdiction. Only barangay Rosario reported that they do not have junkshop
located within the barangay. Of the 11 pilot barangays, only barangays 52, VASRA and
Niugan have missed some months in the submission of monthly monitoring reports due to
various reasons: computer breakdown, delayed inputs by Ecoaides, and lack of literacy in
computer operations. These barangays are now trying to catch up with their backlogs.
16
Burning/dumping
prohibitions
W/o
W/ proj
proj
7
9
AE
9
AE
9
AE
NR
No
10
AE
9
1
10
AE
NR
5
9
AE
NR
AE
9
10/11
11/11
17
Submit monthly
monitoring
reports
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
8/11
18
4.2.3
Eight of the 11 pilot barangays (73%) gave a high rating (8 and above) on the
importance of the project to their SWM efforts (Table 3). The rest of the barangays,
namely: barangays 598, VASRA and Pilar also gave a good rating of 7 to the project in
terms of its relevance to the needs of the locality. The project was viewed as a vehicle
that facilitated the implementation of the barangays mandate on ESWM.
About 70% of the barangays which gave ratings, graded MMDA and NSWMCS with a
high mark (8 and above) in terms of the support they provided in the implementation of
the project in the locality (Table 3). All the barangays gave a very high rating to their core
group because of the high level of support the members provided in the implementation
of the project activities.
For the project to be more relevant to the LGUs needs as far as their mandate on SWM
is concerned, the pilot barangays gave several suggestions (Table 4), some of which are
unique to their case while the others they commonly share. In summary, the pilot
barangays suggested the following improvements in the design and
implementation of the project, in the event of its replication, so that it will be more
responsive to the needs of barangays:
1) more intensive IEC campaign to cover all households in the barangay especially
depressed or squatter areas;
2) efficient garbage collection and more intensive collection in areas near rivers and
creeks;
3) encourage composting at the household level in their backyards or using
containers such as big pots;
4) composting machine and equipment for barangays with potential supply of
compostable materials such as those collected from wet markets;
5) better and sturdier ecotrikes should be purchased to maximize their life span;
6) adequate training for barangay implementers including their private cooperators
and volunteers;
7) involve schools and school children in segregation and collection of recyclables
in their homes;
8) enforcement of fines and penalties (violation tickets) to violators; and
9) deputize more SWM enforcers.
19
20
21
Barangay
Tanza
Barangay
COMEMBO
Barangay
Tunasan
22
4.2.4
Barangay 598 - The barangay failed to get a permit from the City Government
for the use of its lot to construct the MRF building. The City Council was not able
to meet the request of the project to issue an ordinance for the deed of donation
of the land where the MRF will be located. Moreover, the site was found to be
easily flooded and would require earthworks and concreting to elevate it which
would entail additional cost. But according to the barangay officials, they
submitted all requirements for the establishment of an MRF but the construction
was delayed due to the revision in the design of the MRF. They claimed that the
former PMO disapproved the inclusion of a comfort room in the design.
Eventually, no MRF was constructed even a mobile MRF because the streets are
two narrow for the container van to pass through.
Barangay 52 Unfortunately, the barangay was not able to find a suitable space
for a bigger MRF. The prospective site is located in the land owned by PNR but
there is an existing claim on this land by a private individual who is reportedly a
23
Barangay 56 - No MRF building was constructed under the project due to the
absence of a suitable site. The site identified near the railroad is not suitable
because it will be covered under the expansion plan of the South Rail Project.
Temporary MRF (2x2 meters in size) is located inside the barangay office to
store recyclables.
The difficulties encountered by the different pilot barangays in the construction of MRF,
which upset the projects timetable are briefly discussed below.
Barangay Sto. Nino There was difficulty in locating a site that is owned by the
government. If the volume of recyclable wastes grows, a bigger and permanent
MRF is planned to be constructed in a government land along JP Rizal. The site
poses no problem because there are no nearby residential areas.
Barangay Niugan The barangay had difficulty in locating available space for
MRF construction. At the same time, residents object to MRF because they think
it is dirty, noisy and emits foul odor. A mobile MRF (20-foot van located in the
sidewalk across the fire station) was instead constructed. The mobile MRF is
currently used for storing dry materials like cartons and papers. The barangays
old temporary MRF located at the barangay hall is used to store bottles, glass, tin
cans and other greasy recyclable materials. The mobile MRF is always
maintained dry clean and also used as a sleeping quarter of the lone Ecoaide of
the barangay.
Barangay Pilar The barangay had no problem with MRF establishment since
the barangay LGU provided the lot and building and the project provided for the
expansion of the MRF. The MRF is an extension of the existing barangay
building located at the back of the barangay hall.
Barangay Tanza The barangay attributes the delay in the construction of its
MRF to the inactivity of the PMO during the period when the project was
transferred from the MMDAs Solid Waste Management Office (SWMO) to the
Metropolitan Sanitation Management Office (MSMO). The period when MRF
construction became inactive, according to the barangay Chair, lasted for twelve
months (January December 2005), which was the transition period for the
PMO. PMO2 was then transferred to NSWMCS DENR starting January 2006
during which project activities were continued including the completion of the
construction of MRF. Hence, most of the MRFs in the different pilot barangays
were inaugurated from March to May 2006.
