In just two months early this year, two deadly trash slides in Cebu City and Rodriguez, Rizal exposed the Philippines’ reliance on ageing, poorly regulated landfills. The January collapse at Cebu’s Binaliw landfill killed at least 36 people, many of them waste pickers, after a facility approved as a sanitary landfill in practice operated as an open dumpsite, in violation of the country’s solid waste management law.
In February, a slide at the Rizal Provincial Sanitary Landfill in the town of Rodriguez buried heavy equipment and left workers dead or missing under some 420,000 cubic metres of waste, roughly the amount of garbage the whole country produces in about a week.
Environment officials found erosion at the tipping area, foul‑smelling exposed trash and cracks signalling further imminent collapse, along with breaches of its environmental compliance certificate.
Barely two months later, a fire at the closed Navotas Sanitary Landfill blanketed nearby communities in thick smoke and hazardous air, and authorities spent weeks putting out flames fuelled by decomposing waste and poor site closure.
Amid this string of landfill disasters, the government has cleared the country’s first large‑scale waste‑to‑energy (WTE) facility in New Clark City in the province of Tarlac. The planned US$70 million plant is designed to process 600 metric tonnes of trash a day, approximately 1 per cent of the country’s daily waste, into 12 megawatts of power, which project backers say can supply “locally sourced clean energy” for more than 10,000 homes in and around Clark.
Jonas Leones, undersecretary for policy, planning and international affairs at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Image: PEMSEA
Bacolod City has since followed suit, greenlighting a US$63 million WTE project to be fully financed, built and operated by a private firm inside a sanitary landfill complex.
In this podcast, we unpack what government inspectors found wrong in these sites’ design, day‑to‑day operations and oversight, and ask whether the rush towards large‑scale WTE is a genuine solution or a risky distraction.
Joining us on the Eco‑Business podcast is environment undersecretary Jonas Leones.
As undersecretary for policy, planning and international affairs at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), he is a central figure in waste management in the Philippines, as well as a key architect and public face of the country’s plastic extended producer responsibility (EPR) law. He has also overseen the closure of open dumpsites, the rollout of materials recovery facilities and engineered sanitary landfills — and has long been a prominent advocate of waste‑to‑energy.
Tune in as we discuss:
- Accountability for trash slide disasters
- What makes WTE technology cleaner today
- The economic cost of WTE
- Adopting the baling approach for WTE feedstock
- WTE as only one of the options for curbing the country’s waste crisis
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
It’s been a few months since the trash slides in Cebu and Rizal. What specific lapses did DENR identify in the facilities?
I cannot call them lapses because we have been monitoring the landfills. It just so happened that recent environmental changes — climate change impacts, heavy rains — have significant effect on landfills. Those landfills are reviewed. We have standards and requirements for landfill establishments.
The lapse that I can think of is the delay in upgrading landfills because they are already old. Our garbage is increasing, but our disposal sites are inadequate. We need to monitor all these landfills nationwide so that they can withstand rains and pressures.
Local government units (LGUs) are responsible for monitoring landfills, along with the operator. DENR only provides technical assistance under local environmental law, Republic Act 9003. [RA 9003 is the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 which mandates that local government units to manage waste to protect public health and the environment.]
Has DENR sanctioned any LGUs or private operators over these incidents, and what precedent will this set for other open or non‑compliant dumpsites?
RA 9003 very clearly provides that it is the local governments which are primarily responsible for filing administrative sanctions. As an environmental regulator, [the DENR] can file criminal and adminitrative liabilities if there are penalties that can be imposed.
I remember 10 years ago, [the DENR] filed administrative sanctions against some LGUs which did not comply strictly with the requirements of RA 9003. We filed the administrative case before the environmental ombudsman, which we used to have.
The government will be reviving this environmental ombudsman to make sure that in case of, environmental violators, they will be the one filing the appropriate criminal charges against these [violators]. Under the RA 9003, the victims can also file criminal charges.
Did DENR file any administrative charges against operators involved in the recent trash slide in Cebu or Rizal?
There is an ongoing case buildup. There was a coordination meeting [between victims] and the Department of Justice (DOJ) if criminal liabilities can be filed against those responsible for the trash slide in Cebu. There is also a case buildup in Rizal although, there were no victims unlike in Cebu. For the liability, I think [the DOJ] has been evaluating if appropriate charges can be filed against the operator or the concerned local government.