24
Barangay Rosario Before the project, the barangay has a mini-MRF in the
form of a 4x4 cubicle. The selected site for MRF construction along ROTC was
occupied by a funeral parlor. Thus, the barangay opted for the construction of a
mobile MRF instead. However, the mobile MRF can not also pass through the
narrow street of the selected site. Another site was selected; it is located in the
Clean and Green Department Office of the barangay and it is where the mobile
MRF now resides. Even the other Puroks of the barangay outside the scope of
the project area are now also serviced by the MRF.
Barangay Tunasan The barangay did not report any significant problem they
encountered in the construction of its MRF. Their problem at present is that the
City LGU has also its own MRF located inside the barangay. The Citys MRF
reportedly competes with the projects MRF and a cause of friction between the
barangay MRF manager and the Citys Solid Waste Management Officer.
25
temporary MRF (5x2 meters) in the former barangay office. The Ecoaides are
only allowed to place the wastes in the collection point during the time the
garbage truck is scheduled to arrive. Solid wastes disposed by households are
partially segregated but the garbage truck collects even mixed wastes. Another
problem in the implementation of the project was that about 50% of the
households did not attend meetings and seminars on proper waste disposal
conducted by the barangay.
Barangay Niugan About 10% of the households illegally dump their wastes in
the sidewalks, streets and river. Most of those who are lazy to segregate their
wastes are located in depressed areas of the barangay. Delay in the collection of
garbage by dump trucks causes the accumulation of garbage bags in the
sidewalks and streets of the barangay. Collection is door-to-door but even mixed
garbage is collected and there is no color coding of plastic bags. The households
keep their wastes in their waste bins which they keep inside their homes to keep
the sidewalk free from obstruction. During the scheduled day of collection, when
the garbage truck arrives, the barangay announces through their megaphones or
the trucks blow their horn to alert the households to bring out their wastes. The
barangay occasionally suffers from the pollution of mass of wastes carried by
water runoff or floods from upstream barangays. This incident burdens the
barangays clean-up efforts and in maintaining cleanliness of its surroundings.
26
Barangay Tanza - Some households living near the river throw their wastes into
it. This prompted the barangay to form the Bantay Ilog (River Watch) groups to
monitor and apprehend violators. Some areas are used as dumping sites by
some non-compliant households and these areas are closely monitored by the
barangays ecoenforcers to catch violators. Heaps of wastes from other
barangays find their way into the Tanza river (Navotas rivers) through the
Tullahan river (a highly polluted and dead river). Most of the wastes reaching the
Tanza river come from Pier 18 and the Metro Manila cities and municipalities.
The burden of cleaning these wastes in the river is shouldered by the barangay
of Tanza. With regards to the operations of the barangays MRF, seed money of
P50,000 is needed by MRF operators to buy recyclables since many households
are already selling their recyclables.
Barangay Rosario - The garbage collection trucks, which are contracted by the
City LGU collect mixed wastes. The garbage truck collectors segregate the
recyclables from the mixed wastes. Segregation is not compulsory in the
collection of garbage in the barangay.
27
28
29
Many Barangay Officials lack knowledge about the provisions of RA 9003. Furthermore,
the Barangay LGUs capability to monitor, and sustain operations of CBESWMP is still
weak and would require capability building and technical support.
Factors Affecting the Efficiency of Project Implementation
There were several factors that delayed and facilitated the implementation of the project
components and activities. These factors are enumerated in Table 6 from the
perspective of the implementing agencies such as the MMDA/PMO1, NSWMCS, PMO2
and UNDP.
The common factors delaying the implementation of the project were: 1)
bureaucratic system in funds management resulted in late releases of funds; 2) unclear
roles and responsibilities of Project Director and Project Manager; 3) less active
participation of some barangay Chairs; 4) poor enforcement of RA 9003; 5) inactivity of
MMDA-PMO and failure to communicate to barangay LGUs during project management
transition period; 6) difficulty in acquiring sites for MRF construction.
On the other hand, the implementation of the project was facilitated by the following
factors: 1) high competency of PMO1 and PMO2; 2) good cooperation and support
from barangay officials; 3) active participation of household community groups and
NGOs, 4) better coordination between City/Municipal LGUs - SWAMO and NSWMCS; 5)
full support by NSWMCS top officials; 6) dedicated and committed PMO staff; 7)
simplified system of fund management involving faster processing, approval and
releases of funds; 8) strong leadership of some barangay Chairs and Kagawads; and 9)
better social preparation of communities through community organizing.
30
Facilitating Factors
Knowledgeable, active and
determined head of the PMO
of MMDA.
The active participation of
some barangaycaptains and
many of the Kagawads on
SWM.
31
32
The performance of PMO1 and PMO2 was rated by the respondents from the pilot
barangays. All the barangays gave ratings on the performance of PMO1 while ten
barangays provided ratings for PMO2. The results of the ratings are provided in Table 8.
Both PMOs got satisfactory rating in managing the implementation of the project.
Of the 11 barangays, 9 gave PMO1 a very high rating of 8 and above. PMO2 got a high
rating of 8 and above from 9 of the 10 barangays which rated them.
Table 8. Performance Rating of PMO
Barangay
Performance Rating
PMO1
PMO2
Bgy. Sto. Nino
9
8
Bgy. 598
8
8
Bgy. 52
9
9
Bgy. 56
5
10
Bgy. VASRA
9
9
Bgy. Niugan
8
9
Bgy. Pilar
10
NR
Bgy. Rosario
8
10
Bgy. Tanza
5
10
Bgy. COMEMBO
9
9
Bgy. Tunasan
8
7
Average
8.0
8.9
PMO1 January 2002 to December 2004 (36 months)
PMO2 July 2005 to October 2006 (16 months)
NR no response. Respondents are not sure or confident on what rating to give.
4.2.5
The effectiveness of the project outputs was measured in two ways: 1) based on the
rating of the pilot barangay LGUs and the City/Municipality solid waste management
officers; and 2) based on project cost effectiveness index.
Effectiveness Rating of Outputs by Barangay LGUs
The effectiveness ratings of the projects outputs made by the pilot barangay LGUs are
shown in Table 9. The project outputs, which were rated according to their level of
effectiveness include: site selection for MRF, community organizing, participatory SWM
planning, IEC materials and campaign, training conducted, segregation, door-to-door
and unified SWM, MRF building/van, wooden pushcarts, ecotrikes, and M&E system.
Almost all the projects outputs were rated very high (8 and above) in terms of
their effectiveness by majority of the respondents from pilot barangays (Table 9).
Most remarkable is the very high rating (8 and above) given by all the 11 barangays
(100%) to the effectiveness of the training conducted by the project. Similarly, the IEC
materials and campaign got a very high rating from 10 of the 11 barangays. Community
organizing, and participatory ESWM planning, also did very well with 9 of the barangays
giving them very high rating.
33
The other project outputs that got very high effectiveness rating from the pilot barangays
are: M&E system (9 out of the total 9 barangays which responded); ecotrikes (also 9 out
of 9 respondents); and wooden pushcarts (4 out of 5 respondents since some of the
barangays did not receive pushcarts). The output on door-to-door and unified SWM
information materials got a very high rating from 7 of the 9 pilot barangays which
responded to the question item.
Comparatively, the project outputs which got low ratings (i.e., the least number of
high ratings) from the respondent barangays include the site selection of MRF,
segregation of wastes and the construction of MRF building.
Effectiveness Rating of Outputs by City/Municipality Solid Waste Management
Officers
The solid waste management officers interviewed gave very high rating (8 and above)
on the effectiveness and level of success of the following deliverables of the project: IEC
materials and campaign (10 out of 10 respondents gave very high rating); collection of
recyclables (8 out of 9 respondents); and training and orientation seminars (8 out of 10
respondents).
The project deliverables, which got a fair number of respondents giving them very high
rating include: community organizing and planning (7 out of 10 respondents) and MRF
operations (7 out of 10 respondents). Two respondents gave their MRF operations a low
rating, namely: Manila with a rating of 3 and Las Pinas with 4. These ratings can be
interpreted that MRF operations are only 30% successful in Manila and 40% successful
in Las Pinas.
The level of effectiveness or level of success of segregation in the pilot barangays
got the lowest number of respondents (5 out of 10) who gave it a very high rating. In
particular, the respondents from Manila and Las Pinas gave a low rating of 5 to the
effectiveness or level of success of segregation. Three other respondents, namely:
Quezon City, Malabon and Muntinlupa rated the level of success of segregation with 7.
These results can be interpreted that segregation is only 50% effective in Manila and
Las Pinas and 70% effective in Quezon City, Malabon and Muntinlupa. These results
verify earlier findings about the difficulty of implementing segregation in the pilot
barangays.
The results of the ratings obtained from the barangay respondents more or less match
those of the City/Municipality respondents. In summary, the project deliverables
which have a high level of effectiveness and success based on the outcomes of
the rating made by both the barangay and City/Municipal respondents are IEC,
training, and community organizing. The level of success of MRF operations was
rated fair by the two groups of respondents (i.e., 6-7 out of 10 respondents gave it high
rating of 8 and above). The effectiveness of segregation was rated low by both
cohorts of respondents.
Project Cost Effectiveness Index
Cost effectiveness index refers to the cost effectiveness of project investment in
changing, ceteris paribus, the behavior of households in terms of complying with
segregation rule. The index is the amount of investment spent in changing the behavior
34
of a household to adopt segregation. The lower is the index; the higher is the cost
effectiveness.