It has been more than two decades since the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act. Why are open dumps and substandard landfills still operating, and what’s blocking full closure and rehabilitation?
When I was still the environmental management director, I was also wondering why LGUs are not able to comply with this requirement. Under RA 9003, there should be no open dump sites. There was a time when we were able to successfully close all open dump sites, but it was not sustained because of the absence of some disposal sites.
Some LGUs were forced to allow open dumpsites again because they don’t have areas where they can dispose their waste. Another reason is that when you establish a landfill, it entails cost, and some LGUs cannot really afford it. Thirdly, even if they have financial resources, they might not have a big area needed to build the landfill.
These are some of the reasons why some areas can’t really support landfills. The government allowed some LGUs to undertake “clustering”, where maybe three LGUs can share disposal sites. But for some other LGUs where clustering is not feasible, they have no choice but rely to open dump sites.
You’ve said waste‑to‑energy is now DENR’s “direction” because landfills are filling up. Now that the Philippines has approved the development of the country’s first large‑scale WTE facility in New Clark City in the province of Tarlac, how did the recent trash slides in Rizal and Cebu shape that position, if at all?
What happened in Cebu, San Mateo in Rizal and the latest in Navotas only strengthened our position to adopt WTE that is environmentally-friendly. In the department, our major concern is really environmental protection.
With these recent cases, we are looking at some technologies that may be available to address our solid waste management. We are looking at experiences from neighboring countries like Singapore, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, where they also adopt WTE projects.
But we’re not supporting WTE projects that are hazardous to our environment and to our people. Looking at the models of other countries that have WTE projects, we can maintain both the technology and at the same time ensure healthy environment for our people.
“
We’re not supporting waste-to-energy projects that are hazardous to our environment and to our people.
It is not the first time that the government has approved a largescale WTE project. One was planned in Quezon City four years ago, but did not proceed because of strong public and civil society opposition over health, pollution and legal concerns. Are you expecting similar setbacks with the New Clark City project?
Those setbacks will be minimised with these recent technologies. It’s a different situation now from when we passed RA 9003.
At that time, I would agree with civil society when they opposed those technologies because they really were pollutive. But nowadays, recent technologies shows that there are good and safe technologies that we can adopt to address our solid waste management problem.
We are open for dialogue to civil society and see whether the technology is really safe, unlike before. When I was still the director of the EMB (Director of the Environmental Management Bureau) in 2015, I could not even support the technology because these were unhealthy. But now looking at some models from like, for example Europe and Asean, we can see that there are technologies adopted that are green and safe that can be adapted here in the Philippines.
We are giving our inputs to the proposed WTE bill to make sure that in case that law is passed, environmental costs are considered.
What makes this new technology greener and better than the ones from a decade ago. How would you convince civil society and opponents to it that it is safe?
At that time, there were already parameters needed to see whether the technology is clean or if it is compliant with our standards. But we lacked the capacity, the infrastructure and the manpower to really monitor all these things.
What we did was [that] we upgraded our laboratory to make sure our own government regulators can monitor these parameters.
For power plants, we have this tool to monitor in real time the emissions of these power plants. We call it “continuous emission monitoring system” (CEMS). We are proposing that for EMB to include waste to energy projects, [it must include] CEMS so that on a real time basis, we can monitor whether their emissions are complying with our standards.
We didn’t have this before. We could not really argue and provide a scientific basis for civil societies to see whether these technologies are clean. But now with science-backed evidence and information, we can somehow have a dialogue with them and show to them that these countries are adopting these technologies because they are supported by science.
Right now, operators in the WTE facility in Clark are still securing their permit but once they start the establishment of this project, we will make sure that this monitoring system will be installed as part of the WTE infrastructure. Regulators like us and perhaps the public can really monitor in real time what is happening in the WTE plant.
Environmentalists have argued that although the WTE technology is poised as a remedy for the solid waste crisis, it threatens to saddle local government units with onerous long-term debts. What are your thoughts on this?
These arguments were valid in the past, but now with the recent innovations and development of technologies, we can address the concern of having these equipment and tools. We can provide them the scientific figures, data-driven infrastructure, so that we can review all those concerns and apprehensions.