Based on PMO2 data derived from the reports submitted by the pilot barangays, only
two barangays reported compliance to segregation before the project was implemented:
Barangays Pilar (49%) and COMEMBO (98%). The rest of the 9 barangays either did
not comply nor had very minimal compliance level. When the project was
implemented, all the eleven barangays were able to comply with the segregation
rule of RA 9003. The following barangays registered the highest compliance rate (Table
11): COMEMBO was able to maintain its pre-project compliance rate of 98%; Niugan
(70%); VASRA (66%); Tunasan (62%); and Rosario (60%). Five barangays reported a
compliance rate of above 40%, namely: Barangay 598 (50%), Sto. Nino (55%), Tanza
(49%) and 52 and 56 (43%).
The top two barangays which posted the highest cost effectiveness in changing
the behavior of households towards segregation are: Sto. Nino (P313.54/HH) and
Barangay 598 (P389.47/HH). Table 11 shows the cost effectiveness index of the other
barangays. The other barangays with moderate level of cost effectiveness are: 52 and
56 (P697/HH), Rosario (P707/HH), VASRA (P841/HH) and Niugan (P863/HH).
COMEMBOs improvement in compliance rate to segregation was nil because even
before the project was implemented it had already a very high compliance rate of 98%.
Thus, it was not cost effective for the project to invest in COMEMBO. The barangay
can do well on its own of maintaining a high level of segregation rate even without the
project.
35
36
Table 10. Effectiveness and Level of Success Rating of Main Project Outputs by City/Municipality LGU
Effectiveness and Level of Success Rating
City/Mun. LGU
Solid Waste
Community
IEC materials
Training and
Segregation
Collection of
Management
organizing &
and campaign
orientation
recyclables
Officers
planning
seminars
Paranaque
9
9
9
8
9
Manila
5
8
7
5
8
Caloocan
8
10
10
8
10
Quezon City
8
8
6
7
8
Malabon
9
9
9
7
9
Las Pinas
6
10
10
5
NR
Pasig
8
10
9
8
9
Navotas
10
9
10
8
8
Makati
9
9
9
9
9
Muntinlupa
7
9
9
7
7
Average
7.9
9.1
8.8
7.2
8.5
MRF operations
9
3
8
7
8
4
9
9
9
9
7.5
37
Cost
Total
Number of Effectiveness
Index
Households
Php/HH
Within the
Project
Area
2,967
313.54
Bgy. Sto.
511,664
0
55
Nino
Bgy. 598
475,164
0
50
2,440
Bgy. 52
475,164
0
43
832
Bgy. 56
753
Bgy.
818,500
0
66
1,473
VASRA
Bgy.
636,514
0
70
1,053
Niugan
Bgy. Pilar
737,247
49
66
1,391
Bgy.
636,720
0
60
1,500
Rosario
Bgy. Tanza
756,022
0
49
1,136
Bgy.
1,208,787
98
98
3,026
COMEMBO
Bgy.
894,645
0
62
1,507
Tunasan
*Project expenditures as of June 2006
**PMO data as of 2006 based on reports gathered from barangays.
4.2.6
389.47
697.18
841.92
863.53
3,117.71
707.46
1,358.18
1,208,787
977.51
The project apparently brought about several benefits and impacts to the stakeholders
particularly the LGUs and the communities. The most significant benefits and
impacts of the CBESWMP project are as follows:
1) generated income from sale of recyclables which benefited the households,
barangay ecoaides, street sweepers, ambulant vendors, garbage truck collectors
and junkshops;
2) provided employment to ecoaides, street sweepers, SWM enforcers, pushcart
vendors, junkshop workers from the sale of recyclables and keeping the
environment clean;
3) improved cleanliness of environment and minimized hazards to health;
4) minimized if not eradicated dumping of wastes on the sidewalks, streets and
vacant lots (including hanging of garbage bags on fences, threes and lamp
posts);
5) minimized odor and spread of vermins (rats, flies and cockroaches);
6) improved discipline among households (segregation);
7) improved cooperation among households in proper disposal of wastes;
8) reduced the volume of wastes collected by garbage trucks and the volume
disposed in dumpsites/landfills extending the life span of dumpsites and sanitary
landfills);
38
Knowledge
and skills of
bgy
personnel in
ESWM
9
Bgy. Sto.
8
9
8
8
Nino
Bgy. 598
9
9
6
10
Bgy. 52
10
9
3
4
Bgy. 56
10
10
9
NR
Bgy. VASRA
9
8
7
8
Bgy. Niugan
7
NR
8
8
Bgy. Pilar
NR
8
6
NR
Bgy. Rosario
9
9
9
7
Bgy. Tanza
9
9
9
9
Bgy.
10
9
9
8
COMEMBO
Bgy.
NR
8
7
5
Tunasan
Average
9.00
8.80
7.36
7.44
*Rating of projects impacts in reducing the volume of wastes (waste diversion).
NR no response. Respondents cannot provide a reliable rating.
9
NR
10
8
8
8
10
8
10
8
8.00
39
waste diversion at 80%. Three barangays, namely: 598, Rosario and Tunasan reduced
the volume of their wastes collected by dump trucks by half (50%) while barangays Sto.
Nino and Tanza posted a waste diversion rate of 40% and 30%, respectively. At the
bottom of the list are barangays 56 and Niugan which accomplished 25% and 15%
diversion rate, respectively. Three barangays (52, VASRA and Pilar) did not submit an
estimate of their waste diversion rate.
Table 13. Project Impact on Waste Diversion* of Pilot Barangays
Barangay
Waste reduction (%)*
Bgy. Sto. Nino
40
Bgy. 598
50
Bgy. 52
NR
Bgy. 56
25
Bgy. VASRA
NR
Bgy. Niugan
15
Bgy. Pilar
NR
Bgy. Rosario
50
Bgy. Tanza
30
Bgy. COMEMBO
80
Bgy. Tunasan
50
Average
42.5
*Estimate on the reduction in the volume of wastes disposed in dumpsites as provided
by key respondents.
NR no response.
The respondents from the pilot barangays gave the following accounts on the benefits
and impacts of the project, particularly on waste diversion:
Barangay Rosario Before the project, two trucks per day were needed to
collect the garbage in the barangay. Now, only one truck is needed daily.
Barangay Sto. Nino Before 5 trucks per day were needed to collect garbage in
the barangay; now only 1-2 trucks are needed to collect the wastes in the
barangay.
Barangay 598 There was a 50% increase in the volume of recycled materials
during project implementation. The project was also able to help the barangay in
its efforts to comply with RA 9003. The implementers of the project were able to
gain knowledge on the proper ways of disposing solid wastes such as
segregation and recycling. They also learned to appreciate the economic benefits
of recycling such as the use of waste materials in making flower vases, bags,
Christmas lanterns and other home decors. Before, there were lots of
households who throw their wastes in the streets, but now there are only a very
few left.
40
materials are recyclables and bought by junkshops. In one party given by the
Mayor, the hundreds of used packs of Zesto juice drink were collected by the
children making the venue clean of litter after the big party. The children also
collect tin cans, newspapers, cartons and other recyclables which they sell in
junkshops.
Barangay COMEMBO The barangay was able to achieve 80% reduction in the
volume of wastes disposed in dumpsites. Before the project, the garbage trucks
made 3-4 trips per day; now only 1-2 trips are made daily.
Barangay Tunasan Before the project, the number of trucks that collect the
garbage was about 10 but now this was reduced by half with only 5 trucks
adequate enough to collect the wastes from the pilot site. The residents have
even learned to sell their recyclables directly to the junkshop because of the
good price they get and the additional income they earn from trash. There is now
a 50% reduction in the volume of wastes thrown in the dumpsite.
There are a number of good reasons why pilot barangays will be able to sustain project
initiatives:
1) they have already acquired the know-how;
2) they have the facility and equipment (MRF, pushcarts, ecotrikes, etc.);
3) they have experienced and enjoyed the benefits of segregation and recycling;
41
4) they are earning income from MRF operations that will be the source of funds to
maintain the facility and equipment;
5) they have already established partnership with and given support by core
groups, NGOs and village organizations which will also monitor and push them to
deliver whenever they seem to becoming dormant;
6) they have brought out champions and leaders on ESWM;
7) they have already acquired the cooperation of a large number of residents and
have mobilized school children in segregation and recycling;
8) they have the mandate to comply with RA 9003 and will be penalized for noncompliance; and
9) they are inspired and proud of their achievement in keeping their surroundings
clean.
In brief, the barangays are driven to sustain the projects initiatives due to political
factors (compliance with the law and fear of being penalized), economic factors
(income from MRF and incentive payment for waste diversion from City LGU),
environmental and social factors (clean environment, free from vectors of
diseases,
and satisfied residents), institutional factors (barangay has the
capability or know how and basic facility for ESWM), and ethical factors (doing
what is good for the residents, fulfilling what is expected of barangay officials and
local governance system).
The success of the barangay in sustaining the project initiatives also depend on the
support of the City LGU. The City LGU should be able to maintain its efficient collection
of garbage and provide guidance, capability building and economic incentive to
barangays.
All the pilot barangays, except barangay 598, are confident that they can sustain
the project initiatives on segregation and IEC campaign (Table 14). However, almost
half of the pilot barangays (45%) either find it difficult or will not be able to sustain
training on CBESWMP because they lack the capability to do so.
Training can be sustained by majority of the barangays except 598 and VASRA, which
find it difficult by themselves to continue the training on SWM. Barangays 52 and 56 are
convinced that they can not do the training by themselves.
Funding for the MRF operations could also be sustained according to the respondents,
except for barangays 56, 52 and 598, which were not provided MRF by the project.