What about the economic aspect, given that it would be difficult for local government units to pay for this capital-intensive technology because the LGUs are going be the ones who will spend for it?
If it is not viable and feasible in terms of finance, it cannot be pursued. That’s the reason why the proposed WTE in Davao City did not go through. We initiated a project in Davao but when we undertook the feasibility study, it yielded that WTE was not viable and the local government cannot shoulder the tipping fee.
But now some LGUs can provide the necessary support. The national government can also support because they will not only be addressing the waste management problem, but [use the] energy that can be generated out of the WTE.
These things are studied. If the project is not feasible, then what investors will be interested in a project if they cannot recoup their investments?
Who are the funders of WTE projects in the country?
Usually there are several hosts. One of the projects in Davao was initially funded by JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) and then there were proposals from the LGU of Davao at the time for the national government to support part of the project.
But there was no mechanism for the national government to support the whole project so it is under discussion.
For the Clark project, I understand that this is a PPP (public-private partnership). Local government units and private investors come together to support the WTE. Those are some of the arrangements that are feasible to pursue for WTE.
“
Through baling and technology, we can minimise the trash slides from happening in the future.
Indonesia has one operational large‑scale WTE plant, the Benowo WTE plant in Surabaya, with more mega‑facilities on the way. And yet, it still had a trash sllde accident in Bantargebang in March. Doesn’t this show that WTE does not really solve the issue at its roots?
Indonesia failed to look at how they can minimise the trash slides in those areas. When I visited one of the WTE in Vienna, there was no trash slide because all the waste are baled, reserved and protected for future feed stock for the WTE.
The new technology of WTE adopts a bale approach so that there will be no mountain-high waste that are conducive for trash slides. [Baling trash for WTE involves compacting municipal solid waste into high-density, vacuum-packed, or film-wrapped blocks used as fuel source for incinerators to generate electricity]. Through baling and technology, we can minimise the trash slides from happening in the future.
As someone who has championed waste‑to‑energy while also overseeing our broader waste and plastics policies, what specific conditions or safeguards would make you personally reject a WTE project and how can the public hold DENR and LGUs accountable to those red lines?”
I would not support the project if [operators and the LGU] fail to show me the environmental safeguards. I think there should be a multi-sectoral collaboration in the operations because the effects of a failed WTE is very serious. It’ll affect the lives of the community and therefore monitoring of this operation should be multi-sectoral.
There should be regular, dynamic adjustments in terms of the operation to ensure that it is safe and we will not experience anything similar to the landfills in the last few months.
There should be a guaranteed fund to make sure that if there are accidents or problems, there’s an allocated budget to mitigate or to address those kind of emergencies.
What’s also critical is that the operator of the WTE should be open to scrutiny, evaluation and suggestions, so that it’ll not only be for profit, but also for environmental protection.
You have said that WTE should go “hand in hand” with landfilling. In concrete terms, how much landfill volume reduction are you expecting, and over what timeline, in high‑risk provinces?
There are WTE plants that don’t have landfills. What they have is a storage area where they reserve their waste, then they bale it and cover it until they are needed as feedstock.
For the new WTE facility that will be established in Philippines, we have to minimize the use of landfills because they generate methane and could cause accidents.
But if landfills are really needed, there have to be some safeguard measures like considering the methane generation of the landfill, the height of the generation, and the type of waste that they collect. These are the things that should be considered when integrating landfills with the New Clark City WTE.
Will the WTE at New Clark City be based on the baling model?
I’ve only seen the sematic diagram of the WTE. I have not seen in the report of how they will be collecting the trash, or if they will treat collected waste by bale or by land filling.
What is your hope for the Philippines in terms of ceasing to be one of the world’s biggest plastic polluters amid this rise of our waste to energy technologies that’s finally going to be installed in the country?
We’re not looking only at WTE [to solve our waste crisis]. WTE is just one of the options in light of the extended producers’ responsibility (EPR) act.
What we are looking at is technology for how we can recycle, upcycle and reuse plastics. What we need is this kind of infrastructure for our obliged enterprises or companies that generate plastic waste.
Plastics are ending up in landfills right now. We have co-processing that’s used in cement plants and production, where we use plastic as fuel for this processing. WTE is just one of the options for technology used for EPR.