Table 14. Capacity of Barangay to Sustain Project Initiatives
Capacity to Sustain Project Initiatives
Barangay
Segregation
IEC
Training
Funding for
MRF
Operations*
Bgy. Sto. Nino
Yes
yes
yes
yes
Bgy. 598
Difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
Bgy. 52
Yes
yes
no
difficult
Bgy. 56
Yes
yes
no
no
Bgy. VASRA
Yes
yes
difficult
yes
Bgy. Niugan
Yes
yes
no
NR
42
Bgy. Pilar
Bgy. Rosario
Bgy. Tanza
Bgy.
COMEMBO
Bgy. Tunasan
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Yes
yes
yes
yes
10/11
10/11
7/11
7/11
*Operations and maintenance of MRF, ecobikes, pushcarts, and M&E system
Selling recyclables guarantees the sustenance of the operations of the MRF, maintains
existing equipment (pushcarts and ecotrikes, weighing scales) and buying of new ones.
The income from MRFs will also sustain the employment of ecoaides and street
sweepers.
Most of the recyclables collected by the barangays and stored in their MRFs are given
free by the households although some MRFs are starting to buy from households to
compete with junkshop agents. Many low-income residents are already selling their
recyclables because of the good price they get from junkshops and this lessens through
time the volume of recyclable materials obtained free by the barangay MRFs. The
barangays anticipate the fact that in the near future, they have to buy recyclables from
the households to stay in the business of getting income from recycling to sustain the
operations of their MRFs and to support other operations of their ESWM efforts.
At present, the barangays are getting monthly incomes ranging from a low of P700
to a high of P50,000 from the sales of the recyclables they collect (Table 15). Most
of the pilot barangays sell their recyclables to big junkshops outside of their barangays
because of the good price they get from these junkshops. A big percentage of the
income they get goes to the ecoaides and MRF operators and a moderate share goes to
the barangay.
Table 15. Income from Recyclables
Monthly
Monthly
Barangay
Mode of
income
cost of
acquiring
from
buying
recyclables
selling
recyclables
from
recyclables
households
Barangay
Given free
NR
5,000/day?
Sto. Nino
70%;
Buy 30%
Barangay
598
Barangay 52
Given free
80%; Buy20%
Given free
Location of
Junkshops
where
recyclables
are sold
Outside of
barangay
big
junkshops
NR
4,500
Outside
junkshops
NA
1,400
Outside
junkshops
Disposition of
Income from
Recyclables
30% to bgy
committee on
health and
sanitation;
70% to NGO
operators of
MRF
All income
goes to
ecoaides
30% to
ecoaide; 70%
to barangay
MRF
43
maintenance.
Ecoaides;
Rental for
tricycle
service; lunch
for MMDA
personnel
declogging
canals
Barangay
Given free
NA
6,000
Outside
Ecoaides;
VASRA
junkshop
maintenance
of MRF
Barangay
Given free
NA
1,200
Outside
Ecoaide;
Niugan
junkshops
Maintenance
of MRF and
ecobikes
Barangay
Buy
P2,500/day
50,000
Outside
10% to
Pilar
junkshops
Ecoboys; 10%
to bgy; 80%
MRF
(junkshop)
operator
Barangay
Given free
NA
3,600
Outside bgy
10% - bgy;
Rosario
90% ecoaides
Inside
Ecoaides and
Barangay
Given free
NA
Bgy MRF
junkshops
MRF
Tanza
P1,500
maintenance.
Schools
School income
P700
for school
projects.
Barangay
Mostly given
NA
P9,000Outside
Ecoenforcers
COMEMBO
free
12,000
junkshops
and street
sweepers;
25% bgy MRF
Barangay
Given free
NR
P5,000
Outside
Ecoaide Tunasan
70%; buy
junkshops
100%
30%
(maintenance
of MRF
ecobikes and
pushcarts)
NR no response. Respondents cannot make a good estimate of the cost they shelled
out in buying recyclables from households.
NA not applicable.
Barangay 56
Given free
NA
800
Outside and
inside
junkshops
In the past years, when only few of the households were selling their recyclables to
junkshops, the monthly incomes that the barangays earned from the recyclables were
quite substantial. For example, COMEMBO used to get P20,000 per month and VASRA
with P12,000 per month
44
45
46
47
Navotas
Makati
Muntinlupa
48
Private contractor
Quezon
City
Autonomous
barangays have
their own garbage
trucks and as a
form of incentive
the City
government pays
them the equivalent
amount they spend
for hauling their
wastes to the
dumpsite.
Private contractor
Malabon
Collection schedule is
followed
Collection schedule is
followed
Collection schedule if
followed except in times
of bad weather, high
tides and breakdown of
49
trucks.
Collection schedule of 2
trips once a week by
garbage truck is
followed. During ordinary
days, garbage is
collected by the
barangay multi-cabs and
pushcarts.
Collection schedule is
followed
Las Pinas
LGU owns 70
trucks
Pasig
Private Contractors
Navotas
Owns 9 garbage
trucks with 4 new
ten wheeler truck
arriving.
Collection schedule is
followed.
Makati
Private contractors.
Muntinlupa
Private contractor
Collection schedule is
followed. Delayed
collection happens
during heavy rains when
there is long queue in
dumpsites.
Collection schedule is
followed with 70% rating
Door-to-door collection is
followed. HH only bring out their
wastes when the truck arrives.
Door-to-door is adopted. HH
only brings out their garbage
when the truck arrives
50
Table 18. Implementation of the Segregation Rule and Achievement on Waste Diversion by the City/Municipality
% of
Date of
City/
Waste
Difficulties in Implementing the
Reaction of Households to NonBarangays
Waste
Municipality
Diversi
Segregation Rule
collection of
Complying
Diversion
on rate
Unsegregated Wastes
to
Record
(%)
Segregation
Rule
Paranaque
16
54
October
2006
Manila
51
24
May 2006
Caloocan
17
May 2006
Quezon City
26
30
May 2006
Malabon
38
May 2006
Las Pinas
25
40
October
2006
Pasig
50
20
October
51
2006
Navotas
14
20
May 2006
Makati
33
54
October
2006
Muntinlupa
24
21
June 2006
Average
28
28
* Percent of barangays in the City/Municipality complying with the segregation rule of no collection of non-segregated garbage as
of May 2006.
52
4.2.8
The strong cooperation and active participation shown by the barangay officials
evidently demonstrate their ownership of the CBESWMP project. The level of
participation of the stakeholders, on the other hand, got an overall high rating from the
barangay implementers (Table 19).
Six of the 9 barangays believe that their households participation and support to the
project were very high (rating of 8 and above) while only three respondent barangays
gave low rating to the level of participation by their households (Table 19). The NGOs
were given high rating by 10 of the 11 barangays.
Table 19. Participation of Stakeholders in the Implementation of the Project
Rating of Level of Participation
Barangay
Households
NGOs
Bgy. Sto. Nino
8
8
Bgy. 598
10
10
Bgy. 52
3
9
Bgy. 56
9
8
Bgy. VASRA
3
8
Bgy. Niugan
5
8
Bgy. Pilar
8
8
Bgy. Rosario
8
8
Bgy. Tanza
8
9
Bgy. COMEMBO
NR
NR
Bgy. Tunasan
NR
7
Average
6.88
8.30
The households and the NGOs provided and are still giving the following support in the
implementation of the CBESW project:
Barangay 598 - The vendors association are helpful in complying with recycling
of wastes. The barangay Kagawad on SWM, however, is saddened by the fact
that the core group in the barangay is not active; they mostly criticize the way the
barangay officials implements the project. According to the barangay SWM
officials, the core group lacks initiative and they need to be summoned to help in
the projects information campaign.
53
Barangay Niugan - Religious group and ladies brigade are active and very
helpful in information dissemination; relaying new messages from barangay
captain to HH; and distributes flyers and other information materials.
Barangay Tanza - Area leaders and NGOs (religious groups, fishers association,
and senior citizens) help in information dissemination. Since the barangay has no
Ecoaides, the school children were mobilized and are now very active in waste
segregation and the collection of recyclables. it is rather dependent on school
children to collect recyclables from their homes.
54
55
Bgy.
COMEMBO
Bgy. Tunasan
56
4.2.9
All the barangay respondents and the City/Municipal SWO are confident that
the CBESWMP has a high level of replicability. Replicability is viable because of
the simple and easy to follow CBESWMP system and procedures, self-sustaining
MRF, effective IEC materials and the presence of living showcases. Moreover, the
City/Municipal SWM officers also affirmed their support in the replication of the
CBESWMP project in other barangays of their area of jurisdiction.
According to the respondents in the pilot barangays, the best practices on ESWM,
which other barangays may learn from them, are as follows:
Barangay Niugan Barangays without space for MRF building can learn
from the experience of barangay Niugans mobile MRF. The barangay is also
a show case for eradicating the old practice of hanging waste bags in fences,
posts, trees and other places.
Barangay Rosario Other barangays can learn much from the successful
operations of the mobile MRF in the barangay.
All the City/Municipal SWM officers recommend the replication of the CBESWMP
project to the other barangays within their City/Municipality. However, they suggested
several improvements in the design of the project (Table 21).
57
58
are now efforts among these barangays to submit computerized forms for their M&E
reports. The PMO has also extended assistance to fix their computers and software.
Table 22. Usefulness and Compliance to M&E System of the Project
Barangay
Usefulness Rating
Compliance
Bgy. Sto. Nino
9
Computer-processed
forms submitted monthly
Bgy. 598
8
Manual reports submitted
monthly
Bgy. 52
2
Manual report submitted
monthly
Bgy. 56
10
Computer-processed
forms submitted monthly
Bgy. VASRA
NR
Manual reports submitted
monthly?
Bgy. Niugan
10
Computer-processed
forms submitted monthly
Bgy. Pilar
NR
Computer-processed
forms submitted monthly
Bgy. Rosario
8
Manual reports submitted
monthly
Bgy. Tanza
8
Computer-processed
forms submitted monthly
Bgy. COMEMBO
8
Computer-processed
forms submitted monthly
Bgy. Tunasan
8
Computer-processed
forms submitted monthly
Average
7.88
The project conducted IEC in the pilot barangays using several types of information
materials. The types of the materials and the number of copies produced are given in
Table 23.
The comics were mostly distributed to schools because they appeal to the school
children. The RA 9003 posters were given to the barangay officials for posting in
strategic places such as barangay hall and village stores. Likewise, the posters
(Unified approach to SWM and Baha at Basura) and stickers (Paligid Ko Malinis
sticker) on ESWM were disseminated to the barangays for display in conspicuous
places. A large number of flyers on door-to-door garbage collection and Mga Uri ng
Recyclables (types of wastes) was distributed to the barangays. Materials such as
guidebook and ESWM video have very limited circulation for now.
Table 23. IEC Materials Produced by the Project
IEC Material
ESWM Guidebook on SWM Made Easy
Comics on Basura Kid
ESWM Video long and short version
RA 9003 posters
Door-to-door Garbage Collection Flyers for MMDA
Unified Approach to SWM Posters for MMDA
Baha at Basura Posters for MMDA
Mga Uri ng Recyclables Flyers
Paligid Ko Malinis Na Sticker
59
Most of the respondents gave a high rating to RA 9003 poster and the door-to-door
flyer (Table 23) in terms of their usefulness and effectiveness.
Table 23. Usefulness and Effectiveness of IEC Materials
Rating of Usefulness and Effectiveness
Barangay
Door-toPaligid Ko
MagbukodUnified
RA 9003
door Flyer
Malinis Na
bukod Tayo Approach to
Poster
Sticker
Poster
SWM
Bgy. Sto.
9
9
NA
9
9
Nino
Bgy. 598
NA
8
8
NA
8
Bgy. 52
10
NA
3
NA
7
Bgy. 56
NR
NR
NR
NR
10
Bgy. VASRA
8
NR
NA
NR
8
Bgy. Niugan
8
8
8
NA
8
Bgy. Pilar
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Bgy. Rosario
5
7
8
10
10
Bgy. Tanza
8
NA
NA
8
10
Bgy.
NA
NR
NA
NA
10
COMEMBO
Bgy.
NA
NR
NR
NR
7
Tunasan
NR no response
NA not applicable. Pilot barangays did not receive information materials.
4.3 Lessons Learned
The replication of CBESWMP in other barangays will be able to attain a higher rate of
success by taking a closer look at the experience of the project and the lessons that
can be learned from it. It would be wise to consider the lessons learned from the
implementation of the project in further improving the schemes adopted by the
project.
4.3.1
60
4.3.2
4.3.3
Waste Segregation
Segregation is difficult to implement without intensive IEC and strict
enforcement of regulations. All the pilot barangays encountered
difficulties in making the residents comply with the rule on segregation.
Some headway were made when non-complying households were
identified, reprimanded and ultimately fined for their violations.
61
4.3.4
The site for locating MRFs should preferably be near the barangay hall for
close monitoring and supervision; and with safe distance or buffer space
from residential houses to avoid complaints during their operations. The
MRF should be constructed in government-owned lands without
encumbrances such as existing land ownership claims from the private
sector or individual persons.
Barangays without available space can opt for mobile MRF. Other
alternatives to MRF, which are also functional, include using junkshops as
MRFs or establishing ecocenters in schools to store recyclables.
Barangays with small population can form clusters and share a common
MRF.
62
4.3.5
Garbage Collection
For barangays located near creeks and rivers, more efficient and
intensified garbage collection should be provided by the
City/Municipal LGUs. Such policy will greatly minimize the dumping of
wastes into bodies of water which are now highly polluted.
4.3.6
Monitoring forms which are simple to fill-out even manually have better
chance of being complied to and sustained by barangays. In addition, the
form should be able to capture the data requirements for computing waste
diversion rate. Simplified and user-friendly monitoring forms can easily be
63
filled-out by ecoaides and barangay SWM officers who submit these reports
to NSWMCS and the City/Municipal SWMOs.
64
Guidelines and accounting system on the use of the income from MRFs
should likewise be formulated and published to guide the barangays in the
efficient and effective utilization of such income in supporting ESWM
activities.
When not properly managed, MRFs generate noise and odor pollution, pose
as fire hazard, become breeding places for pests (rats, mice, cockroaches,
flies) and obstruct sidewalks. Operational guidelines to prevent these
nuisances should be established jointly by NSWMCS, MMDA and the
City/Municipal SWMOs. It is also advisable to include in the Barangays
ESWM plan an initial assessment of the potential social and environmental
impacts of sites selected for MRF. Maintaining the cleanliness of MRF is
important to make ESWM system work and acceptable to the community.
The IEC campaign materials (e.g., printed and video materials) should not
only focus on giving target audiences information about CBESWMP within the
context of RA 9003 but should also be able to stir emotions to effectively
change behavior and attitude. The IEC materials should emphasize on the
65
Other more specific recommendations are provided in the main text of this report.
66
67